Changing Others Through Changing Ourselves

The question presented by Robert Quinn, Gretchen Spreitzer, and Mathew Brown in their article Changing Others Through Changing Ourselves; The Transformation of Human Systems is what alternative change strategy may be effective for making adaptive change? Specifically, how can an individual inspire others to go through the painful process of real change that requires them to, at least temporarily, surrender personal control and adopt a new personal and collective culture through making uncomfortable adjustments in their attitude, work habits and lives? The authors of this article argue that Advanced Change Theory (ACT) can result in this type of difficult change.  Although this uncomfortable process will result in a better quality life and work experience, it is not an easy undertaking and convincing others to go through with this process is not easy either.

ACT practitioners practice 10 principles that create change with in themselves, hence giving them the ability to inspire change in others for the purpose of a common good. The ten principals are:

1. 1. Seek to create an emergent system (The leader minimizes hierarchy, shifts away from self-interest and strives for inclusion, openness and community)
2. 2. Recognizes Hypocrisy and patterns of self-deception (The leader looks with in himself and identifies where he is imperfect, where his values differ from his behavior)
3. 3. Personal change through value clarification and alignment of behavior ( leader identifies his value gaps and uses discipline to change his behavior)
4. 4. Frees oneself from the system of external sanction (As a result of his self reflection and clarification of values, the leader acts on what he knows is right with little regard fo public opinion or prescribed existing laws)
5. 5. Develops a vision for the common good (Feeling less constrained by external opinion and expectations, the leader is able to see new possibilities for the common good)
6. 6. Takes action on the edge of chaos (The leader develops tremendous courage to act on faith even in the face of possible self jeopardy, they no longer need a safety net to act on their values and vision)
7. 7. Maintain reverence for the others involved in change (The leader respects the dignity of others, rather than forcing them to change, they give up control and attract others through treating them well)
8. 8. Inspires others to enact their best selves (The leader, through personal behavior, asks others involved in change to do and be more than they believe they can do or be)
9. 9. Models counterintuitive, paradoxical behavior (the leader’s willingness to walk on the edge of chaos makes room for “out of the box thinking” to emerge)
10. 10. Changes self and systems (Belief that in changing themselves, they can change the external world)

ACT is powerful and inspirational theory of change, the examples of Ghandi, Jesus, and Martin Luther King Jr. used in the article have inspired mankind to be better than we are for centuries. Having the ability to master these principals may not ever be in my ability, once again, after reading them, I am inspired to rise above my petty fears and self interest and do the hard work of looking at myself and disciplining myself in order to be the person who can effect the change we all desire to see in this world.

Sounds of Silence

Sounds of Silence, by Elizabeth Wolfe Morrison and Frances Miliken, opens discussion on the problems of organizational silence. Breaking the ice by referring to the fairy tale “The Emperor’s Clothing” Elizabeth and Frances expose the problems caused by organizational silence, as well as the problems that cause the silence in the first place. Organizational silence is when employees remain silent about problems in the work place, or refrain from expressing their ideas for improvement. The implications of this silence carry a heavy effect on the progress and sustainability of a company. It is through fair and systematic communication that company learning occurs, progress is made, and efficiency is achieved. Employees who perceive themselves as being heard by management feel a sense of control in their work environment, are more engaged, and less likely to leave. Why do employees stay silent? According to the work of Morrison and Miliken there are two main reasons. First, manager’s fear receiving negative feedback so the either ignore the message, dismiss the feedback as inaccurate, or attack the credibility of the messenger. The second cause at the root of organizational silence is a set of unstated beliefs that management holds about their employees. These beliefs are that employees are “self-interested and effort-adverse”. When management believes that employees are opportunistic and not knowledgeable, they don’t solicit employee feedback and don’t include them in the decision making process. Organizational silence must be changed from the top down. It is managements’ responsibility to put the companies well being in front of their own by creating systems that allow for employee feedback without repercussion. In the fairy tale “The Emperor’s Clothing” it is no accident that a naïve child was the one who said something to the Emperor about not having clothes. It takes courage, or naivete, to speak out in a system that encourages everyone to go along and stay quiet.

Case Study: The Treadway Tire Company

This case study examines the Lima Tire Plant of Treadway Tires, specifically the high turnover rate and expressed job dissatisfaction of the plant’s line foremen. The Line foreman supervise 12 hour shifts and are responsible for a wide variety of the day in day out functions of the manufacturing line. They are also responsible for the work of the hourly waged, unionized workers. The line foreman are the lowest ranked management position in the company and are held directly responsible for meeting quotas over which they have no control in setting. The line foreman also lack control in being able to set and enforce work standards due to union interference, and lack of support from management. There is almost no training given to the line foreman and many of the people holding this position lack formal, college educations. Ashley Wall, Director of Human Resources, is charged with solving this problem.

Ashely acknowledges that a problem exists and had developed a training plan for the line foreman that would allow them to observe in the Payroll and Human Resources department in order to become more familiar with time sheets, paychecks, union contracts and disciplinary issues; however this program was never funded due to a cost cutting mandate.

There are some big problems in Lima. Among the most urgent to be solved in order to reduce turnover and increase job satisfaction are to mend the schism between workers, middle management and executive management, and to develop a system of communication that fairly addresses quotas, complaints, suggestions for improvement and morale. In order to begin this process, it is imperative that Executive management recruits middle management and the hourly workers in developing a communicating a purpose of why they are all there working and why they work together in the way they do. Hourly workers need a clear understanding, in objective terms of what their job contributes to the company. Middle management needs to take the responsibility of advocate for the hourly workers purpose and have a system by which this can be communicated to upper management. Line foreman then must develop and implement an objective way system to communicate to hourly workers how close they came to achieving their purpose within the company & what specifically could be done differently. Line foreman also need to have the authority to implement consequences when individual workers behavior goes against their common purpose. In other words, the entire plant needs to be on the same page of where they are going each shift, each day, each quarter and each year. They need to understand why it is important and exactly what they need to do to get there. It is vital that upper or executive management bring their workers and their frontline experience and suggestions into their decision making process. I also suggest that the yearly expense the plant acquires from turnover, be matched in a training budget. Line foreman need training not only in manufacturing processes, but in communication skills. The current sink or swim policy is only making matters worse and increasing the gap between workers and management. Finally, the employee appraisal system is a waste of time and resources as it doesn’t provide useful information on how to develop workers in order to increase production, profit or job satisfaction. If an appraisal system is going to be used, it needs to be more specific and aligned to shared purpose of the company so workers can use it to learn how to do their job better, not as a punishment device.



Case Study: The Men’s WearHouse

The Men’s WearHouse case study outlines a positive company culture and internal structure that is similar to several of the other successful companies we have studied this semester. Among these similarities are the active presence of a charismatic leader, slightly higher than industry average salaries and compensation packages and an emphasis on transmitting company culture and values through systematic training protocols. The most interesting part of this case study is George Zimmer’s approach to, and belief in Servant Leadership and his unique perspective on management.

George Zimmer opened his first stores in the Bay Area in the 1980’s. The company’s strategy was based on the idea that men do not like to shop, so prices were established at 20-30% below department stores and the location of the stores were not in large malls. Zimmer was charismatic and is described as using his “personal style” in the companies marketing through radio and television commercials. In 1995, Zimmer had created a strong sense of loyalty in his company.

George Zimmer believed in and developed a strong philosophy of servant leadership. He attributed a large portion of his companies’ success to the intangible idea of human potential. While other companies see the assets of their company as trademarks, equipment, or product, George saw it as the untapped resource of the people who work for him. His definition of servant leadership was very democratic “in order to make a capitalistic system work, there has to be democratization of everything-of effort and the fruits of those efforts…… we’re always looking for ways here to share the wealth and really make it win-win-win.” One of the core values of the company was to put the employee first. “Servant Leadership forces a change of perspective from the traditional Boss/Employee relationship to the Service Provider/Customer Relationship” At The MensWearhouse, the employees were the customer. “The People you work with are YOUR customers, as well as clients of the store”. Part of this strategy was the offering of employee stock ownership and the importance of touch, or personal relationships with and among employees. This concept of touch meant, above all else accessibility, that managers were visible and accessible and participatory in the daily functions of the stores. However, touch also referred to how people were dealt with. Employees and customers were expected to be treated with an “energy” of respect and engagement, that Zimmer believed they could sense and effected how they perceived their experience with The Men’s WearHouse. Straightforward, honest and behaviorally specific feedback was a priority. Zimmer emphasized that what makes people feel good about themselves is actually doing something well. In order to do something well people needed praise and constructive criticism. This is a key ingredient in developing mastery and self esteem and Zimmer got it. Zimmer’s approach to his company, through though that made his company is what set The MensWearHouse apart in a dying industry.

Case Study: The Layoff

In the HBR case study and commentary The Layoff, we are introduced to Astrigo home-improvement stores. Astrigo is facing the pressure of the recession and has missed its earning estimate by 20 cents a share. Profits have dropped and Astrigo is losing sales to its’ competitors. Robin Astrigo, the son of the founder of Astrigo and current CEO, is faced with the difficult decision of how to implement a 10% layoff and has asked members of his executive committee to research and make recommendations on how to implement the layoffs. Other than direct mention of the recession, the study provides us with limited information on why the company is performing so poorly. However, a brief introduction to some of the key players on the executive committee as they discuss their suggestions on how to handle the layoffs, gives me an overall impression that individuals in the company may put themselves and their department head of the general welfare of the company.

With in the executive committee, four standard ideas for handling layoffs were suggested. Morris, the CFO of Astrigo and the one who determined a 10% workforce reduction would generate enough savings to keep Wall Street happy, championed the “first in, first out” approach. His decision was based on the belief that the companies’ long- time employees had been treated well and were most likely able to afford a retirement. He also assumed older workers were probably dead weight. Interesting approach, based on the fact he came to this conclusion with no supporting evidence from questionnaires or employee feedback. He used his bias to make a big decision and displayed little concern for his employees. When Morris shared his idea with his partner Lisa, her main objection was the possibility of an age discrimination lawsuit against the company. Lisa suggested a performance –based layoff, or “rank-and-yank”, although she had no ideas on how to fairly and comprehensively evaluate employee performance. The two remaining suggestions provided by the executive committee were a “last in, first out” option and to eliminate a unit.

I was shocked as I read this study, that no one on the executive committee tried to save the jobs of their employees. Only the PR guy seemed to care about the workers and had enough conscious to appeal to the CEO to consider other options in order to save jobs. The options that were presented by the analysts were all feasible, my favorite being from Jurgen Dormann, who advocated that Astrigo act in alignment with its’ mission on treating employees well. He explained how being transparent with the employees about the crisis the company was facing & soliciting their ideas on where they could cut costs, rather than cut jobs, would be a good solution.

Good Leadership Requires Executives To Put Themselves Last

When humans take the responsibility of leadership within an organization, they are agreeing to serve the organization.  It is there job to do what is right, and for the matter to do the right thing, even when it means personal sacrifice.  They are paid to make decisions and take actions that support the organization, not themselves. In the 2004 online article by the Wall Street Journal, Michael Leven’s announcement of his companies’ year-end earnings for 1999, before he was obligated to do so, is used as a stand out example of doing what is right for shareholders. His action was not heroic, in my opinion it was simply an obligatory duty, the duty to communicate clearly with shareholders. But in today’s culture of corporate smoke and mirrors, simple communication on the status of a company seems to pass for an example of outstanding self-sacrifice.

Steven Covey: New Wine, Old Bottles

Steven Covey’s article on servant-leadership argues the importance of developing and “empowering” individuals and teams in order to achieve a shared purpose with in an organization. Perhaps the most useful segment of the article are the specific steps he outlines in order to transfer power and accountability away from the “manager” and into the hands of the individual, on behalf of the organization. The three steps to transformation suggested by Covey are as follows:

1. Build a relationship of trust–  Create a horizontal, not vertical relationship based on respect and equality.  The “leader” must develop and live according to the perspective that all roles, although different, are vital and equal to the shared purpose of the company. This mentality and culture is the foundation for a meaningful performance agreement.
2. 2. Create a new psychological contract or performance agreement–  This clear and up-front agreement requires a mutual commitment in purpose, guidelines, resources, accountability, and consequences. It is in the accomplishment of this step that the power and responsibility for results is transferred.
3. 3. Leader becomes the servant and source of help –  Once this agreement is accepted and has complete buy in by all parties, then people can do whatever is necessary within the guidelines to achieve the desired results.

This model seems ideal to me. I’ve had the opportunity to work with a genuine servant-leader and it was the best professional experience of my life. I know the challenges that come along with this model, buy-in is far more important than can be imagined, but I am a believer!

WSJ: How a Marine Lost His Command In Race to Baghdad

In this article by Christopher Cooper, we learn of the story of Marine Col. Joe Dowdy, a leader who after attacking an elite band of Iraqi troops and leading 6,000 men to Baghdad, was stripped of his command.  My first reaction is to judge. Judge this as unfair, or unwarranted. However, if I can suspend my need to judge, realizing that most humans judge things they agree with as “good or right” and thing that threaten them or what they know as “bad or wrong”, I have to face a fact of life. This fact is, just because we make decisions that are right for us, and maybe even right for those we our decisions may affect, we may not get praise for our decisions. We may even get stripped of our command, or fired, or disciplined. Doing the right thing must be done with out the delusion that everything will be good for us because we made a moral or good choice. We may get what we consider negative consequences when we break the change of command.

I am not saying that fear of negative consequences should keep us from doing what we know to be right, what I am saying, is it is important to prepare ourselves that the world we live in and work in wont always celebrate us for doing it. As leaders, we need to learn to be ok with sleeping well at night because of the way we lived, the decisions we made, and the things we did.

WSJ: LT Withers

In the Wall Street Journal article on Lt. Withers, Bryan Gruley presents a touching account of the long-standing impact of humane and compassionate leadership. The story began in 1945, when Lt. Withers learned that his men had been hiding refugees from the recently liberated Dachau concentration camp. Lt. Withers’ plan was to remove the strangers, but on meeting them, he violated Army orders and allowed “Peewee” and “Salomon” to remain with his all black supply convoy.

Lt. John Withers was a newly promoted US Black soldier, who had suffered poverty and discrimination in the states. Keeping a clean record and standing out in the military was his opportunity to secure a more dignified and stable future for himself. However, Withers put his future at risk when he consciously broke military orders to avoid contact with the Dachau prisoners, in order to care for the prisoners. As a result of this choice both “Peewee” and “Salomon” regained their health and strength, and Withers was changed by the two prisoners hopeful and open attitude despite the trauma they had suffered at the hands of the Nazi’s.

This story reminds us of that when we step into the role of leaders, rather than just managers, we choose a level of responsibility that often requires us to make tough decisions, put our own agendas down, and take responsibility for the lives of those we are entrusted to. It also shows that when we, as leaders, do this, we gain more in service to others, than we could ever gain if only serving our own best interest.

Level Five Leadership

When I think of the stereotype of the ultimate leader, an image of a charismatic, outspoken, and larger than life individual is often the first image that comes to mind. However, when I reflect back on leaders I have worked for that have inspired me to achieve my best, while simultaneously moving the entire organization to greater heights, the person looked quite different than my imagined archetype. As a matter of fact, very few people I have spoken to, or read about credit great leadership to the “gargantuan ego” type of leader that we all seem to know so well through the media.

It turns out, according to research by Jim Collins and his team, data supports that the best leaders, are not ego-maniacs, but rather a paradox of ferocious professional will mixed with personal humility. Five years of research, determined that leaders who are more committed to the institution they work for than to their own personal motives seem to have the ability to deflect the trapping of taking their power personally and direct it towards the good of the company. What the research was not able to determine was whether or not this ability was innate, or something that could be learned and replicated. In reviewing the life stories of many of these Level 5 leaders, one consistency in their life stories was overcoming a traumatic event such as war or cancer. Although it is not proven through research, I would like to believe that these leaders learned and develop some powerful insights, through experience, that developed their character.