Erich Schmidt presents in his talk what might at first seem counter-intuitive for those seeking to improve leadership, but depending upon how one approaches what he says, it makes a great deal of sense. Certainly, in a military organization, what Schmidt describes about the company moving forward without a great deal of management intervention is the ideal state that is pursued. By having a chain of command and the backing of a couple hundred years of culture, there's this expectation for better or for worse that the boss said to do it, so it's up to the subordinates to try their best to make it work. On top of that, being an all volunteer service, people opt into the organization and choose to play by its rules. However, like Schmidt said, the manager is going to be trying to assist them if needed. The subordinates are resources for the leader to accomplish objectives given to them or created by them, and in turn the leader will be there to help get assistance from on high or to provide additional resources that their subordinates need to succeed such as tools, money, or additional political firepower.
I also think his thoughts on the idea of a discord and deadline make sense. While it might fly in the face of schools of thought that call for harmony and agreement, discord is what it takes to identify the best and worst of a given plan while also identifying ideas. Deadlines as well, while in some cases an artificial construct, ultimately acts as an excellent motivator to get things done. Like all things though, there needs to be a certain balance and moderation between these factors. Too much discord and there's nothing but unproductive discussion, bad feelings, and no solution offered. Be too soft or too hard on a deadline, and either things won't get done or your people will be set up for failure by not being given adequate time.
I might even argue that, although we don't do it explicitly, my organization practices the 20% rule on an ad hoc basis. While there is a set duty day, unless there's a critical tasking most people are left to their own devices so long as things are getting done. As long as projects or tasks are on track and one is good about generally being present for duty and available, one is free to go in and out of the office to make any necessary appointments, get a haircut, or once in awhile leave for an extended period of the day to take care of a family issue. We also do tend to have lots of discussion about issues, often right up to the deadline, especially if the issue involves coordination and input from multiple units.
So, overall, this isn't an unreasonable way to view work as people do it in my workplace. Admittedly, there are numerous other regulations on how we actually conduct business and live our lives compared to most anyone in Silicon Valley, but much of the same basic principles apply. Given that, it doesn't take any particular courage for any leader in our organization implement, as that's just the way it is. However, there is a learning curve for younger officers to willingly back away from the work at hand and leave the better seasoned enlisted personnel to be the technical experts and do the job. It requires a measure of courage then to trust in this system of delegation and let it work. There is also a learning curve in accepting that something will come out of what initially seems like endless bickering and brinksmanship, until a solution seems to come out of nowhere at the eleventh hour.
Having said all that, this particular approach could backfire if too many individuals within the leadership structure don't allow the system to work. Rampant micromanagement at any level could cause the self driving machine to come to a halt, and overbearing leadership may create too much discord or time pressure. You may even have a case of too many subordinates that lack the personal drive and initiative to truly operate independently without a lot of intervention or hands on work by leadership, which in of itself creates a further drag on resources.
For me, I'm mainly taking away some perspective on my present situation. Yes, I work for a very large organization that's part of the federal government...that's an inherent recipe for a great deal of bureaucracy and the frustrating scenarios that fuel the likes of comics such as the Dilbert series. However, now that I stop and read Schmidt's thoughts on how Google runs their business, although my organization doesn't have quite the same reputation for employee freebies and the like, the basic operational theories seem to have a great deal of correlation, which is somehow heartening. I'm also taking away a reminder that discord is not necessarily a bad thing, and this serves as another one of a handful of examples I've heard about where its desirable. It is certainly an idea I hope will provide me with greater patience when facing disagreements and logjams at the office, and will keep me looking for the best solution with the end objective in mind.
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Sunday, March 10, 2013
A630.8.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
As humorous as Tom Wujec's analysis of the Marshmallow Challenge may sound, much of it makes sense. Granted, much of this sense could be argued to be from subjective sources, but it makes sense in its own way nonetheless. I agree with his analysis of what makes the team of kindergarten graduates more likely to succeed, and as cynical as it sounds I can understand where the team of MBA graduates are more likely to fail.
To dive in deeper, a recent MBA graduate is certainly going to be much more interested in the proposition of making their mark and getting ahead to get that nice corporate job than your average kindergarten graduate, and by way of training and the accumulated years of being taught to solve problems in a very systematic manner, an MBA graduate is much more likely to approach the challenge in an orderly step by step manner versus the more exploratory approach taken by the kindergarten graduate. In this specific scenario, although the marshmallow is logically the last step, its very mass and weight make it something of a central piece to be factored in. The kindergarten graduates, still being very young, are much more likely to be at a highly curious and exploratory of their lives and aren't as likely to see the marshmallow as a last step than they are to see it as something always there to be played with.
In the case of the CEOs versus CEOs with executive assistants, I think it has something to do with the diversity of perspective. While both sets of CEOs are likely cut from the same cloth of business minded people that want to get ahead, those paired with assistants have the benefit of a different perspective that ideally understand their bosses and what they're dealing with, yet come with a different point of view and without the baggage of a fixed way of doing business.Thus, at least in the subtle way assistants do, they can inject their thoughts in something of an advisory role and lead from within the team.
In any of these scenarios, one could argue the influence of various group behaviors and process interventions. For instance, the MBA group might do well at testing for consensus and summarizing (task functions), but they may not be so good at harmonizing and encouraging, plus the members may be vying continuously for emerging into a leadership function full time rather than going in and out, per what Brown notes in his text on page 203. They may also be more inclined to carry out individual functions, still in something of a mentality to stand out above peers. Kindergarten graduates, although they may not be the most likely to elaborate, do seem like the type that would ask a great deal of questions, and assuming they get along well, there may be greater harmonizing and encouragement within the group. Some of these factors might apply as well to the scenarios of CEOs with or without assistants. I imagine the assistants might provide some of both task and maintenance functions by keeping the CEOs on track and cohesive, as well as undertaking process interventions on page 204 such as generalizing and probing. CEOs alone may also be conscious of how they compare to others, while the executive assistants may still be comfortable in their roles of providing support to the boss and not grandstanding.
In short, besides matters of experience or perspective biases, I believe that some group types can be more conducive than others towards having members that strike a balance between the task and maintenance functions, and may have more or less members that are inclined to work towards individual functions. Finally, there may also be varying balances in the implementation (or lack thereof) of process intervention techniques in challenges such as this.
To dive in deeper, a recent MBA graduate is certainly going to be much more interested in the proposition of making their mark and getting ahead to get that nice corporate job than your average kindergarten graduate, and by way of training and the accumulated years of being taught to solve problems in a very systematic manner, an MBA graduate is much more likely to approach the challenge in an orderly step by step manner versus the more exploratory approach taken by the kindergarten graduate. In this specific scenario, although the marshmallow is logically the last step, its very mass and weight make it something of a central piece to be factored in. The kindergarten graduates, still being very young, are much more likely to be at a highly curious and exploratory of their lives and aren't as likely to see the marshmallow as a last step than they are to see it as something always there to be played with.
In the case of the CEOs versus CEOs with executive assistants, I think it has something to do with the diversity of perspective. While both sets of CEOs are likely cut from the same cloth of business minded people that want to get ahead, those paired with assistants have the benefit of a different perspective that ideally understand their bosses and what they're dealing with, yet come with a different point of view and without the baggage of a fixed way of doing business.Thus, at least in the subtle way assistants do, they can inject their thoughts in something of an advisory role and lead from within the team.
In any of these scenarios, one could argue the influence of various group behaviors and process interventions. For instance, the MBA group might do well at testing for consensus and summarizing (task functions), but they may not be so good at harmonizing and encouraging, plus the members may be vying continuously for emerging into a leadership function full time rather than going in and out, per what Brown notes in his text on page 203. They may also be more inclined to carry out individual functions, still in something of a mentality to stand out above peers. Kindergarten graduates, although they may not be the most likely to elaborate, do seem like the type that would ask a great deal of questions, and assuming they get along well, there may be greater harmonizing and encouragement within the group. Some of these factors might apply as well to the scenarios of CEOs with or without assistants. I imagine the assistants might provide some of both task and maintenance functions by keeping the CEOs on track and cohesive, as well as undertaking process interventions on page 204 such as generalizing and probing. CEOs alone may also be conscious of how they compare to others, while the executive assistants may still be comfortable in their roles of providing support to the boss and not grandstanding.
In short, besides matters of experience or perspective biases, I believe that some group types can be more conducive than others towards having members that strike a balance between the task and maintenance functions, and may have more or less members that are inclined to work towards individual functions. Finally, there may also be varying balances in the implementation (or lack thereof) of process intervention techniques in challenges such as this.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
A630.7.4.RB_SienkiewiczRaymond
Listening to Michael Bonsignore's discussion and examining it in the lens of our readings on the impacts of organizational culture, I think he certainly has good intent in his decision to bring together the best practices of Honeywell and Allied Signal, and I like to think it will be a successful fusion of corporate cultures. Having said that, the video discusses mostly the general idea and as I recall it didn't mention any specific best practices they were looking at implementing. Without any specific examples in mind, it is difficult to make a specific judgment call on whether there will be any second order consequences or if particular initiatives will clash with other ones, which are potential issues highlighted in Donald R. Brown's An Experiential Approach to Organizational Development. Having said that, the fact that Bonsignore is considering a controlled creation of a new post merger culture rather than just running with the Honeywell culture he knows suggests to me an appreciation for different ways of doing business, and indicates to me he has the flexibility and know-how to make informed decisions that taps into the resources he has available.
That isn't to say I don't see potential barriers or challenges. Bonsignore discussed the fact that the company is very old and rather content with its place in the market when he came in, which suggests a challenging environment for enacting change and a great deal of inertia to overcome. Not only that, once the merger with Honeywell and Allied Signal did take place, he had to overcome the bad press generated by owning up to the fact that projected earnings were not going to be as high as the company thought it would be. Overall, Bonsignore came into a situation where he had to overcome change resistance, maintain the best of the characters of both companies, and sell the way ahead to his employees and Wall Street. He walked into something of a perfect storm with leading the company towards his vision, pressing them through a rough patch, and maintaining the success of his organization.
When it comes to crafting the culture of the new Honeywell, the critical success factors are very closely related to the task of overcoming the previously noted barriers. Mainly, Honeywell will have to work to consciously analyze what their former halves bring to the table, and find means to effectively integrate them. This may involve a long hard look at how they integrate any change strategies across the board for technology, behavior, and structure, and they may have to consider formalized organizational development efforts. Honeywell leadership will also have to be very conscious of the need to keep employees in the loop, as they make the company's mission happen and are in effect another stakeholder. Bonsignore noted that employees can be very resilient, so long as they're involved in what's happening and feel like the boss is communicating with them.
Having viewed this interview, I certainly enjoyed some greater perspective. Even at the highest echelons of America's biggest company, there are real people that are capable of making mistakes and have to own up to them. It was also interesting to get the perspective on creating something new rather than merely settling for an amalgamation of old cultures and standards. Finally, I appreciated hearing the thoughts on the need to be level. As for what I can take away immediately, I know my own organization is still in the middle of something of a transitional phase in standing up some new functions, and we're now doing that with some additional constraints on spending and manning. I'd certainly like to consider how we might start creating a new organizational culture out of our recent changes, and once again its refreshing in its own way to hear about even the business elite hitting harder times and overcoming obstacles.
That isn't to say I don't see potential barriers or challenges. Bonsignore discussed the fact that the company is very old and rather content with its place in the market when he came in, which suggests a challenging environment for enacting change and a great deal of inertia to overcome. Not only that, once the merger with Honeywell and Allied Signal did take place, he had to overcome the bad press generated by owning up to the fact that projected earnings were not going to be as high as the company thought it would be. Overall, Bonsignore came into a situation where he had to overcome change resistance, maintain the best of the characters of both companies, and sell the way ahead to his employees and Wall Street. He walked into something of a perfect storm with leading the company towards his vision, pressing them through a rough patch, and maintaining the success of his organization.
When it comes to crafting the culture of the new Honeywell, the critical success factors are very closely related to the task of overcoming the previously noted barriers. Mainly, Honeywell will have to work to consciously analyze what their former halves bring to the table, and find means to effectively integrate them. This may involve a long hard look at how they integrate any change strategies across the board for technology, behavior, and structure, and they may have to consider formalized organizational development efforts. Honeywell leadership will also have to be very conscious of the need to keep employees in the loop, as they make the company's mission happen and are in effect another stakeholder. Bonsignore noted that employees can be very resilient, so long as they're involved in what's happening and feel like the boss is communicating with them.
Having viewed this interview, I certainly enjoyed some greater perspective. Even at the highest echelons of America's biggest company, there are real people that are capable of making mistakes and have to own up to them. It was also interesting to get the perspective on creating something new rather than merely settling for an amalgamation of old cultures and standards. Finally, I appreciated hearing the thoughts on the need to be level. As for what I can take away immediately, I know my own organization is still in the middle of something of a transitional phase in standing up some new functions, and we're now doing that with some additional constraints on spending and manning. I'd certainly like to consider how we might start creating a new organizational culture out of our recent changes, and once again its refreshing in its own way to hear about even the business elite hitting harder times and overcoming obstacles.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)