John Hamm May 2006 Issue Reprint # R0605G
Harvard Business Review
Abstract: If you want to know why so many organizations sink into chaos, look no further than their leaders' mouths. Over and over, leaders present grand, overarching--yet fuzzy--notions of where they think the company is going. They assume everyone shares their definitions of "vision," "accountability," and "results." The result is often sloppy behavior and misalignment that can cost a company dearly.
Effective communication is a leader's most critical tool for doing the essential job of leadership: inspiring the organization to take responsibility for creating a better future. Five topics wield extraordinary influence within a company: organizational structure and hierarchy, financial results, the leader's sense of his or her job, time management, and corporate culture. Properly defined, disseminated, and controlled, these topics give the leader opportunities for increased accountability and substantially better performance.
For example, one CEO always keeps communications about hierarchy admirably brief and to the point. When he realized he needed to realign internal resources, he told the staff: "I'm changing the structure of resources so that we can execute more effectively." After unveiling a new organization chart, he said, "It's 10:45. You have until noon to be annoyed, should that be your reaction. At noon, pizza will be served. At one o'clock, we go to work in our new positions." The most effective leaders ask themselves, "What needs to happen today to get where we want to go? What vague belief or notion can I clarify or debunk?"
A CEO who communicates precisely to 10 direct reports, each of whom communicates with equal precision to 40 other employees, aligns the organization's commitment and energy with a well-understood vision of the firm's real goals and opportunities.
Tuesday, December 26, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
Growth as a Process, Jack Welch "GE" Leadership
Jeffrey R. Immelt, Thomas A. Stewart June 2006 Issue Reprint # R0606C
Harvard Business Review, The HBR Interview
Under Jack Welch's leadership, General Electric's managers applied their imaginations relentlessly to the task of making work more efficient. Jeffrey Immelt succeeded Welch as CEO on September 7, 2001, just in time to see the world change. Corporate scandals and terrorist attacks shook the global economy. In this fundamentally altered context, Immelt knew that GE could not simply cling to its status quo.
Harvard Business Review offers the first deep look under the hood of Immelt's GE. In a conversation with editor Tom Stewart, Immelt was quick to point out that he is not leading a revolution; productivity is still important. But the new focus is on achieving organic revenue growth--and plenty of it. Immelt has set the audacious goal of increasing annual revenues from GE's existing businesses at two to three times the rate of global GDP growth. Hitting that target will depend on deep cultural change and, in Immelt's words, "making it personal" for every one of his managers. He's not afraid to pull the necessary levers.
He has overseen changes to the company's famed talent management process (now, the highest potential executives are the ones who exhibit "growth leadership traits"); established new performance metrics; invested in new marketing capabilities and R&D resources; and created new mechanisms to flag promising ideas. Immelt expects positive results from each of these moves, but the real payoff comes from combining them in a process design he calls "Execute for Growth."
It's vital, he believes, to cast growth as a process because that allows him to tap into a traditional strength of the organization--its process orientation--and put it in the service of the new goal. Meanwhile, investors are reassured to the extent that GE's recent stellar organic growth seems like the reliable and repeatable output of a well-designed process.
Harvard Business Review, The HBR Interview
Under Jack Welch's leadership, General Electric's managers applied their imaginations relentlessly to the task of making work more efficient. Jeffrey Immelt succeeded Welch as CEO on September 7, 2001, just in time to see the world change. Corporate scandals and terrorist attacks shook the global economy. In this fundamentally altered context, Immelt knew that GE could not simply cling to its status quo.
Harvard Business Review offers the first deep look under the hood of Immelt's GE. In a conversation with editor Tom Stewart, Immelt was quick to point out that he is not leading a revolution; productivity is still important. But the new focus is on achieving organic revenue growth--and plenty of it. Immelt has set the audacious goal of increasing annual revenues from GE's existing businesses at two to three times the rate of global GDP growth. Hitting that target will depend on deep cultural change and, in Immelt's words, "making it personal" for every one of his managers. He's not afraid to pull the necessary levers.
He has overseen changes to the company's famed talent management process (now, the highest potential executives are the ones who exhibit "growth leadership traits"); established new performance metrics; invested in new marketing capabilities and R&D resources; and created new mechanisms to flag promising ideas. Immelt expects positive results from each of these moves, but the real payoff comes from combining them in a process design he calls "Execute for Growth."
It's vital, he believes, to cast growth as a process because that allows him to tap into a traditional strength of the organization--its process orientation--and put it in the service of the new goal. Meanwhile, investors are reassured to the extent that GE's recent stellar organic growth seems like the reliable and repeatable output of a well-designed process.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Home Depot's Blueprint for Culture Change
Ram Charan April 2006 Issue Reprint # R0604C
Harvard Business Review
Abstract:What could be harder than turning around a seemingly wildly successful company by imposing a centralized framework on a heretofore radically decentralized, antiestablishment, free-spirited organization? That was the challenge GE alumnus Robert Nardelli faced when he abruptly succeeded Home Depot's popular founders, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, as the top executive in December 2000.
Talk about a shock: No one expected Marcus and Blank, both in their 50s, to leave. And, as Nardelli himself acknowledges, the last thing anyone wanted was an outsider who would "GE-ize their company and culture." But despite its glossy high-growth exterior, Home Depot was standing on shaky financial footings.
Rapid expansion had stretched cash flow, inventory turns, profits, and store manager ranks thin. Each store's vaunted independence was making the company as a whole highly inflexible, unable to take advantage of economies of scale. What so effectively got Home Depot from zero to $50 billion in sales wasn't going to get it to the next $50 billion. The story of the vision, strategy, and leadership skills Nardelli used to move Home Depot to the next level has been told. But vision, strategy, and leadership alone--while necessary--are not enough.
Typically, culture change is unsystematic and, when it works, is based on the charisma of the person leading the change, Ram Charan says. "But Home Depot shows--in perhaps the best example I have seen in my 30-year career--that a cultural transition can be achieved systematically."
In this article, Charan lays out the panoply of tools that, wielded in a coordinated and systematic fashion, enabled Home Depot to get a grip on its freewheeling culture so that the company could reap--and sustain--the advantages inherent in its size. Many an up-and-coming company would do well to look to this model to gain similar advantage when the time comes to exchange the thrill of entrepreneurial spirit for the strength of established power.
Harvard Business Review
Abstract:What could be harder than turning around a seemingly wildly successful company by imposing a centralized framework on a heretofore radically decentralized, antiestablishment, free-spirited organization? That was the challenge GE alumnus Robert Nardelli faced when he abruptly succeeded Home Depot's popular founders, Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, as the top executive in December 2000.
Talk about a shock: No one expected Marcus and Blank, both in their 50s, to leave. And, as Nardelli himself acknowledges, the last thing anyone wanted was an outsider who would "GE-ize their company and culture." But despite its glossy high-growth exterior, Home Depot was standing on shaky financial footings.
Rapid expansion had stretched cash flow, inventory turns, profits, and store manager ranks thin. Each store's vaunted independence was making the company as a whole highly inflexible, unable to take advantage of economies of scale. What so effectively got Home Depot from zero to $50 billion in sales wasn't going to get it to the next $50 billion. The story of the vision, strategy, and leadership skills Nardelli used to move Home Depot to the next level has been told. But vision, strategy, and leadership alone--while necessary--are not enough.
Typically, culture change is unsystematic and, when it works, is based on the charisma of the person leading the change, Ram Charan says. "But Home Depot shows--in perhaps the best example I have seen in my 30-year career--that a cultural transition can be achieved systematically."
In this article, Charan lays out the panoply of tools that, wielded in a coordinated and systematic fashion, enabled Home Depot to get a grip on its freewheeling culture so that the company could reap--and sustain--the advantages inherent in its size. Many an up-and-coming company would do well to look to this model to gain similar advantage when the time comes to exchange the thrill of entrepreneurial spirit for the strength of established power.
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Growing Talent as If Your Business Depended on It
Jeffrey M. Cohn, Rakesh Khurana, Laura Reeves October 2005 Issue Reprint # R0510C
Harvard Business Review
Abstract:Traditionally, corporate boards have left leadership planning and development very much up to their CEOs and human resources departments--primarily because they don't perceive that a lack of leadership development in their companies poses the same kind of threat that accounting blunders or missed earnings do. That's a shortsighted view, the authors argue.
Companies whose boards and senior executives fail to prioritize succession planning and leadership development end up experiencing a steady attrition in talent and becoming extremely vulnerable when they have to cope with inevitable upheavals--integrating an acquired company with a different operating style and culture, for instance, or reexamining basic operating assumptions when a competitor with a leaner cost structure emerges.
Firms that haven't focused on their systems for building their bench strength will probably make wrong decisions in these situations. In this article, the authors explain what makes a successful leadership development program, based on their research over the past few years with companies in a range of industries.
They describe how several forward-thinking companies (Tyson Foods, Starbucks, and Mellon Financial, in particular) are implementing smart, integrated, talent development initiatives. A leadership development program should not comprise stand-alone, ad hoc activities coordinated by the human resources department, the authors say.
A company's leadership development processes should align with strategic priorities. From the board of directors on down, senior executives should be deeply involved in finding and growing talent, and line managers should be evaluated and promoted expressly for their contributions to the organizationwide effort. HR should be allowed to create development tools and facilitate their use, but the business units should take responsibility for development activities, and the board should ultimately oversee the whole system.
Harvard Business Review
Abstract:Traditionally, corporate boards have left leadership planning and development very much up to their CEOs and human resources departments--primarily because they don't perceive that a lack of leadership development in their companies poses the same kind of threat that accounting blunders or missed earnings do. That's a shortsighted view, the authors argue.
Companies whose boards and senior executives fail to prioritize succession planning and leadership development end up experiencing a steady attrition in talent and becoming extremely vulnerable when they have to cope with inevitable upheavals--integrating an acquired company with a different operating style and culture, for instance, or reexamining basic operating assumptions when a competitor with a leaner cost structure emerges.
Firms that haven't focused on their systems for building their bench strength will probably make wrong decisions in these situations. In this article, the authors explain what makes a successful leadership development program, based on their research over the past few years with companies in a range of industries.
They describe how several forward-thinking companies (Tyson Foods, Starbucks, and Mellon Financial, in particular) are implementing smart, integrated, talent development initiatives. A leadership development program should not comprise stand-alone, ad hoc activities coordinated by the human resources department, the authors say.
A company's leadership development processes should align with strategic priorities. From the board of directors on down, senior executives should be deeply involved in finding and growing talent, and line managers should be evaluated and promoted expressly for their contributions to the organizationwide effort. HR should be allowed to create development tools and facilitate their use, but the business units should take responsibility for development activities, and the board should ultimately oversee the whole system.
Wednesday, December 13, 2006
Managing Multicultural Teams
Jeanne Brett, Kristin Behfar, Mary C. Kern November 2006 Issue Reprint # R0611D Harvard Business Review
Abstract:Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring it to a stalemate.
How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making.
If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed).
Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.
Abstract:Multicultural teams offer a number of advantages to international firms, including deep knowledge of different product markets, culturally sensitive customer service, and 24-hour work rotations. But those advantages may be outweighed by problems stemming from cultural differences, which can seriously impair the effectiveness of a team or even bring it to a stalemate.
How can managers best cope with culture-based challenges? The authors conducted in-depth interviews with managers and members of multicultural teams from all over the world. Drawing on their extensive research on dispute resolution and teamwork and those interviews, they identify four problem categories that can create barriers to a team's success: direct versus indirect communication, trouble with accents and fluency, differing attitudes toward hierarchy and authority, and conflicting norms for decision making.
If a manager--or a team member--can pinpoint the root cause of the problem, he or she is likelier to select an appropriate strategy for solving it. The most successful teams and managers, the authors found, dealt with multicultural challenges in one of four ways: adaptation (acknowledging cultural gaps openly and working around them), structural intervention (changing the shape or makeup of the team), managerial intervention (setting norms early or bringing in a higher-level manager), and exit (removing a team member when other options have failed).
Which strategy is best depends on the particular circumstances--and each has potential complications. In general, though, managers who intervene early and set norms; teams and managers who try to engage everyone on the team; and teams that can see challenges as stemming from culture, not personality, succeed in solving culture-based problems with good humor and creativity. They are the likeliest to harvest the benefits inherent in multicultural teams.
Tuesday, December 12, 2006
How to Implement a New Strategy Without Disrupting Your Organization
Robert S. Kaplan, David P. Norton March 2006 Issue Reprint # R0603G Harvard Business Review
Abstract:Throughout most of modern business history, corporations have attempted to unlock value by matching their structures to their strategies: Centralization by function. Decentralization by product category or geographic region. Matrix organizations that attempt both at once. Virtual organizations. Networked organizations. Velcro organizations. But none of these approaches has worked very well. Restructuring churn is expensive, and new structures often create new organizational problems that are as troublesome as the ones they try to solve.
It takes time for employees to adapt to them, they create legacy systems that refuse to die, and a great deal of tacit knowledge gets lost in the process. Given the costs and difficulties involved in finding structural ways to unlock value, it's fair to raise the question: Is structural change the right tool for the job? The answer is usually no, Kaplan and Norton contend.
It's far less disruptive to choose an organizational design that works without major conflicts and then design a customized strategic system to align that structure to the strategy. A management system based on the Balanced Scorecard framework is the best way to align strategy and structure, the authors suggest. Managers can use the tools of the framework to drive their unit's performance: strategy maps to define and communicate the company's value proposition and the scorecard to implement and monitor the strategy.
In this article, the originators of the Balanced Scorecard describe how two hugely different organizations--DuPont and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police--used corporate scorecards and strategy maps organized around strategic themes to realize the enormous value that their portfolios of assets, people, and skills represented. As a result, they did not have to endure a painful series of changes that simply replaced one rigid structure with another.
Abstract:Throughout most of modern business history, corporations have attempted to unlock value by matching their structures to their strategies: Centralization by function. Decentralization by product category or geographic region. Matrix organizations that attempt both at once. Virtual organizations. Networked organizations. Velcro organizations. But none of these approaches has worked very well. Restructuring churn is expensive, and new structures often create new organizational problems that are as troublesome as the ones they try to solve.
It takes time for employees to adapt to them, they create legacy systems that refuse to die, and a great deal of tacit knowledge gets lost in the process. Given the costs and difficulties involved in finding structural ways to unlock value, it's fair to raise the question: Is structural change the right tool for the job? The answer is usually no, Kaplan and Norton contend.
It's far less disruptive to choose an organizational design that works without major conflicts and then design a customized strategic system to align that structure to the strategy. A management system based on the Balanced Scorecard framework is the best way to align strategy and structure, the authors suggest. Managers can use the tools of the framework to drive their unit's performance: strategy maps to define and communicate the company's value proposition and the scorecard to implement and monitor the strategy.
In this article, the originators of the Balanced Scorecard describe how two hugely different organizations--DuPont and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police--used corporate scorecards and strategy maps organized around strategic themes to realize the enormous value that their portfolios of assets, people, and skills represented. As a result, they did not have to endure a painful series of changes that simply replaced one rigid structure with another.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Welcome to The Organization Development Management Blog! An on-line blog on the topic of O.D. Please feel free to post and exchange topics on O.D., Appreciative Inquiry, Change Management, Team Building, Human Resources, Performance Improvement, Organizational Culture, Diversity Management, Upcoming Conferences, Books & Publications, Committees, Newsletters, & Surveys! -- an innovative approach to positive information exchange.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
