A630.7.4.RB_HansardCarey

The thought of rewarding people for striving for excellence and making a difference in their companies is appealing to most. However, the idea of punishing those who come to work every day, do their jobs well, and help the company stay afloat does not seem to make sense. Mr. Bethune implemented a reward system when his company, Continental Airlines, met or exceeded a predetermined goal for on-time flights. This strategy promotes teamwork by encouraging everyone to come together to make the company better. This is a more effective strategy than the one Mr. Bonsignore alludes to. It would be one thing if by punishment Mr. Bonsignore means that those who do not “shine” will not be rewarded. People may decide that they like coming to work and doing what they do well every day without making any extra effort. This is a conscious decision not to go for a bonus. These employees do not need to stand out but they are doing what they need to do every day and are otherwise great employees. If they will keep their jobs and just not get whatever bonus or reward is being offered, this could work. People in this situation get to decide their own fate by either going the extra mile or simply continuing to do their daily jobs.

 It is a completely different situation if by punishment he means that employees not going above and beyond will be fired, demoted, or whatever else the company decides will be appropriate. Negative motivation like this is not really motivating. If there are employees who are not adapting to change, then yes, they need to be dealt with accordingly, but in this scenario, it is difficult to determine what the punishment would be and what exactly they would have to do to be punished. Punishment of these individuals would have a detrimental effect to the company.

One of the barriers that stands out to me is that there has been a lot of change at Honeywell and employees are already in a state of uncertainty. The threat of punishment may do more harm than good in a situation like this. As Mackay (2013) points out, “Downsizings, reorganizations, new products and revamped org charts can take their toll. Employees may feel they don’t have it in them to go through another major overhaul”.  Employees can grow tired of the thought of more change and because of that, management needs to ensure that the need for any changes is clearly communicated to them and that they are included in the future change efforts.

I think that management needs to create a positive spin on changes to unite the processes of both organizations. Communication to employees is essential explaining the changes, why they are necessary, and how they will affect the employees. Asking the employees for their input in the changes will also be key in the success of creating a new, common culture. Cultural change does not happen overnight but a strong consistent message will certainly go a long way toward making the change smoother and easier to accept.

An immediate takeaway from this article is that employees matter more than anything else. As a CEO you can have all the great ideas in the world but if you don’t have the people to make it happen for you, they remain just great ideas. Changing a company’s culture is a monumental task, but as Reh (n.d.) points out, “Companies with an adaptive culture that is aligned to their business goals routinely outperform their competitors”. With this in mind, it will be vital for me as a leader to stay in touch with the culture of my organization and ensure that I listen to employees and watch their behaviors for signs that it is time to adapt.

References:

Mackay, H. (2013). Why your employees fear change and how you can fix it. Portland Business Journal, Retrieved from http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/print-edition/2013/07/26/why-your-employees-fear-change-and-how.html?page=all

Reh, F. J. (n.d.). Company culture: What is it and how to change it. Retrieved from http://management.about.com/cs/generalmanagement/a/companyculture.htm

http://digital.films.com/play/GWEU7L

A630.6.4.RB_HansardCarey

Change is hard to swallow even if you are the instigator of such change. I personally do not know anyone who likes to change constantly. However, leaders recognize the need for periodic change and understand that it is their responsibility to motivate those working for them to embrace the change. Part of this process includes explaining the need to do something different. Brown (2011) mentions that many managers have issues implementing change because, although they may be well versed in the organizational side of change, the human factor can be much more challenging. Explaining the challenges the current systems or processes are causing and how changes will positively affect workers is the first step in getting them on board. If those working for you do not understand why a change is being made, many of them are likely to rebel.

When I hear coworkers that are rebelling against change, I have a different reaction depending on my own reaction to the change. In many cases, I am one of the skeptics who needs convincing at first although I try to remain positive. For example, recently, an upgrade to our Blackboard service pack was announced. This upgrade will happen after the start of October term. This upgrade means that there are several changes to the system that need to be announced and explained to faculty. Internally, there was conversation related to creating new knowledgebase articles for the upgrade and it was decided that there should be a change to the way the articles were created. One of my coworkers does not agree with the proposed change, which includes linking a PDF to the KB article rather than having the answer appear in line. He has been talking to my supervisor, trying to convince him that the change is not needed and why. However, the way we are creating the articles now requires many workarounds and is not very efficient time wise for staff writing up the articles. Although it means a lot of work for me and my team, I understand why it is happening and agree with the change, making it easier for me. He does not, though, and has spent a lot of time and energy fighting a losing battle. In this situation, I have done what I can to share my thoughts with him about why the new proposal would be a good change for our team. I have to work with people who agree and do not agree with the change and, since it will happen no mater what, I would rather be working with those who support the change to some degree. Therefore, I make an effort to explain the positives to my colleagues.

When I am on the other side and do not necessarily agree with what is coming, education becomes my goal. Again, since the new policies or procedures will be implemented anyway, I try to inform myself by asking questions about what I do not understand. Many times, a little information and a better understanding of the issues sways my opinion on the matter enough to remain positive. I have found myself coming up with excuses about why we should not do something. In my personal life, we have wanted to purchase a larger home but continue to come up with excuses about why we shouldn’t put our house on the market, seek a new loan, or look at homes that are for sale. The bottom line is that fear is one of the biggest obstacles to change and one of the hardest to overcome because the unknown makes people want to revert back to what they know. In an organizational environment, most of the time change is not optional and we have to change fear into excitement about the new possibilities the change can bring about.

According to Corelli (2009), some of the most important things leaders can do to help ease the fears of employees are: create a culture of communication, form a team to champion the cause, institute change in stages if possible, and take the time to train employees. Obviously, when there is already open communication in the organization, employees are more trusting and the idea of change may be easier for some. Another way to lessen the blow of change is to implement it in stages. After all, we all have to crawl before we can walk. Finally, as I mentioned above, being educated about change and being able to ask questions about what is not understood makes change seem les overwhelming. While these suggestions may not completely eliminate resistance to change they can’t hurt.

I do agree that change is driven by groups of people. At the Worldwide conference this year, I shared a video with some colleagues that I found while doing research for a previous MSLD course. This is the same video you shared in your announcement a few weeks ago, How to Start a Movement. Every idea starts with one person. Once that one person brings forth the idea and is able to convince another to join him, a tribe has formed. As Sivers (2010) points out in the video, once several people have joined the movement, it makes it easier for people to make the decision to join in and the same is true for change. When an individual sees the masses agreeing with the changes, it is easier for him/her to see the change as less threatening and have a better attitude about joining the rest.

As for takeaways, I see the benefit of having clear and open communication with my employees and coworkers. This starts well before change happens and is something that I strive to include in my leadership style whenever I can. Being empathetic about people’s feeling about change is helpful and I plan to continue that when I find myself in a leadership role.   

References:

Corelli, C. (2009, November 01). Ten ways to help employees adapt to change. Construction Equipment Distribution, Retrieved from http://www.cedmag.com/article-detail.cfm?id=10925388

Sivers, D. (Performer) (2010). How to start a movement[Web]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/derek_sivers_how_to_start_a_movement.html

A630.5.4.RB_HansardCarey

In my opinion, Mr. O’Keefe met with employees in an effort to show outside entities that he was attempting to promote cultural changes in NASA. Due to the shuttle tragedy, my supposition is that he felt pressure from inside and outside the organization to find a cause and outline a plan for change to ensure that this does not happen again. As the leader of the organization, he is putting himself in front of the employees as a poster child for this change. His goal, it would seem, is to convince employees that the problems have been identified and unite them in efforts to fix those problems.

As for the believability factor of Mr. O’Keefe, as I was watching the video, I went back and forth between buying into what he was saying and thinking he was a used car salesman attempting to make us believe what he was telling us, but not really believing it himself. It is essential that organizational stakeholders believe him to form a trusting relationship that will be the springboard for change. Norman, Aviolo, and Luthans (2010) argue that in order to be trustworthy, leaders must be transparent and a true sharing of ideas and information must be present. If Mr. O’Keefe truly means what he is saying, he will (and, in fact, should have already) dialogue with his people in a frank and open manner at all levels on a daily basis. At the moment, the fact that the survey results identify an issue with communication indicates that is not happening. Until there is a genuine effort by management to do what he is saying, there will be little change. Employees have to believe him. In my research about believable leaders, I read an interesting analogy. Tom Skinner (1974) illustrates how to determine if someone trusts you by using a story about a husband and wife:

            To illustrate this, let’s consider the story of the top businessman who is at a big meeting out west. He calls his wife to tell her he’ll be home by six thirty that evening. However, at the airport he gets a call telling him to return that evening for an important executive committee meeting. He has no time to call his wife. The meeting lasts all night and he comes walking into the house at two a.m. His wife meets him at the door and says, “Where have you been?” He explains why he is late. “Do you mean you’ve been at a meeting until two o’clock in the morning? Now who’s going to believe that?” This woman is closed-minded. Let’s take the same situation only this time his wife, who has fallen asleep on the couch waiting for him, gets up and says, “Where have you been?” After he explains she asks, “Who were you with?” “Bob, Ray and John were there,” he replies. “Well, we’re going over to Ray’s house for dinner next week and I’m going to ask him about that meeting.” She doesn’t quite say, “I don’t believe you,” but she’s at least open-minded and will check out his story. Another time the wife comes to the top of the stairs as the businessman comes in and calls down, “Where have you been?” He explains where he was and who was there. She says, “You know the next time we see them I’m going to ask them why they always keep you up at night solving their problems in the business. Like the business can’t run without you.” She never questions his story. She’s at the level of having confidence in him.

I do not think that the employees of NASA are at the point of trusting leadership. At this point, his speech is all lip service and employees are at the “now who’s going to believe that?” stage.  Leaders will have to walk the walk in order to move toward the trusting stage. They have done a lot of analysis of the problem and statistical breakdown of the survey results but the trick for them with be implementing the changes across the board and earning the trust of their employees.

O’Keefe attempts to unite the organization by discussing values and prompting employees to compare their behavior to the values that they think they subscribe to and determine if they match. The issue I see here is that the values that employees espouse may not align with those of the organization as a whole. It would be helpful to employees to have him clarify expectations and values that are relevant to the organization. The make these even more meaningful to employees, they should be included in the identification process to ensure that there is agreement across the organization.

On the other hand, Mr. O’Keefe has points in his speech that entice me to believe in him and get on board with his plan. One of the statements that Mr. O’Keefe makes that adds to his credibility for change is that he wants to promote a “yes….if” rather than a “no….because” attitude. In other words, he wants leaders within the organization to evaluate and determine the obstacles to an idea or thought presented by an employee instead of immediately saying that it cannot be done. There are also several instances where he mentions that employees need to start treating others as they would want to be treated themselves. The Golden Rule is always one that should be considered, in my opinion, but if you have to tell people to do this, there may be bigger issues that need to be addressed. He might need to consider team building activities or informal social gatherings for the employees so that they begin to get to know and respect one another on a different level than they currently do.

This presentation is a reminder to me that, as a leader, culture should never be taken for granted. Just because outward appearances lead one to believe that the organization is doing well, there may be underlying issues that need to be handled before there is a major catastrophe in the organization. Although you do not want to go to great expense nor over survey people to death, it might be helpful to survey employees annually to assess the general feeling of the organization and be able to adapt as needed rather than having to react in the face of necessity.

Norman, S. M., Avolio, B. J., & Lufthans, F. (2010). The impact of positivity and transparency on trust in leaders and their perceived effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(3), doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.03.002.

O'Keefe, S., & Jennings, J. (2004). Nasa cultural changes[Web]. Retrieved from http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SACu

http://skinnerleadership.org/2012/08/31/what-kind-of-leader/

                

A630.4.4.RB_HansardCarey

                  In my personal experience, when management within my organization makes an effective, timely, and well-thought out decision, employees are much happier and certainly more engaged than they are when decisions are made in a different manner. Knee jerk reaction decision-making can lead to poor decisions and promote a lack of confidence and enthusiasm by employees.

                        To go one step further, Insightlink.com points out that involving employees in the decision-making process when an issue directly involves them is critical and, “will increase their commitment and improve the success of implementing new ideas or change”. Therefore, I think that in order to make more effective decisions and engage employees, managers should make an effort to include the opinions of those who are directly affected by that decision. What better way to make employees feel engaged than actually engaging them? When people making decisions are well informed about the issues, better decisions are made and the entire organization benefits. Why would I want someone who is well versed in Blackboard making decisions about EagleVision? Or better yet, why would I want someone who only has limited knowledge making critical decisions? From an organizational perspective, that is not a prudent idea. So the bottom line is: involve employees in decisions relevant to them and everyone reaps the rewards of higher engagement and better performance.

                        According to Dan Gilbert, our previous experiences can hinder our decision-making abilities. This is true not only for individuals but also for managers and organizations. Using last week’s case study as an example, if Spinks’s project were funded and failed, the organization and management would be leery of funding another project, especially one that is so expensive and grand in nature even if there is minimal risk. We tend to avoid situations similar to those where we have been burned in the past and gravitate towards the familiar or what has typically been successful for us.

                        Another important obstacle to mention according to Blenko is that of complex org charts which bog down the decision-making process, making it slower and harder to make decisions because of varying values and opinions. I know that in my current organization, it takes a long time to make decisions because we have several layers of management. Unfortunately, senior management likes to have the final say when there are important decisions being made which can cause delays.

                        In large organizations or where there is high turnover, it can also be difficult to determine who is supposed to be making the decision, according to Blenko. This recently happened on my team when my direct supervisor left in March. He had only been on the job about 6 months himself and people were just getting used to him and understanding his responsibilities. So when he left, customers (and employees alike) were confused by who to go to. Even after my new supervisor was hired, there was a period of adjustment for customers, not to mention the fact that he needed time to bring himself up to speed. This confusion led to increased decision-making time in addition to some poorly made decisions.

                                    Decisions should also be authentic or, in other words, consider whether the decisions has been made after evaluating alternative ideas. This authenticity may come into question and have to be defended. In the effort Blenko describes, alternatives should be examined in order to ensure that a quality decision has been made.

            In my position, I have to make many decisions that relate to training on various technologies. When I am making decisions that affect a wide range of stakeholders, I make an effort to involve many of them in the process. This is a practice that I intend to continue as I think that the quality of my decisions is better when other points-of-view are considered.  I appreciate when co-workers reciprocate as well. Working together leads to higher caliber, well thought out decisions and increased value for employees in the final product.  

References:

http://www.insightlink.com/state_of_employee_satisfaction.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_gilbert_researches_happiness.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8&feature=player_embedded