I find Bill Watkins' EcoSeagate concept intriguing. The purpose of outdoor labs is to promote teamwork, team development, and communication. While I would tend to say that the EcoSeagate trip encompasses theses attributes, I don't know that it specifically addresses the organization's needs. Especially considering the staggering $2 million dollar price tag that comes along with it! I can understand the concern on behalf of the stockholders for this event based on the fact that there is no quantitative evidence to support the expense. Brown (2011) notes that "all the labs, despite the setting or the nature of the exercise, have participants involved in activities that require teamwork and allow opportunities to work on leadership and team development. After an exercise, and normally in the evening, the team spends time with a practitioner critiquing, debriefing, and discussing the exercise and the day's events, with an emphasis upon what they learned." (p.274). I'm not sure if this was the case with the EcoSeagate trips. Did they have an OD practitioner to help evaluate their team performances? My feeling is that they did not. To me it seems like this outdoor lab was more of a getaway for employees. An opportunity to travel to New Zealand and test one's self. It was noted that the participants (200 in total) were selected from a pool of applicants in excess of 2000. The events highlighted in the videos seemed to be more physically demanding than mentally. Hiking, biking, and kayaking were some of the events the teams competed in. In order to participate you would really need to prepare your body for the physical demands. I could see participants training for this event like it was an Ironman competition. I think that this team oriented event is highly dependent on individual effort not conducive to team development. Brown (2011) states that "Team development is an educational process of continually reviewing and evaluating team function in order to identify and establish new and more effective ways of operating. Team development is an ongoing experience that occurs simultaneously with the work itself." (p. 271). If I work as an engineer and I am paired on a team with someone that works in marketing, an office manager, and an accountant, I do not see how helping one another climb a mountain is going to translate into team building within my respective group?
In my organization I have yet to experience an outdoor lab with my group. We have spoken in the past about possibly participating in some type of outdoor activity but I don't honestly know the level of physicality my team members are willing to endure. I am actually the only male on a team of seven. Would they be willing to go rock climbing, tight rope walking, or hiking? Possibly. I do feel fortunate though to have these women as my team members. We all genuinely share common goals and values, enjoy working together, and take pride in our work. I feel like we work really well together and would even go as far as to say we are a high-performance team. There is one concern that I do have that we learned about this week and that concern is groupthink. Brown (2011) notes "Groupthink often occurs when the members of the group avoid making harsh judgements of ideas put forward by their leaders or colleagues. In their behavior and thinking, they adopt a soft line of criticism. The members are friendly to one another and seek complete concurrence on every important issue." (p. 268). I am afraid this is a true of my group. I cannot recall a meeting we have had where we have had opposing or conflicting views in completing our tasks. I will be making a concerted effort to see we can possibly avoid this moving forward. At our last meeting the team decided that we needed to meet independently of our Director (she holds team meetings every two weeks). We feel it is important for us to discuss openly and freely ideas we may not feel comfortable sharing with her in an "official" meeting. I plan to take the opportunity to identify some of the characteristics of groupthink and their effects from our text.
I do believe that organizations need to employ some type of team building activities to promote development. Outdoor labs seem like a great opportunity for organizations to capitalize on in an effort to promote team cohesiveness and leadership training. Does this type of training need to come at price tag of $2 million? Not if I were running the company, no. I don't think you need to send 200 employees half way around the world in order for them to learn to be better team members. I do however feel that if an organization performed say a bi-annual local retreat to re-energize, reward, and re-invigorate its members, then that would be a more economical and logistically feasible alternative. Here are a few ways I found that an organization can build successful teams http://www.forbes.com/sites/glennllopis/2012/10/01/6-ways-successful-teams-are-built-to-last/
I think my organization could benefit from a similar activity but not on the same scale as Seagate. I would welcome the chance to get to better know my team mates on a personal level outside of the office. I have had this opportunity with a few but not all members of my team. Hopefully in the near future we can change that.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
A630.9.4.RB_DiazBrian
Google's executive chairman, Eric Schmidt's description of the company's culture is as enigmatic as the company itself. It seems that since its inception Google has tried to defy the logic of the traditional business model. I think Google's culture is based in part on being different from any other organization. Schmidt contends that as you build a company you determine or create its culture through its people. Is this the best approach possible? Can one company redefine everything that is known about corporate culture as the building block of the organization? Well, if that company just happens to be one of the most successful, influential, and powerful companies in the world, the answer would seem to be yes.
While I personally find Schmidt's (and Google's) approach to culture to be somewhat "maverick", their out of the box approach has seemed to serve them well. It seems that there is a high level of trust at Google that trusts that its staff is going to do what they are going to do. How does this philosophy translate to other organizations? I do not believe this model can work in all businesses. For example, in my organization I think it is important to have a clearly defined culture that employees can adopt. As an aeronautics university safety is one of the main focuses in our organization's culture, and rightfully so. But what if that cornerstone was not in place from the beginning? What areas could be affected by this? Should the university just hope that all of its employees value safety as much as say the FAA does or any one of the major airlines? I think it is more beneficial for an organization to have the culture defined concretely. While empowering individuals can benefit an organization there does need to be some uniformity of the expectations that all should abide by. Brown (2011) writes that "Employees who are empowered are more proactive and self-sufficient in helping their organizations to achieve their goals." (p. 223). While I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment I also think that too much control without effective supervision can most definitely become detrimental to an organization.
When I worked as a server in downtown Orlando from time to time the staff would be left unsupervised. The GM and our shift manager would venture off to other parts of the downtown area to "scout" other establishments (by scouting they would go bar hopping for the better part of the night) to see if they were busy or not. Now there is a term that says "when the cat is away the mice will play". This certainly was a motto that was adopted by the majority of our staff. Since we were considered to be a "high-performance" team that needed very little supervision we were expected to do our jobs in the absence of our supervisors. While we all took our jobs seriously it was more play than work. I mean the majority of us were college students in our 20's and early 30's. Staff members would take cigarette breaks at their leisure, the bartenders would make shots for us, and some staff even left the premises themselves (usually to the parking garage for their "cigarette breaks"). It was more like a scene out of Animal House than a semi-fine dining restaurant. Why did we do this? It was because there was a clear lack of leadership, a culture that endorsed the behavior (if our managers where doing it why wouldn't we was the mentality), and because we were over-empowered to do our jobs. Brown (2011) notes that "Research has found that 'empowerment is significantly influenced by the embedding organizational environment.'" (p.224). This is true of the restaurant I worked at.
As a leader it takes courage to implement this type of culture but it also takes some faith. Is your organization worth putting in the hands of its employees on the hopes that they do the right thing? To me that's a pretty big gamble and from my personal experience did not work. I would say that it is definitely a recipe for chaos but isn't chaos what Google is about? Here is an interesting look at how Google has evolved from a search engine to what it is today http://www.businessinsider.com/look-at-how-much-google-search-has-changed-since-1998-2012-2?op=1
My take away from this assignment is the fact that empowerment is intended for the benefit of the organization and not to be considered a self-serving right. Organizations that empower their employees do so because they trust that the right thing is going to be done. In the end we choose whether or not our decisions are what's best for the our companies. I think it is a privilege to work for an organization that empowers its employees and values them enough to allow them a degree of freedom. Freedom to make choices, to act accordingly, and to do what is best for the business. If you betray that trust then the organization fails. If the organization fails then how long will you continue to be employed? The relationship goes hand in hand and should be respected, honored, and valued. All traits you might find in an organization with a solid culture already in place.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
While I personally find Schmidt's (and Google's) approach to culture to be somewhat "maverick", their out of the box approach has seemed to serve them well. It seems that there is a high level of trust at Google that trusts that its staff is going to do what they are going to do. How does this philosophy translate to other organizations? I do not believe this model can work in all businesses. For example, in my organization I think it is important to have a clearly defined culture that employees can adopt. As an aeronautics university safety is one of the main focuses in our organization's culture, and rightfully so. But what if that cornerstone was not in place from the beginning? What areas could be affected by this? Should the university just hope that all of its employees value safety as much as say the FAA does or any one of the major airlines? I think it is more beneficial for an organization to have the culture defined concretely. While empowering individuals can benefit an organization there does need to be some uniformity of the expectations that all should abide by. Brown (2011) writes that "Employees who are empowered are more proactive and self-sufficient in helping their organizations to achieve their goals." (p. 223). While I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment I also think that too much control without effective supervision can most definitely become detrimental to an organization.
When I worked as a server in downtown Orlando from time to time the staff would be left unsupervised. The GM and our shift manager would venture off to other parts of the downtown area to "scout" other establishments (by scouting they would go bar hopping for the better part of the night) to see if they were busy or not. Now there is a term that says "when the cat is away the mice will play". This certainly was a motto that was adopted by the majority of our staff. Since we were considered to be a "high-performance" team that needed very little supervision we were expected to do our jobs in the absence of our supervisors. While we all took our jobs seriously it was more play than work. I mean the majority of us were college students in our 20's and early 30's. Staff members would take cigarette breaks at their leisure, the bartenders would make shots for us, and some staff even left the premises themselves (usually to the parking garage for their "cigarette breaks"). It was more like a scene out of Animal House than a semi-fine dining restaurant. Why did we do this? It was because there was a clear lack of leadership, a culture that endorsed the behavior (if our managers where doing it why wouldn't we was the mentality), and because we were over-empowered to do our jobs. Brown (2011) notes that "Research has found that 'empowerment is significantly influenced by the embedding organizational environment.'" (p.224). This is true of the restaurant I worked at.
As a leader it takes courage to implement this type of culture but it also takes some faith. Is your organization worth putting in the hands of its employees on the hopes that they do the right thing? To me that's a pretty big gamble and from my personal experience did not work. I would say that it is definitely a recipe for chaos but isn't chaos what Google is about? Here is an interesting look at how Google has evolved from a search engine to what it is today http://www.businessinsider.com/look-at-how-much-google-search-has-changed-since-1998-2012-2?op=1
My take away from this assignment is the fact that empowerment is intended for the benefit of the organization and not to be considered a self-serving right. Organizations that empower their employees do so because they trust that the right thing is going to be done. In the end we choose whether or not our decisions are what's best for the our companies. I think it is a privilege to work for an organization that empowers its employees and values them enough to allow them a degree of freedom. Freedom to make choices, to act accordingly, and to do what is best for the business. If you betray that trust then the organization fails. If the organization fails then how long will you continue to be employed? The relationship goes hand in hand and should be respected, honored, and valued. All traits you might find in an organization with a solid culture already in place.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
A630.8.4.RB_DiazBrian
Tom Wujec's team building exercise or "marshmallow problem" is a challenge in which teams build structures with uncooked spaghetti, string, masking tape, paper lunch bags, and a single marshmallow. The goal is for teams to work cohesively to build the tallest free-standing structure possible with the marshmallow on top http://marshmallowchallenge.com/Welcome.html
Using this exercise in workshops Tom studied how various groups performed. He looked at recent business school graduate, kindergartners, CEO's, and CEO's with assistants. To my surprise (and to most likely to Tom's),Tom found that the group that was among the worst performers were the recent graduate students. The group that surprisingly performed well were the kindergartners. But why? How could a group of business graduates, who learn strategy, organizational development, and problem solving skills fare less than kindergartners? The results to me were pretty astounding. But Tom noted he learned why. It seemed that the graduate students spend time jockeying for position to establish a leadership role, lied, cheated, and were easily distracted. I can see this occurring. He mentioned that because the graduate students were so concerned with finding a "single right plan" that they often ran out of time, sending them into panic mode.
I think that in doing so the graduate students lose focus of the exercise. The process is meant to be a "team" project and I can see that having someone in charge is definitely more important to adults than it is to children. I don't think team activities are stressed enough at a younger age. Sports is a good outlet but it can also breed competitiveness (not such a bad thing).
When I was in 6th grade I was a part of the Orange City Roadrunners soccer team. One of my team mates and closest friends on the team was a boy named Wade. Wade and I were the two best players on the team. We were gearing up towards the regional championship game in a few weeks. While at lunch one day Wade decided to remind me that he led the team in goals for the season (essentially laying claim to being the team's best player). He was up on me by like 6 goals or so (a lot for soccer). This ignited my competitive spirit as other kids overheard us and egged me on saying there was no way I could pass Wade. I bet him that not only could I catch up to him but I could beat him in goals scored for the season. Soccer is very much a team sport. It requires 11 players to work together in order to be successful. I let my ego get the best of me and I decided to play for me instead of the team. Going into the championship game Wade was ahead by two goals. There was no way I could catch him I thought. But as the game got started the ball just seemed to find me and when it was all said and done I scored 3 goals, led the Roadrunners to a championship, and won my bet! The local paper ran a story about the game and the headline read "Orange City Roadrunners rely on Brian Diaz to win Championship". It went on to say how I scored a hat-trick (which I had no idea what a hat-trick was). It was pretty cool but I most definitely did not do it by myself. I had a team around me and if it wasn't for them we could not have won. I want to say I was just lucky. Looking back on this I must admit I am a little embarrassed. Embarrassed by the fact that I thought I was the team. We played an entire season as a team and in those last few games I became obsessed with "jockeying" for my position. As I move forward in my career I vow to never lead a team like this but instead be an active participant working towards shared goals.
Children are inherently innocent by nature. As opposed to their adult counterparts they are not consumed by who gets to make the decisions. Children are just happy to play and I can see this marshmallow "challenge" as a fun, non-threatening, team-based game for children to work on together. Whereas the adults find the challenge to be competitive. As a parent of a 2 year old I can say that children are more imaginative than adults because their minds have not been made up about a lot of things. To them the mechanical or engineering limitations are not taken into consideration when making the biggest spaghetti structure. They are not bound by the rigidity that adults seem to impose on themselves based on their knowledge of science, mathematics, or engineering. "Can't" and "won't" work are generally not something a child is concerned with or even associates with. I think that children also do not take these "challenges" competitively as opposed to adults and are having fun with the process whereas adults might be looking for bragging rights or to say "Our team is the best! Look at how tall we got our spaghetti sticks, we win!"
CEO's that enlist the help of their executive assistance are more successful than CEO's in a group without one because CEO's that work with assistants tend to empower teamwork. Since CEO's and executive assistants work closely together it is not uncommon for the to travel together. Each benefits from their symbiotic relationship because these individuals share personal and professional relationships that tend to make their pairing successful in a situation such as the "marshmallow problem". The bigger question for me becomes why wouldn't a CEO with an executive assitant not want them on their team?
If I were to facilitate a process intervention workshop I think this video embodies and relates the following process intervention skills and promotes:
My takeaway from this lesson is that there are many different process intervention techniques that can be utilized in a team setting to improver its performance. The interventions should be brief and decisive. Groups that strive to be high-performance teams should contemplate how completing tasks can be affected through the use of interventions. I intend to incorporate a number of these techniques within my group to solicit discussions in an effort for us to become more efficient. As we always say, the only constant in organizational development is change and we should always embrace it.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Using this exercise in workshops Tom studied how various groups performed. He looked at recent business school graduate, kindergartners, CEO's, and CEO's with assistants. To my surprise (and to most likely to Tom's),Tom found that the group that was among the worst performers were the recent graduate students. The group that surprisingly performed well were the kindergartners. But why? How could a group of business graduates, who learn strategy, organizational development, and problem solving skills fare less than kindergartners? The results to me were pretty astounding. But Tom noted he learned why. It seemed that the graduate students spend time jockeying for position to establish a leadership role, lied, cheated, and were easily distracted. I can see this occurring. He mentioned that because the graduate students were so concerned with finding a "single right plan" that they often ran out of time, sending them into panic mode.
I think that in doing so the graduate students lose focus of the exercise. The process is meant to be a "team" project and I can see that having someone in charge is definitely more important to adults than it is to children. I don't think team activities are stressed enough at a younger age. Sports is a good outlet but it can also breed competitiveness (not such a bad thing).
When I was in 6th grade I was a part of the Orange City Roadrunners soccer team. One of my team mates and closest friends on the team was a boy named Wade. Wade and I were the two best players on the team. We were gearing up towards the regional championship game in a few weeks. While at lunch one day Wade decided to remind me that he led the team in goals for the season (essentially laying claim to being the team's best player). He was up on me by like 6 goals or so (a lot for soccer). This ignited my competitive spirit as other kids overheard us and egged me on saying there was no way I could pass Wade. I bet him that not only could I catch up to him but I could beat him in goals scored for the season. Soccer is very much a team sport. It requires 11 players to work together in order to be successful. I let my ego get the best of me and I decided to play for me instead of the team. Going into the championship game Wade was ahead by two goals. There was no way I could catch him I thought. But as the game got started the ball just seemed to find me and when it was all said and done I scored 3 goals, led the Roadrunners to a championship, and won my bet! The local paper ran a story about the game and the headline read "Orange City Roadrunners rely on Brian Diaz to win Championship". It went on to say how I scored a hat-trick (which I had no idea what a hat-trick was). It was pretty cool but I most definitely did not do it by myself. I had a team around me and if it wasn't for them we could not have won. I want to say I was just lucky. Looking back on this I must admit I am a little embarrassed. Embarrassed by the fact that I thought I was the team. We played an entire season as a team and in those last few games I became obsessed with "jockeying" for my position. As I move forward in my career I vow to never lead a team like this but instead be an active participant working towards shared goals.
Children are inherently innocent by nature. As opposed to their adult counterparts they are not consumed by who gets to make the decisions. Children are just happy to play and I can see this marshmallow "challenge" as a fun, non-threatening, team-based game for children to work on together. Whereas the adults find the challenge to be competitive. As a parent of a 2 year old I can say that children are more imaginative than adults because their minds have not been made up about a lot of things. To them the mechanical or engineering limitations are not taken into consideration when making the biggest spaghetti structure. They are not bound by the rigidity that adults seem to impose on themselves based on their knowledge of science, mathematics, or engineering. "Can't" and "won't" work are generally not something a child is concerned with or even associates with. I think that children also do not take these "challenges" competitively as opposed to adults and are having fun with the process whereas adults might be looking for bragging rights or to say "Our team is the best! Look at how tall we got our spaghetti sticks, we win!"
CEO's that enlist the help of their executive assistance are more successful than CEO's in a group without one because CEO's that work with assistants tend to empower teamwork. Since CEO's and executive assistants work closely together it is not uncommon for the to travel together. Each benefits from their symbiotic relationship because these individuals share personal and professional relationships that tend to make their pairing successful in a situation such as the "marshmallow problem". The bigger question for me becomes why wouldn't a CEO with an executive assitant not want them on their team?
If I were to facilitate a process intervention workshop I think this video embodies and relates the following process intervention skills and promotes:
- Communication and Summarizing
- Synthesizing and Generalizing
- Probing and Questioning
- Listening
- Providing Support
My takeaway from this lesson is that there are many different process intervention techniques that can be utilized in a team setting to improver its performance. The interventions should be brief and decisive. Groups that strive to be high-performance teams should contemplate how completing tasks can be affected through the use of interventions. I intend to incorporate a number of these techniques within my group to solicit discussions in an effort for us to become more efficient. As we always say, the only constant in organizational development is change and we should always embrace it.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Sunday, March 2, 2014
A630.7.4.RB_DiazBrian
Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, stated that Honeywell would not be
an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal. He plans to create a new
culture blending the best of Honeywell and
Allied Signal. Bonsignore said that Honeywell would "compensate and reward people
that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new
corporate culture and punish those who do not." Is this a good approach towards being successful? I personally do not like how Bonsignore delivered this statement. I think it makes him seem rigid, authoritarian, and unpleasant. Bonsignore's demeanor throughout the hour long segment was not very warm or inviting I thought. I found Gordon Bethune's presence more sincere, warm, and genuine. While I found Bonsignore's delivery or tone unpleasant when he said he plans to compensate those who work hard and punish those who do not, I have to agree with the methodology. I believe this is a good strategy. Brown (2011) wrote "Developing a strategy includes the planning of activities intended to resolve difficulties and build on strengths in order to improve the organization's effectiveness and efficiency. From the strategies, the OD process moves to the stage of selecting intervention techniques and technologies. Intervention techniques are the specific means, activities, and programs by which change goals can be achieved." (p.175).
Not to toot my own horn, but when I was a restaurant server I was pretty good at my job. I learned what it took to be successful and how to maximize my earning potential when I waited on tables. I learned that up-selling appetizers, alcohol, entrees, and desert would increase my sales and that in turn would increase my tips. At my last stop on my long journey in the restaurant biz, if I did not make at least $100 on a weekday night and $100-$150 on the weekends, I was not doing my job. I consistently had the high sales on a nightly basis. My managers knew that I could be relied on to service the needs of our VIP guests and it wasn't uncommon for me to take care of parties of 20 alone. In exchange for my efforts I received preferential treatment. I was allowed to make up my own schedule and work the shifts I wanted. I could basically work when I wanted to. I got the best sections in the restaurant as well when I worked. Basically it was a form of reward system that benefited me and the restaurant financially. Those that performed poorly or were always late had the worst shifts and the least amount of them as well. Managers actually would cut back a server's hours so much in order to make them quit. It was "sink or swim" in some aspects.
The barriers that I noted from the video that Bonsignore could expect to be challenging are his undefined OD strategy, his one-dimensional approach for organizational change (focusing solely on the human factor and not considering other change strategies), his opposition to technological advancements (he noted in the video he was uncomfortable embracing some technological change), and naming any specific intervention to make the merger of Honeywell and Allied Signal successful. Brown (2011) wrote "An OD strategy may be defined as a plan for relating and integrating the different organizational improvement activities engaged in over a period of time." (p.175). Bonsignore never touched on any such plan when he talked about the merger. He did however acknowledge the human component in change strategy. He commented on the importance of morale and its how committed members are a necessity for the improvement of an organization's performance. He makes a point to visit the different factories and to be present and communicate with his employees which is very important (which Gordon Bethune does as well and in my opinion better). Bonsignore mentioned opposition to technology but if you are combining two reputable companies into one mega-conglomerate, it would be wise to embrace the newest technologies whether it be in relation to communication or even in fuel cells (as he mentions). It seems to me that Bonsignore is "old school" and uncomfortable with some of the 21st century technology. This put his company at disadvantage because as its CEO, the company takes its lead from its CEO. If Bonsignore doesn't embrace technology why should his organizations? In addition Bonsignore failed to name a specific intervention technique. Brown (2011) wrote "All planned OD activities or interventions are specifically aimed at correcting inefficiencies, solving problems, developing strengths, and creating areas of opportunity." (p.183). Bonsignore missed the mark by not addressing what was wrong with his companies, how to correct it, or how he would make things better.
As Honeywell consider and crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture they should be aware that:
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Not to toot my own horn, but when I was a restaurant server I was pretty good at my job. I learned what it took to be successful and how to maximize my earning potential when I waited on tables. I learned that up-selling appetizers, alcohol, entrees, and desert would increase my sales and that in turn would increase my tips. At my last stop on my long journey in the restaurant biz, if I did not make at least $100 on a weekday night and $100-$150 on the weekends, I was not doing my job. I consistently had the high sales on a nightly basis. My managers knew that I could be relied on to service the needs of our VIP guests and it wasn't uncommon for me to take care of parties of 20 alone. In exchange for my efforts I received preferential treatment. I was allowed to make up my own schedule and work the shifts I wanted. I could basically work when I wanted to. I got the best sections in the restaurant as well when I worked. Basically it was a form of reward system that benefited me and the restaurant financially. Those that performed poorly or were always late had the worst shifts and the least amount of them as well. Managers actually would cut back a server's hours so much in order to make them quit. It was "sink or swim" in some aspects.
The barriers that I noted from the video that Bonsignore could expect to be challenging are his undefined OD strategy, his one-dimensional approach for organizational change (focusing solely on the human factor and not considering other change strategies), his opposition to technological advancements (he noted in the video he was uncomfortable embracing some technological change), and naming any specific intervention to make the merger of Honeywell and Allied Signal successful. Brown (2011) wrote "An OD strategy may be defined as a plan for relating and integrating the different organizational improvement activities engaged in over a period of time." (p.175). Bonsignore never touched on any such plan when he talked about the merger. He did however acknowledge the human component in change strategy. He commented on the importance of morale and its how committed members are a necessity for the improvement of an organization's performance. He makes a point to visit the different factories and to be present and communicate with his employees which is very important (which Gordon Bethune does as well and in my opinion better). Bonsignore mentioned opposition to technology but if you are combining two reputable companies into one mega-conglomerate, it would be wise to embrace the newest technologies whether it be in relation to communication or even in fuel cells (as he mentions). It seems to me that Bonsignore is "old school" and uncomfortable with some of the 21st century technology. This put his company at disadvantage because as its CEO, the company takes its lead from its CEO. If Bonsignore doesn't embrace technology why should his organizations? In addition Bonsignore failed to name a specific intervention technique. Brown (2011) wrote "All planned OD activities or interventions are specifically aimed at correcting inefficiencies, solving problems, developing strengths, and creating areas of opportunity." (p.183). Bonsignore missed the mark by not addressing what was wrong with his companies, how to correct it, or how he would make things better.
As Honeywell consider and crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture they should be aware that:
- OD strategy involves planning and direction. The approach should involve management, the way the jobs are designed and how to motivate its people. Specific interventions that will best solve organizational issues will increase organizational effectiveness.
- More than one change strategy should be implemented to increase the likelihood of organizational success. These activities are bound and interrelated throughout the organizations subsystems and personal relationships.
- Intervention techniques may focus on individual, team, and organization wide systems. The problem condition dictates the type of intervention necessary.
Brown, D. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)