A635.8.3.RB_BorutyAlan_Transformational Strategies

Transformational Strategies

Organization transformation (OT) is “drastic, abrupt change to total structures, managerial processes, and corporate cultures” (Brown, 2011, p. 399).  Examples of OT, are takeovers, mergers, and plant closures.  Brown (2011) describes the OT process as “more revolution than evolution” (p. 399).  As such, OT approaches tend to use directive rather than participative approaches” (p.400).  Armed with the information I learned from the text, it was time for me to watch the videos required for this assignment.

To my surprise, neither video had anything to do with a takeover, merger, or plant closure.  However, both videos did, indeed, illustrate total transformations.  The first described the transformation of a retail furniture company in Texas and the second described the transformation of a senior military leader.

Jim, ‘Mattress Mack” McIngvale owns Gallery Furniture in Houston, Texas.  His business had suffered two major setbacks about a year apart that nearly decimated is business.  He quickly realized that if he did not do something to change the way Gallery Furniture did business, Gallery would be lost.

The transformation process at Gallery made sense to me and I felt it closely fit the textbook discussion.  Reading between the lines and making a few assumptions allowed me to assess the conditions at Gallery.  I personally assessed the corporate culture at Gallery as weak as referenced in fig, 15.4.  I think Galaxy enjoyed a ready customer base from the beginning that required little or no effort to attain.  When housing production dropped by 75 percent, so did his core customer base.  The sales staff never had to learn how to attract customers into the store.  Jim would not have questioned it because sales were good.  That was the culture at Gallery.  Wait for the next customer, wait for them to tell you what they want, and sell it to them.  Up until the major setbacks occurred sales were nearly automatic.  McIngvale would not have had a reason to change anything.  When the time came and McIngvale saw that change was necessary to keep Gallery afloat, he did not know what to change or how to change it.

Strategy under the circumstances would have fallen into the same trap.  A business successfully operating on autopilot for years will not see small changes in the environment and therefore, will not learn to adapt.  So, when the environment disintegrated, the need for strategic change was very high and extremely important to the company.  This coupled with a weak corporate culture meant that McIngvale could begin making changes to strategy with little fear that they would be incompatible with the existing culture.  Brown (2011) refers to this condition as “manage the change”(p. 407, fig. 15-5).  The fit here is not perfect because the culture is weak, but not necessarily compatible.  However, it may be the best fit under the circumstances because as strategic changes are made and emphasized by sharing the vision, reshuffling key people into positions important to implementing the new strategy, and reinforcing the new values required  by the new strategy would in effect serve to strengthen the corporate culture at the same time (Brown, 2011). 

The company McIngvale hired to help reinvent Gallery was quite successful in doing so.  They were able to transform Gallery by instilling practices that are fundamental to any sales organization to include following up with customers that had been in the store and left without making a purchase, learning to love prospecting for new customers, utilizing technology as an enabler to improve their effectiveness, emphasizing customer service by reducing post-delivery rework, and sharing data openly so that everyone could reap the benefits of their colleague’s success or learn from each other’s failures.  Finally, the practitioner provided reinforcement of the desired behavior through simple public recognition.  Whenever an individual makes a contact sell they must ring a bell.  This makes everyone aware of the achievement and reinforces the behavior for the individual that made the sale.

The results are very impressive for Gallery and its associates.  They successfully transformed the company in a participative manner over a short period of time.  This does not fully agree with the textbook, but I accept that between any two quadrants there is always room for deviations to occur.  Gallery fell somewhere between Participative Evolution and Charismatic Transformation.  The transformation resulted in a stronger culture for sales practices and customer service/appreciation which created a better Strategy-Culture Fit (Brown, 2011).

General Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Army, Retired, described a transformation that impressed me.  I understand the transformation he experienced although I have never really experienced it myself.  It was real for him and he was forced to overcome and adapt.  For me , it was  a recurring nightmare.  When it came time for me to act in the role I had been trained for, nothing I did worked.  The more I tried the worse things got…and so on.  So, his feelings of frustration and inadequacy were not lost on me.  I am grateful he was able to work through those issues.

Transforming oneself does not happen every day.  What transformation do you implement when everything has changed?  Changing how you think, respond, react, or behave in any given situation sounds difficult, almost unnatural.  However, if it is even possible, the situation the general found himself in would certainly provide the motivation to try.

Without doubt General McChrystal’s commitment to cultural values would be extremely strong, (as would the entire Army I assume) placing him solidly in the strong culture quadrant.  Brown (2011) warns that having a strong culture does not ensure effectiveness.  “The definition of the culture and the degree to which its solutions fit the problems posed by the environment seem to be the critical variables here, not strength alone.  A strong culture may also encourage the organization’s members to adhere to the demonstrated methods of the past and to blind members to new opportunities” (p. 406, also see fig. 15.4).

General McChrystal needed to implement important strategy changes not only to communicate with his people but to provide leadership, establish trusting relationships, and effectively guide their actions.  Changes of his nature would be compatible with existing corporate culture.  This places him in quadrant 1 of figure 15.5in the textbook.  This quadrant advises to manage the change.  According to Brown (2011) the General “can pursue a strategy requiring major changes and should manage the change by using the power of cultural acceptance and reinforcement” (p. 407).

Considering the circumstances, I believe the general probably eliminated the formality of a cumbersome and confusing process and took the quickest and most direct method possible to safely and securely communicate with his people.

~Pete

Reference

Brown, D.R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

A635.7.3.RB_BorutyAlan_INSEAD Reflection

INSEAD Reflection - Self-Managed Work Teams

Self -managed work teams (SMWT) are a relatively new entity employed by companies.  Globalization, increased diversity, the speed of technological improvements, and the rapid rate of change in the work environment have forced companies to make changes to remain competitive (Esraelian, 2008). 

The benefits associated with SMWTs make them an attractive means of combating, at least, some of the challenges faced by companies today.  In broad terms, SMWTs increase organizational effectiveness and employee satisfaction.  Specifically, they increase customer satisfaction, lower operating costs, produce higher quality solutions, retain employees, rapidly respond to changes in technology, increase innovation and creativity, and promote organizational growth through learning.  On an individual level, SMWTs provide motivation, personal growth, job satisfaction, sense of community, fulfilling relationships, leadership development, empowerment, and trust (Esraelian, 2008).

Suffice it to say the benefits associated with SMWTs are significant.  One might wonder why every organization has not fully implemented SMWTs.  The answer is simple.  SMWTs represent a significant departure from ‘business as usual’ for the organizations that utilize them.  Employing SMWTs requires substantial changes in the way a company is organized, communicates, and operates.  Additionally, implementing SMWTs requires management commitment to carefully selecting members and patience while training team members and transferring responsibilities (Brown, 2011).  It is not an overnight process; it will take time.  After the teams are operational, they require continued attention from management for training and for performance rewards and recognition.  These teams are an investment, not a decision. 

SMWTs are not easy, cheep, or fast to implement in an established organization.  However, for some organizations they may be the only viable solution.  In these cases, proactive rather than reactive implementation is the smart choice.  Implemented correctly, the benefits gained can easily exceed the drawbacks they present. 

While the concept of the SMWT contradicts everything that I have experienced working in organizations throughout my career, I would like to be a part of one.  Brown (2011) provided me with an image of what a SMWT member might experience.  I like the idea of being in control of my work.  I like the idea of work beginning, maturing, and completing with the same team.  I like the idea of being able to learn every aspect of the job and being able to have an impact on the final product.  I would enjoy the close professional relationships that develop in SMWTs.  And finally, knowing that I make meaningful and important contributions to the organization’s objectives and ultimately its success is also very appealing to me.  I am certain that reality would hit me in the face almost immediately, but I would still like to try it anyway.

The role of the external manager was the primary subject discussed in the INSEAD video.  It is a paradox of sorts.  Why would you need to lead a team that leads itself?  SMWTs take on all the leadership responsibilities within the team.  Those skills have to be developed which is the role of the external manager.  Leadership within the team is the typical directive style.  According to Paul Tesluk, Associate Professor of Management and Organization at the Robert H. Smith School of Business at the University of Maryland, the external manager’s style is very different.  It is not directive or even suggestive, it is developmental, informational, and educational (INSEAD, 2008).

I think I would be a good external manager of a SMWT.  I would have to make some adjustments and I am sure I would make a few mistakes along the way, but I do not see any impossible hurdles in the way.  Brown (2011) described the role “as an energizer, teacher, and facilitator by encouraging the team’s self-managing behaviors, learning, goal setting, creativity, self-evaluation, feedback to one another, new ways of problem solving, and group problem solving” (p. 352).  To be effective in this role I would need to improve my coaching skills.  I would need to shift my focus from running the show and getting things done to teaching and guiding the team to do it on their own.  Coaching skills would have me asking questions instead of making statements or giving directions.  Instead of taking the lead, I would encourage them to take the lead (Obolensky, 2014). 

Another competency I would need to work on is emotional intelligence.  I would need to enhance my emotional intelligence and apply it at the work team level.  According to Jordan and Lawrence (2009), “emotional awareness and emotional management abilities have important consequences for performance within teams, helping to maintain effective and appropriate relationships with fellow workers (Jordan & Troth 2004), contributing to better information exchange and decision-making in teams (Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999) and facilitating functional conflict resolution, rather than dysfunctional conflict resolution in teams (Jehn & Mannix 2001; Jordan & Troth 2004)” (p. 454).  This will help me to understand the team dynamic.  By understanding how the team works together, I can better determine when I should intervene and when I should allow the team to progress on their own. 

I like the idea and concept of SMWTs.  I admit my lack of experience with them could create blind spots, but the potential good they offer to an organization should not be overlooked.  Many say SMWTs are they way work will be done in the future.  The work environment today is changing fast enough to bring the future to us before we can effectively plan for it.  Perhaps SMWTs should be the way we work today.

~Pete

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Esraelian, J. (2008, March 18). Creating self-directed work teams. Accessed 2018, September 22 from http://globalhealthleader.blogspot.com/2008/03/creating-self-directed-work-teams.html

INSEAD (Producer) (2008, September 22). Self-managing teams: Debunking the leadership paradox. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBnR00qgGgM

Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2009). Emotional intelligence in teams: Development and initial validation of the short version of the workgroup emotional intelligence profile (WEIP-S). Journal of Management and Organization, 15(4), 452-469. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/233255983?accountid=27203

Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership: Embracing paradox and uncertainty (2nd ed.). Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

A635.6.3.RB_BorutyAlan_EcoSeagate

EcoSeagate

Do I see value in the EcoSeagate team development process?  In a word, no.  Frankly, the EcoSeagate team development process is frightening.  Of course, I have not experienced this process; I have only seen the videos.  The activities seem extreme and the environment is bizarre.  While the participants were in company briefings, lectures covered trust, conflict, commitment, and accountability.  These are very basic discussion topics for a two-million-dollar retreat and extreme challenge adrenaline festival.  The native rituals complete with authentic wardrobe, dancing, and unintelligible chanting rounds things off nicely.  It does not surprise me to learn that the Seagate CEO, Bill Watkins, has received criticism from stock holders about these events (Brown, 2011),  While EcoSeagate is over the top for me, I cannot condemn every outdoor experiential training program that exists.  There are too many testimonials to ignore that swear to the benefits of these programs.

Like many other outdoor experiential laboratory training programs, Watkins cannot provide quantitative data to prove the success of EcoSeagate (Brown, 2011).  This is a concern as companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year on this type of training (Williams, et al., 2003).  The promise of improved leadership skills, team building, improved problem-solving skills, increased trust, and improved communication from these training programs makes it easy to understand why companies find them so attractive.  However, showing that outdoor experiential training is a smart investment is far more difficult.  “Adherents of OET believe that there is a good return on investment.  However, they have commonly reached that conclusion intuitively, through what they believe to be reasonable assumptions.  We know of no published studies of the ROI of OET” (Williams, et al., 2003, para. 3) 

Why would something like this be necessary in a high-performing organization?  High-performing teams are like other teams.  The members need to grow in terms of their leadership abilities, interpersonal relationships, teamwork, and trust or they will not be able to maintain that level of performance.  According to Brown (2011), “participants often learn how to improve their teamwork back on the job.  Interpersonal barriers that inhibit effective teamwork are often broken down, and members learn to trust and work with one another” (p. 274). 

Could my organization benefit from a similar activity?  Yes, I believe the Air Force can and does benefit from similar activities.  It begins with basic military training.  Recruits are quickly broken down to their most vulnerable form then slowly rebuilt into an Airman.  Airmen know the importance of teamwork, leadership, trust, and  appropriate interpersonal relationships.  They learn these lessons after they have been taken out of their normal, comfortable environment and stripped of everything but their identity.  Lessons come from classrooms, obstacle courses, and field exercises and they learn because they are out of their environment.  Their attention is focused, because they do not know what will come next.  This training is longer in duration and easily as intense as outdoor experiential training.  It has been measured for decades and proven to be successful.

 

All professional military education courses have similar activities with similar goals: teamwork, leadership, and relationships.  Outside of these courses and to a lesser degree, intramural sports, squadron fun days, and community projects serve to encourage the same topics.

 

I started this Blog intent on condemning outdoor experiential laboratory training as an expensive excuse for companies to go outside and play.  Then I realized I am a product of similar programs which forced me to look at things differently.  Yes, they very well may be expensive play, but there are benefits associated with that play.  Finding a way to measure the success of these programs is important because not all play qualifies.  It would be good to be able to tell the difference.  Williams, et al., (2003) explains and provides the formulas for measuring ROI associated with outdoor experiential training.  Yet, fifteen years later, there is still little to no research to quantify the value of these programs for leadership and team development.

~Pete

P.S.  I still feel the same about EcoSeagate.  It is quite bizarre.

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Williams, S. D., Graham, T. S., & Baker, B. (2003). Evaluating outdoor experiential training for leadership and team building. The Journal of Management Development, 22(1), 45-59. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/docview/216295218?accountid=27203

A635.4.3.RB-BorutyAlan_Build a Tower, Build a Team

Build a Tower, Build a Team

Tom Wujec’s (2010) discussion of the marshmallow challenge was interesting.  The challenge can be given to individuals from every echelon in any industry.  Briefly, groups of four are given a yard of tape, a yard of string, twenty sticks of dry spaghetti, and one marshmallow.  The groups have eighteen minutes to build the tallest structure they can with the materials provided.  The marshmallow must be on top of the structure they build.  Many of the groups build impressive structures only to have them collapse under the weight of the marshmallow when they place it on top of the structure as required.  The challenge humbled several groups of intelligent people, produced a couple of surprises, and offered a few important lessons as takeaways.

 

As it turned out, recent MBA graduates were among the worst performers.  One of the surprises was that a group of kindergartners were among the best performers.  They scored above average and better than most of the adults.  Wujec (2010) provided a couple of possible explanations.  He described how adults typically spend their allotted eighteen minutes.  They use seven minutes to orient themselves to the challenge and plan the build.  During this time, they discuss the task, try to figure out what the structure will look like, and jockey for power.  Then they plan, organize, draw, and lay out the materials for the build.  Groups then spend the next ten minutes building the structure, leaving just enough time to carefully place the marshmallow on top.  Often, the weight of the marshmallow is too much, the structure collapses, and there is no time for rework. 

Wujec (2010) offered that children do not spend the time upfront jockeying for power.  They spend that time solving the problem.  Another explanation Wujec (2010) provided is that unlike MBA graduates who learned to find the single best solution and then execute on it, children begin collaboration right away and use the rule of always keeping the marshmallow on top to guide them.  So, they know immediately if the structure will hold the marshmallow which gives them several attempts to try again.  In other words, the children used an iterative process of prototyping and refining their design until they got it right (Wujec, 2010).  I agree that Wujec’s explanations for the children’s success are reasonable; however, they may not be complete.

Children see the marshmallow challenge differently than adults.  For the adults, the challenge is a competition, there is pressure to succeed, and they do not want to look bad in front of everyone else.  For the children, it is a game, it is play, it is fun, and the more the merrier.  It is a game with rules.  According to Duester (2015), without any adult involvement, children in this type of scenario will naturally cooperate, communicate, work together, share ideas, efficiently use the work space, and collaborate as a team toward a shared goal.  And, when they complete their work, they will share pride in their accomplishment.  They work efficiently and effectively and never lose sight of their goal.  It is simply a fun learning experience for the children whereas, it is a proving exercise for the adults.

It was not a surprise to learn that CEOs performed better than the average for adults.  However, I was surprised to learn that they performed significantly better when an executive assistant was added to their team.  Wujec (2010) asserted that executive assistants have specialized skills of facilitation that allows them to understand and manage the process.  He goes on to say that “any team who manages and pays close attention to work will significantly improve the team’s performance.  Specialized skill and facilitation skills are the combination that leads to strong success” (time 4:10).  While Wujec’s explanation sounds good, I am not sure I completely buy it.

Human nature is far too dynamic for me to say with any degree of certainty, but I would speculate that human behavior offers a more realistic reason for the CEOs spike in performance.  When the CEOs worked alone, they were among peers and therefore, they were probably comfortable and relaxed.  When the executive assistant, who normally works for a CEO, joined the team, it changed the dynamic.  The CEOs would put their guards back up and be more focused on the task simply because they are being observed.  In a way, this is like the Hawthorne Effect that Brown (2011) discussed in chapter five.  “The very act of investigating and observing may influence the behavior of those being investigated” (p. 127).  Brown (2011) applies this specifically to data collection and analysis, but the concept is the same.  In this case, the CEOs would not want to look bad in front of a subordinate.  They would focus more on the task and their performance would improve.  I find this explanation easier to believe than every executive assistant having the same specialized skills and facilitation skills.

Brown (2011) explained that process interventions “differ in many ways, but they never involve the work-group’s task.  Process interventions are all about how the group is going about accomplishing its task” (p. 203).  Wujec’s (2010) presentation was aimed at design and designers.  But, he followed Brown’s rule.  In doing so, the lessons buried in the presentation can and should be used by the OD practitioner conducting a process intervention in any industry.

 

If I were performing a process intervention, there are several lessons from Wujec’s (2010) presentation that I would share with the client’s work groups.  By doing so, the groups may come to understand their process and learn to solve their own problems (Brown, 2011).  I would begin with the problem solving and decision-making area of the group.  Problem solving and decision making is pivotal to the group’s overall success.  It may indicate the beginning of a new project or resolve an issue in an ongoing project.  Either way the group must excel in this area or none of the other areas will matter.  The group should have a process by which they can produce effective solutions and make good decisions (Brown, 2011).  Whatever process the group chooses to utilize, keeping the desired end state at the forefront will make it better.  

When the group identifies a problem, they must determine the current end state and a desired end state.  Any potential solution or decision considered as an alternative must address the desired end state.  While it sounds like common sense, it is not uncommon for groups to assume a solution will produce the desired results or lose track of the desired state completely.  If it goes too far, the solution can be far worse than the original problem.  Minimally, it will cause the group to backtrack or create confusion.  Either way the efficiency and effectiveness of the process will be reduced and overall success jeopardized.  Additionally, the marshmallow challenge illustrated how keeping the desired end state at the forefront of thinking can lead to the best action.  When the kindergartners were told that the marshmallow must be on top of the structure, they saw that as a rule.  And they followed it.  The marshmallow went first and they built their structure under it.  If the structure failed to support the weight of the marshmallow, they started over with the marshmallow on top.  When the adults were told the marshmallow must go on top of the structure, it was just another condition of the challenge.  The children treated it as the desired end state (although they did not know it), built their process to achieve that end state, and ultimately were successful.  Conversely, the adults based their process on building the tallest structure and having a marshmallow on top was just a step in the process.  Unfortunately, for many groups, it was the final step.  When their attempt to place the marshmallow and achieve the desired end state caused a failure, they were left without time to make corrections.  When solving a problem or making a decision, it is best to develop that solution or decision around the desired end state.

In the communications area, I would share how a group of kindergartners were able to outperform a group of recent MBA graduates using collaboration early in the process instead of trying to figure out who should be the boss. 

When talking to the group about member roles and functions, I would stress the importance of fully understanding the work necessary to achieve the desired result and the criticality of having the skills to manage the process and make the proper adjustments when the two get out of alignment.  In the challenge, the impact on performance was clearly illustrated after the executive assistant was added to the CEO team. 

Finally, I would share the following lesson in a discussion within the group norms and growth area.  Committing to a continuous program of learning and self-improvement focused on the group’s realm of responsibility will increase the group’s breadth and depth of expertise.  This knowledge will reduce the amount of guesswork and research required when discussing the new projects that come into the group.  The marshmallow challenge demonstrated that when the stakes are high and the group must get it right, acting from an underinformed position has a devastating effect on success.  On the other hand, acting from an informed position increases the success rate to well above the average. 

The OD practitioner’s job in a process intervention is to help the work group understand how it functions and how its members interact with each other (Brown, 2011).  In turn, the work group uses all the information provided to develop the capability to solve their own problems. 

This exercise showed me how fine that line can be.  While I understand that homegrown processes, are more likely to be followed and meet the needs of the organization, following this guidance to the letter would be difficult for me.  My tendency would be to lead the group to a good solution and let them choose it or not.  Hinting around at the weaknesses in their processes and hoping they make the changes needed to correct those weaknesses would drive me nuts.  If they do not take the hints and proceed with the same broken processes, have I done my job?  Did the client get a fair return on its investment?  Did I meet the client’s expectations? 

~Pete

References

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Duester, M. (Producer) (2015, July 28). The play doctors: Giant sensory jigsaw [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWV13pekng

Wujec, T. (2010, February). Tom Wujec: Build a tower, build a team [Video file]. TED2010. Retrieved from https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower#t-388125