A most interesting point which occurred to me when examining the case of Nordstrom’s Department Store, and the legal troubles they had with their employees in the early 1990’s, was the similarity between the behaviors displayed by “Nordies” and the employees at Southwest Airlines. At both companies employees went above and beyond to serve their customers; they worked “off the clock”, they spent personal wages on parties for fellow employees, and they made personal luggage and purchase deliveries to homes. However employees at Southwest are almost spiritually devoted to their company and at Nordstrom a large percentage of workers sued the company. The real question is why such different reactions to similar expected behaviors? Why do we praise/accept one system and denigrate another when both encourage the same types of behaviors? The answer is that Nordstrom created a system to capitalize on its employees’ hard work, evolved a culture that implemented the system to perfection, while the executives spouted shallow rhetoric about “self-empowerment” and entrepreneurship, all resulting in a work environment that became increasingly toxic as the company reached a peak of sales success toward the end of 1980’s.
First one must agree that extraordinary activities done to service Nordstrom customers, or take care of the store, were not voluntary. The culture created by middle management, where “team players” frequently worked off the clock and were rewarded for it in many ways, enabled the compensation system to continue to work despite its unfairness and possible illegality. Upper management maintained throughout that if people were working off the clock then it was voluntary and isolated, when in fact it was pressured and pervasive. Positive punishment and negative reinforcement techniques were utilized, possibly unwittingly, by department and middle management to perpetuate the poor system. What is meant by positive punishment is the rewarding of undesirable behavior. In the case of Nordstrom, employees that left hours off of their timecards (albeit to boost their sales per hour and therefore their commissions, but according to upper management and the law for waged employees this was undesired) were rewarded by their managers extrinsically with the best floor hours and intrinsically with praise for being a team player and recognition in front of their colleagues etc. Conversely, employees that displayed the desired, and legal, behavior of reporting all the hours they worked on their timecards were negatively reinforced by their managers’ withholding of certain privileged hours. This would prove especially frustrating, and confusing, for employees as they were acting properly, displaying the proper behaviors, and were never reaping rewards. These employees were never receiving commission payouts either as validly reporting one’s hours led of course to a larger denominator, and therefore lower sales per hour number. Finally, it was these frustrations that led employees to take their case to the law.
One can see how the punishment and reinforcement techniques used at the department and store levels could drive the practices of not reporting work hours, this practice though was a result of the culture created through the usage of sales per hour (SPH) as a measuring stick for the entire operation. First you have a salesperson paid commissions on sales per hour providing the surface motivation for not reporting hours (coupled with the powerful techniques employed above). Then you have department managers that are measured on the SPH numbers of their salespeople, therefore motivating them into the reinforcement and punishment behaviors above. Allegedly certain managers even put “out of order” signs on time-clocks when their salespeople came in to do inventory on the weekend, so hours could not be reported. Sales floors became so competitive with a “win-not-lose” mentality that ethics were often compromised. Meaning that when one concentrates on winning at all costs it is nothing to steal a fellow employees’ sales numbers. Then above them you have store managers who are measured on the SPH numbers achieved by the different departments of their store, and who utilized those numbers to determine promotions. Therefore if one wanted to make hefty commissions, work the more lucrative floor hours, or get promoted at Nordstrom one had simply to play ball and not report all the hours they worked.
It is clear by the statements made by upper management that they realized how this system worked because when they first attempted to rectify and settle wage grievances they reinstituted the same practices in their system. Though sales activities were clarified further for employees, it remained that to achieve a healthy SPH one was still required to not report work hours. The unfortunate thing for one to observe is the lack of true engagement with the front line employees with upper management. Upper management relied on the systems they put in place, and turned a blind eye when it was apparent it resulted in unfair wage practices, chalking it up to voluntary activities which were as explained above truly involuntary. Nordstrom used its employees while deluding themselves into thinking that they were fostering entrepreneurial behaviors when in reality they were not imparting any ownership to their front line. This is where the true difference between Nordstrom and Southwest Airlines is illustrated. Importantly first the culture at Southwest was radically different, and was built on the foundation of teamwork and success of the whole. This culture was reinforced by the compensation systems the company put in place such as offering stock options for example which gives Southwest employees true ownership in the company and the stimulus for going above and beyond. Southwest is also very specific and purposeful in its hiring processes, and clear in its expectations of its front line employees. Nordstrom however, did not offer stock options to employees, and was intentionally deceptive about its sales per hour systems. Interviewed employees stated that “it becomes clear to most Nordstrom salespeople soon after they are hired that the store’s commission-selling program effectively penalizes any salesperson who insists on getting paid for every hour worked.” Employees should work hard at their jobs that is given, however when one is being paid hourly, not collecting a salary, it is the law that those employees be paid for the time they worked. Even if one is attempting to provide extraordinary customer service by for example driving a purchase over to a customer’s home in a bid to receive an Nordstrom “Customer Service All-Star” award it is clear that all that mattered was your SPH number. Providing excellent service was just management rhetoric. One eight year Nordstrom employee stated “In the end, really serving the customer, being an All-Star, meant nothing, if you had low sales per hour, you were forced out…”
This situation is common in many retail environments that track sales this way. One particular bank whose upper management team states repeatedly that their goal is always customer service, that they want their salespeople to operate on a need-based sales attitude, and that serving their long-time customers is primary to all their branches, employ similar systems that superficially reward customer service meanwhile the time needed by their front line employees to actually provide excellent service takes away from the time that employee needs to sell products in order to make commissions and retain their position. As at Nordstrom this bank’s employees are often frustrated by their inability to make sales numbers because all their time was spent assisting customers with issues where no sale was available. The same bank handed out numerous certificates, and offered praise, for high customer review numbers, but when paychecks came out and raises were extended, those excellent reviews were meaningless in the face of raw sales numbers.
It is not the focus on sales numbers that is particularly frustrating in these two cases (Nordstrom and the bank) it is the hypocritical attitude displayed by management throughout the organization. At Nordstrom upper management decried that they would ever require someone to work off the clock, but they instituted a system that resulted in that exact behavior and used the employees in the system to boost their sales numbers and reduce their costs, basically creating their competitive advantage through unfair labor practices. The system itself led to a culture that exacerbated and perpetuated these practices. In conclusion, Nordstrom deserved to be sued for back wages and in the future they should be more straightforward with their employees about what is expected and simply offer them the true ownership they claim to anyway in the form of stock options and salaries.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Twelve O'clock High - The Ultimate Leader
Twelve O’clock High chronicles the tale of a bomber regiment in World War II, headed by the incomparable General Frank Savage. Savage’s results as the leader of the 918th can be stated as nothing short of exceptional, and observing his behaviors and the relationships he builds throughout the war is a study in leadership under extremely difficult circumstances. Wartime is one of the most difficult environments a person can experience, and one where a person is challenged to perform extraordinary behaviors, but interestingly one where personality must not be a determining factor in performance, and that the system must function perfectly. Meaning simply that in war people are wounded and killed and someone must take their place and absorb their functions with immediacy and effectiveness not often required in the business world. Frank Savage’s personality is important to his success as the leader of the 918th but not crucial, evident in Major Stowall’s statement regarding the difference between Savage and Merrill being “two inches in height”; however they had disparate results with the same organization.
The film begins with the failure over a period of Colonel Davenport, original commander of the 918th, and pointedly the General in charge questions Davenport’s failure stating, “But he looks so good on paper… man like that can’t cut it, we’re in trouble.” As one would expect, the General is most assuredly receiving harsh criticism from his superiors due to the 918th’s troubles, but he regards the situation properly, does not make the fundamental attribution error and just blame Davenport, instead he grabs his hat and goes to speak directly with Davenport. Through skillfully approaching and questioning Davenport (the General simply states that “A man makes his own luck” and avoids blaming Davenport therefore diffusing the detrimental natural defensiveness one would display in Davenport’s position) about the errors made on his latest mission. The General realizes that Davenport had become too attached to his men and a change in command was needed, relieving his command with a brief “A man has only so much to give and you’ve given it”. Therefore he assigns Frank Savage to command the group. Savage behaved admirably throughout the entire development as he removed the rose-colored glasses to truly examine his friend Davenport’s performance, he brings his friend’s failings to the attention of his superior, and most importantly is prepared to assume Davenport’s position when he criticizes Davenport’s performance. This is crucial because Davenport is such an able person, and would typically become defensive of his efforts, which were substantial, probably lashing out at Savage with statements such as “Well, why don’t you take over then?” as most are want to do when put in Davenport’s shoes. As Savage is prepared to assume the reigns he feels more comfortable criticizing his friend (he also knows him well and is therefore less inclined to make the fundamental attribution error and more likely to turn his attention to the system) displaying excellent leadership skills.
Subsequently, Savage begins command of the 918th with his stated goal being to give them pride in their accomplishments, to achieve a group attitude that “the last thing a man will want is to be left on the ground.” However Frank knows that the system at Archbury is broken, otherwise his capable friend would not have been broken, and his approach is to redraw the black lines that the military intended on the base by becoming very strict. Savage adopts the opposite attitude of Davenport, who was buddy-buddy with his “boys”, as he sees discipline lacking on the base. He also reprimands personnel immediately, makes necessary personnel changes, and closes the saloon on the base, all to signal to the troops that a change in the failing system has begun, and that he intends to mold the group into a successful combat unit. Discipline is crucial in this situation because the safety of the troops depends entirely on their ability to maintain proper formation on their bombing runs, which of course would allow for zero buffer zone in the system, something that Davenport may have realized but because of his personal closeness with his men he could not see. This is illustrated in his refusal to replace his navigator. Interestingly the troops immediately attempt to rebel, but Savage has anticipated this knowing that if he can show them mission success and a safe return his men will begin to trust his judgment and actions. Though we are not privy to Savage’s personality in his previous command one can tell that Savage himself is not usually a strict disciplinarian, but he sees the problems in the system as resulting from a lack of discipline, therefore he amends his own personality enough to result in the disciplinarian behaviors required by his position at the moment. Gregory Peck does an excellent job of portraying this change when his character, Frank Savage, first arrives at Archbury, and he reprimands the gate guard for not checking his credentials.
Savage’s leadership skills, specifically his abilities as a contingent leader, are displayed through interactions with two of his soldiers Lt. Colonel Gately, and Lt. Bishop. Gately is the son and nephew of decorated high-ranking officers who, until Savage arrives, has been underachieving for his skill set. Instead of ignoring him, or cutting him loose, Savage skillfully berates Gately in private challenging his bravery and honor and then demotes him to commanding an airplane full of ‘failures’ ordering him to paint “Leper Colony” on the nose. By calling Gately “yellow” Savage flips the internal motivation switch for Gately. Gately knows he is brave, honorable, a well-trained experienced pilot, but because throughout his life people have always only seen his last name he hasn’t yet had the situation to prove to others what he knows about him. Because Savage treats him with an honesty, equality, and fairness he had yet to experience, Savage spurs him to action and Gately eventually rises to the challenges placed before him. The honest assessment Savage gives him in their first meeting, coupled with the commitment he makes to Gately to stick it out with him, proves beginning of the foundation of trust further setting the tone for Savages’ interactions with the entire group. Tailoring his leadership style to what is needed for each situation Savage’s conversation second private conversation with Bishop is key to group cohesion as he adeptly uses words like “we” and “us” displaying to Bishop that he is a partner leader, that he values Bishop’s opinion as an able mid-level leader. Again Savage shows the variability in his approach contingent to the situation, and Bishop hears what he needs from Savage to enable him to withdraw his original application for transfer.
The true transformation in the 918th comes when Savage pilots a plane on a mission where every group abandons their mission because of poor weather. Savage daringly ignores the command to return, feigning ignorance, and leads the group to an extremely successful result. Key to this mission was Savage’s putting himself at personal risk at the helm of a bomber, a behavior that validates him as a commander to his troops that were specifically skeptical of his abilities when he stayed on the ground. Not unlike Savage’s preparedness to assume command of the 918th his piloting of the bomber exampled his willingness to take the reigns in the face of his own criticism. Following the mission Savage displays a most important leadership characteristic in that he humbly requests commendation for his troops but not for himself. Humility in success is the way a leader can prove through action that he values the contributions of his personnel. This finally leads to Savage getting a cheer when he commends the group in a briefing; an action that prior to these actions elicited no response whatsoever.
In the film’s final act, Savage is temporarily broken. The death of certain personnel, and rigors of the wartime environment, finally starts to take its toll on the hero, and he breaks-down before leaving on a mission. The changes that Savage has made in the system at Archbury however stands true, and all the disciplinary action, personnel shifting, piloting missions, and even commendations made proves sufficient as the mission is successful even without its leader at the helm. Davenport makes a pointed comment proving that Savages’ changes in the system had been successful stating that “You’re riding in every crew station and in every cockpit.” Therefore his men remembered and embodied his teachings and system he established, they recalled the pride he had helped them generate in themselves, and they executed their mission to near perfection. This must be the goal of any leader regardless of the organization they are in, to establish a system that functions without the presence of their personality, and that their teachings are in the forefront of all their people’s minds so that each person can execute their function within the system to the best of their abilities.
The film begins with the failure over a period of Colonel Davenport, original commander of the 918th, and pointedly the General in charge questions Davenport’s failure stating, “But he looks so good on paper… man like that can’t cut it, we’re in trouble.” As one would expect, the General is most assuredly receiving harsh criticism from his superiors due to the 918th’s troubles, but he regards the situation properly, does not make the fundamental attribution error and just blame Davenport, instead he grabs his hat and goes to speak directly with Davenport. Through skillfully approaching and questioning Davenport (the General simply states that “A man makes his own luck” and avoids blaming Davenport therefore diffusing the detrimental natural defensiveness one would display in Davenport’s position) about the errors made on his latest mission. The General realizes that Davenport had become too attached to his men and a change in command was needed, relieving his command with a brief “A man has only so much to give and you’ve given it”. Therefore he assigns Frank Savage to command the group. Savage behaved admirably throughout the entire development as he removed the rose-colored glasses to truly examine his friend Davenport’s performance, he brings his friend’s failings to the attention of his superior, and most importantly is prepared to assume Davenport’s position when he criticizes Davenport’s performance. This is crucial because Davenport is such an able person, and would typically become defensive of his efforts, which were substantial, probably lashing out at Savage with statements such as “Well, why don’t you take over then?” as most are want to do when put in Davenport’s shoes. As Savage is prepared to assume the reigns he feels more comfortable criticizing his friend (he also knows him well and is therefore less inclined to make the fundamental attribution error and more likely to turn his attention to the system) displaying excellent leadership skills.
Subsequently, Savage begins command of the 918th with his stated goal being to give them pride in their accomplishments, to achieve a group attitude that “the last thing a man will want is to be left on the ground.” However Frank knows that the system at Archbury is broken, otherwise his capable friend would not have been broken, and his approach is to redraw the black lines that the military intended on the base by becoming very strict. Savage adopts the opposite attitude of Davenport, who was buddy-buddy with his “boys”, as he sees discipline lacking on the base. He also reprimands personnel immediately, makes necessary personnel changes, and closes the saloon on the base, all to signal to the troops that a change in the failing system has begun, and that he intends to mold the group into a successful combat unit. Discipline is crucial in this situation because the safety of the troops depends entirely on their ability to maintain proper formation on their bombing runs, which of course would allow for zero buffer zone in the system, something that Davenport may have realized but because of his personal closeness with his men he could not see. This is illustrated in his refusal to replace his navigator. Interestingly the troops immediately attempt to rebel, but Savage has anticipated this knowing that if he can show them mission success and a safe return his men will begin to trust his judgment and actions. Though we are not privy to Savage’s personality in his previous command one can tell that Savage himself is not usually a strict disciplinarian, but he sees the problems in the system as resulting from a lack of discipline, therefore he amends his own personality enough to result in the disciplinarian behaviors required by his position at the moment. Gregory Peck does an excellent job of portraying this change when his character, Frank Savage, first arrives at Archbury, and he reprimands the gate guard for not checking his credentials.
Savage’s leadership skills, specifically his abilities as a contingent leader, are displayed through interactions with two of his soldiers Lt. Colonel Gately, and Lt. Bishop. Gately is the son and nephew of decorated high-ranking officers who, until Savage arrives, has been underachieving for his skill set. Instead of ignoring him, or cutting him loose, Savage skillfully berates Gately in private challenging his bravery and honor and then demotes him to commanding an airplane full of ‘failures’ ordering him to paint “Leper Colony” on the nose. By calling Gately “yellow” Savage flips the internal motivation switch for Gately. Gately knows he is brave, honorable, a well-trained experienced pilot, but because throughout his life people have always only seen his last name he hasn’t yet had the situation to prove to others what he knows about him. Because Savage treats him with an honesty, equality, and fairness he had yet to experience, Savage spurs him to action and Gately eventually rises to the challenges placed before him. The honest assessment Savage gives him in their first meeting, coupled with the commitment he makes to Gately to stick it out with him, proves beginning of the foundation of trust further setting the tone for Savages’ interactions with the entire group. Tailoring his leadership style to what is needed for each situation Savage’s conversation second private conversation with Bishop is key to group cohesion as he adeptly uses words like “we” and “us” displaying to Bishop that he is a partner leader, that he values Bishop’s opinion as an able mid-level leader. Again Savage shows the variability in his approach contingent to the situation, and Bishop hears what he needs from Savage to enable him to withdraw his original application for transfer.
The true transformation in the 918th comes when Savage pilots a plane on a mission where every group abandons their mission because of poor weather. Savage daringly ignores the command to return, feigning ignorance, and leads the group to an extremely successful result. Key to this mission was Savage’s putting himself at personal risk at the helm of a bomber, a behavior that validates him as a commander to his troops that were specifically skeptical of his abilities when he stayed on the ground. Not unlike Savage’s preparedness to assume command of the 918th his piloting of the bomber exampled his willingness to take the reigns in the face of his own criticism. Following the mission Savage displays a most important leadership characteristic in that he humbly requests commendation for his troops but not for himself. Humility in success is the way a leader can prove through action that he values the contributions of his personnel. This finally leads to Savage getting a cheer when he commends the group in a briefing; an action that prior to these actions elicited no response whatsoever.
In the film’s final act, Savage is temporarily broken. The death of certain personnel, and rigors of the wartime environment, finally starts to take its toll on the hero, and he breaks-down before leaving on a mission. The changes that Savage has made in the system at Archbury however stands true, and all the disciplinary action, personnel shifting, piloting missions, and even commendations made proves sufficient as the mission is successful even without its leader at the helm. Davenport makes a pointed comment proving that Savages’ changes in the system had been successful stating that “You’re riding in every crew station and in every cockpit.” Therefore his men remembered and embodied his teachings and system he established, they recalled the pride he had helped them generate in themselves, and they executed their mission to near perfection. This must be the goal of any leader regardless of the organization they are in, to establish a system that functions without the presence of their personality, and that their teachings are in the forefront of all their people’s minds so that each person can execute their function within the system to the best of their abilities.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The outside consultant and the case of the unhappy CEO...
Specialty Medical Chemicals (SMC) have found themselves in the position that every company eventually does, they are at the zenith of their growth curve (or are very close) and must make changes to their pathway not just to maintain their current position but to advance the company to a more competitive position where growth, profitability, and innovation can be sustained for the long run. SMC was founded on the genius of one man, Dr. Winthrop, and the intellectual property and patents resulting from his creations, of various chemical compounds used in the pharmaceutical industry, have nourished SMC since its birth. Barry Tompkins was made CEO of SMC following the company’s first growth spurt in the early 1980’s, and his expertise was crucial for driving the company further up the growth curve, however still on the shoulder of Dr. Winthrop’s innovations. Tompkins made many improvements at SMC in “streamlining the organization, putting in place financial controls, upgrading manufacturing processes, and installing systematic personnel practices.” Though Tompkins’ initiatives were important and necessary it was coupled with no influx of new ideas and inventions, no spending in the research and development labs of SMC, which of course resulted in a lack of growth. Tompkins own background, and his “big company type of manage[ment]” style was crucial to his successes. He choose to be very process oriented, and to devote concentration and money toward process improvements, improving the ‘business’ side of SMC. By focusing his efforts in that direction Tompkins failed to notice the “maturing” of SMC product lines and the innovation that is crucial in their industry was nonexistent at SMC because Tompkins’ modeled behavior for his leadership team was that he didn’t consider product development important. In a sense, the leadership at SMC though they worked effectively in the beginning stages of the company’s life cycle had begun to “rest on their laurels”, and were allowed to do so by Tompkins, and rely on the long-standing products and pipelines and long-practiced behaviors of protecting and engaging only in their own realm of responsibilities. It was clear at the time of Tompkins’ departure that the company lacked direction and purpose along with the strong leadership to guide them in that direction and lead them to that destination. The desire for new leadership resulted in the hiring of Carl Burke who was brought in to “reignite the growth” at SMC. Burke learned quickly through his observations that the manufacturing was state of the art, the sales team was populated with capable and dynamic individuals, yet there was something seriously lacking in the leadership team and change was needed. It must have been daunting for Burke unexpectedly discovering that the he had now embarked on a more difficult journey than anticipated and that SMC’s failures to grow stemmed from the chair he now occupied. Burke and the Board brought in an outside expert, Dr. Wells, to consult not only on how to change the psychology of the organization but to also on what, or more precisely who, to change. I think that anytime an outside individual becomes the leader of an organization and amendments to the established norms are required along with a shakeup of the personnel involved, it would be prudent to bring in an additional outsider to observe and recommend changes. This would be effective at relieving the new leader of some of the heat which is sure to accompany personnel modifications. An outside consultant, Dr. Wells in this case, should present a more objective view of the situation as well, especially in the case of SMC as Burke felt betrayed by the headhunters who found him, and was already jaded in his view of the leadership team.
The assessment process went smoothly with the leadership team and Dr. Wells was able to give constructive feedback. She was especially skilled at the “poo sandwich”. Meaning that when she addresses Burke with her somewhat negative observations she always remember to say something positive first and last then sandwiches the negative (the poo) in the middle, which can be a very successful way to diffuse defensiveness. Dr. Wells’ assessments were quite accurate in the designation that the VPs were entrenched in “functional silos” and her statement of the “wait and see” attitude displayed by the leadership team was especially astute. Lacking that strong leader with a vision for the direction of SMC, and the skills to steer the company at all, the VPs had turned their focuses inward and occupied themselves with the success of their own division with no bearing on the company as a hole. The “wait and see” attitude was a reflection of the company as a whole “resting on its laurels”. The leadership team had become complacent in the absence of a charismatic General. The behaviors displayed in the team meetings, such as the lack of conversation when general SMC growth is the topic, coupled with other behaviors, such as the admirable quality to which the factories are organized, lead one to believe that the leadership team is truly engaged and sincerely cares about their work at SMC, they just need someone to focus that energy properly. Perceptively, Dr. Wells noticed this as well, recommending to Burke that he “hold them [the leadership team] to stand” meaning that they need to take ownership of the company as a whole instead of just their division, and that Burke himself must “manage by setting broad strategies” that he must become the SMC’s needed visionary.
Radical changes are needed to shock complacent people into action, and Burke’s plan to reorganize SMC is the catalyst through which the company will embark on its next phase of growth. Relative to similar organizations in the pharmaceutical industry I cannot say whether Burke’s new organizational structure will be effective, however the changes needed to meet the new structure will provide the serious first step needed to stimulate the employees at SMC to see and follow their leader’s vision. It is this leader’s vision that SMC has lacked since its founder left, and Burke must also recognize the changes he needs to make personally to become the strong leader SMC needs. Following the restructuring, along with the needed personnel changes to satisfy the restructuring, Burke must develop a clear, concise, mission that the new leadership team must buy into, both for business and for personal reasons. Some of the leadership team needs new challenges. Burke must be an inspiring presence for his company, not unlike its founder, because in a sense SMC is being born-again yet they must remember the genius of their history to fuel their desire for future success. SMC was spawned from the mind of Dr. Winthrop, protecting and honoring his legacy is a powerful stimulant that can be utilized and embodied by Burke therefore providing a vehicle that can be steered along the company’s new path that he developed, and the leadership team can get onboard for the ride.
SPECIFIC NOTES AND PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CARL BURKE:
- Michael Everett – New Pharmaceuticals GM – with his background in chemistry and creative skills he can guide this important division, this would give him his needed recognition.
- Roger Engleford – New Generics GM – proven competent to understand science involved in Generics, his multitasking and leadership abilities will help him to grow this department. He should also be involved with choosing and mentoring the new sales managers as his input is needed and this will make him feel important.
- Craig Carlson – Marketing Mgr Generics – he appears to be most effective underneath a strong charismatic mentor therefore best to have Engleford managing him.
- Jack Francis, and Roberta Janis – should both continue running their current departments as they are proven effective, but Burke needs to be proactive at involving them in SMC issues not allowing them to just occupy their silos. The best way to do this with Francis would be to approach him with the demeanor of one asking an elder for wisdom, and Janis can be appealed to through her like of “experimentation and testing of new ideas” perhaps Burke can allow her to run some mock-up proposals of her own design.
- David Rice – this is the one individual that I would give the ax. It seems as if he fell into the position not through merit but through cronyism. Perhaps he expected to be SMC’s next CEO but Burke was chosen instead. When weighing the pros and cons of his continued employment one finds the pros lacking. Seems he can be easily replaced by his assistant George who Rice seems to send to do his job anyway.
The assessment process went smoothly with the leadership team and Dr. Wells was able to give constructive feedback. She was especially skilled at the “poo sandwich”. Meaning that when she addresses Burke with her somewhat negative observations she always remember to say something positive first and last then sandwiches the negative (the poo) in the middle, which can be a very successful way to diffuse defensiveness. Dr. Wells’ assessments were quite accurate in the designation that the VPs were entrenched in “functional silos” and her statement of the “wait and see” attitude displayed by the leadership team was especially astute. Lacking that strong leader with a vision for the direction of SMC, and the skills to steer the company at all, the VPs had turned their focuses inward and occupied themselves with the success of their own division with no bearing on the company as a hole. The “wait and see” attitude was a reflection of the company as a whole “resting on its laurels”. The leadership team had become complacent in the absence of a charismatic General. The behaviors displayed in the team meetings, such as the lack of conversation when general SMC growth is the topic, coupled with other behaviors, such as the admirable quality to which the factories are organized, lead one to believe that the leadership team is truly engaged and sincerely cares about their work at SMC, they just need someone to focus that energy properly. Perceptively, Dr. Wells noticed this as well, recommending to Burke that he “hold them [the leadership team] to stand” meaning that they need to take ownership of the company as a whole instead of just their division, and that Burke himself must “manage by setting broad strategies” that he must become the SMC’s needed visionary.
Radical changes are needed to shock complacent people into action, and Burke’s plan to reorganize SMC is the catalyst through which the company will embark on its next phase of growth. Relative to similar organizations in the pharmaceutical industry I cannot say whether Burke’s new organizational structure will be effective, however the changes needed to meet the new structure will provide the serious first step needed to stimulate the employees at SMC to see and follow their leader’s vision. It is this leader’s vision that SMC has lacked since its founder left, and Burke must also recognize the changes he needs to make personally to become the strong leader SMC needs. Following the restructuring, along with the needed personnel changes to satisfy the restructuring, Burke must develop a clear, concise, mission that the new leadership team must buy into, both for business and for personal reasons. Some of the leadership team needs new challenges. Burke must be an inspiring presence for his company, not unlike its founder, because in a sense SMC is being born-again yet they must remember the genius of their history to fuel their desire for future success. SMC was spawned from the mind of Dr. Winthrop, protecting and honoring his legacy is a powerful stimulant that can be utilized and embodied by Burke therefore providing a vehicle that can be steered along the company’s new path that he developed, and the leadership team can get onboard for the ride.
SPECIFIC NOTES AND PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CARL BURKE:
- Michael Everett – New Pharmaceuticals GM – with his background in chemistry and creative skills he can guide this important division, this would give him his needed recognition.
- Roger Engleford – New Generics GM – proven competent to understand science involved in Generics, his multitasking and leadership abilities will help him to grow this department. He should also be involved with choosing and mentoring the new sales managers as his input is needed and this will make him feel important.
- Craig Carlson – Marketing Mgr Generics – he appears to be most effective underneath a strong charismatic mentor therefore best to have Engleford managing him.
- Jack Francis, and Roberta Janis – should both continue running their current departments as they are proven effective, but Burke needs to be proactive at involving them in SMC issues not allowing them to just occupy their silos. The best way to do this with Francis would be to approach him with the demeanor of one asking an elder for wisdom, and Janis can be appealed to through her like of “experimentation and testing of new ideas” perhaps Burke can allow her to run some mock-up proposals of her own design.
- David Rice – this is the one individual that I would give the ax. It seems as if he fell into the position not through merit but through cronyism. Perhaps he expected to be SMC’s next CEO but Burke was chosen instead. When weighing the pros and cons of his continued employment one finds the pros lacking. Seems he can be easily replaced by his assistant George who Rice seems to send to do his job anyway.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Our Brave New World Moving Toward Gattica
Companies in the US, especially private companies, in my opinion have the right to do whatever they wish as long as they are not causing harm. If Scott wishes to not employ people that have health risks be they smoking or obesity, that is their privilege, the government has no right to tell them who to hire or not to hire. And in turn the company will reap the benefits or consequences of such policy. Now once a person is employed by Scott, they must make their guidelines and policies totally clear so that employees can follow them easily and avoid extra expenses on health care and termination. I think Hagedorn’s drive to eradicate smoking from Scott is admirable; however I am just not that kind of person. I don’t feel like it is my position in life to dictate anyone’s lifestyle, as I do not wish mine to be dictated, and I would be concerned about the great candidates that I would be missing out on just because they smoke or eat fast food. Even if it were my company, I wouldn’t feel that I had the right to govern my employees’ lifestyles outside of work. All that being said I also feel that what they are doing, and it will be legally validated or invalidated through the Rodrigues case, is a slippery slope and as we gain more knowledge about genetics we will soon have the power to give probabilities of suffering certain diseases at birth and that knowledge could definitely be used by a company to refuse employment. BUT THEY ARE STILL PROBABILITIES!! Even if we read a genome at birth there is no way to say to a 100% certainty that that individual will suffer from alcoholism or diabetes because even if it is minute there is still the factor of environment. Therefore companies will continue to do the same as Scott, because corporations will ALWAYS want to cut costs, but as consumers we have the power to not buy Scott products or apply to work there because of their discriminatory practices. To summarize, Scott can do as it wishes to save money or get their employees in better health the government has no power to stop them as long as they are following a clear policy, but I consider it a dangerous precedence and an unfortunate commentary on the state of health care in the US.
The secondary debate where Jessica is concerned...
· The treatment of Jessica Santillan represents an excellent example of a debate on modern medicine and evolution. Jessica was diagnosed with restrictive cardiomyopathy, which I think is better described as a condition or a symptom, than an actual disease. Causes are stated as being unknown, but there are numerous diseases/conditions that lead to the heart muscle being stiff, and therefore ultimately ineffective (this is an abbreviated layperson’s description by the way). There are many causes that lead to the restrictive cardiomyopathy, however most of the time the cause remains unknown. In my opinion this means it is the result of genetic factors. Genetic diseases such as Gaucher’s and Fabry’s can lead to the condition. The mortality rate for these conditions is quite high, without extraordinary treatment (i.e. heart transplant). The debate is whether or not we are perpetuating certain diseases/conditions in our gene pool by extending extraordinary treatment to those with these diseases, as by doing so we are influencing the “survival of the fittest” by helping individuals to live, procreate, and pass on genetic defects who otherwise would not survive to reproduce? It is wonderful that we have made such incredible scientific advances that allow people like my diabetic mother to live longer and fuller than she would have 100 years ago, but what is the cost? Take the case of an individual with a fatal peanut allergy. If allowed to experience the world normally without taking extraordinary measures to protect this individual from peanuts that individual would almost certainly die before passing along their peanut allergy. Are the fittest individuals surviving in the world today? Does it even matter that one has genetic defects if they can be treated? To what lengths should we go to save someone who nature has marked as unfit? How does treatment/non-treatment affect our ability to evolve into a more fit biological state? And finally what is unfit? And who decides who is fit and who isn’t?
With regards to the death of Jessica Santillan
The death of Jessica resulted from preventable mistakes in the organ donor system, and from negligence on the part of the medical professionals involved. Reading the timeline dictating the actions of each individual involved with obtaining Jessica’s first donated lungs and heart, one finds it incredulous that her entire medical chart was not available, or obtained by, to the individuals “buying”, “selling”, and transporting her organs. In the series of events surrounding the transfer there were three opportunities to catch the mistake prior to entering surgery. First by the person at the New England Donor Bank, and second by the person at Carolina Donor Services; both operated on the assumption that neither would be asking for the organ if it wasn’t the right blood type but given the information that organs are sometimes placed to individuals off the “match-up” list, blood type should definitely be involved in the conversation. However these two persons are not medical professionals, and in the course of events the person who should have caught the mistake first was Shu Lin, a relatively experienced medical resident, who fetched the organs from Boston. The fact that this person in the chain was neither familiar with the patient’s medical history nor in possession of Jessica’s entire chart is where the system really breaks down. One would think there would be a form with boxes to check when one is picking up an organ. For example that individual should be able to look and say “Okay, Heart and Lungs? Check; Right Size? Check; Good Condition? Check; Cooler with Ice? Check; Blood Type? Check.” It seems asinine that this was not done by Mr. Lin, but checking the blood type was not a standard procedure. The last link in the chain however, is Dr. Jaggers the surgeon. The three prior failings, though avoidable through a little extra effort, were those of the system and Dr. Jaggers unfortunately placed 100% reliability on the system, which he should have known better than to do. He is the captain of his Surgery, and to not check on the statistics of the donated organ himself before beginning the procedure was his own personal failure. The attributions of this situation were of low consensus and consistency, and high distinctiveness. However, if one takes into account all the deaths resulting from hospital mistakes one would find a much higher consensus and consistency, and a much lower distinctiveness, somewhat assuaging Dr. Jaggers’ sole culpability in the matter of Jessica’s transplant.
These events reveal breakdowns and imperfections in the systems by which individuals receive treatment in the US, However it is my opinion that hospitals generally do a relatively good job (when compared with say the US auto industry, or the US government) of correcting the system when unfortunate things occur. The changes enacted because of Jessica’s death will save lives in the future, and though hindsight is always 20-20, there will always be personal failings because we are human and we make mistakes, and though it is unfortunate that this happened, the girl was undergoing a procedure to lengthen a life that nature deemed unlivable a long time prior (and according to Comorow’s article only 50% of heart-lung transplant patients live 5 years after surgery).
The events, statements, and feelings following her death are too difficult to unravel as it is unclear who said what but Dr. Jaggers is ultimately responsible and should bear all the accountability even if unfairly. Taking Jaggers' license or suing him and the hospital (especially when all the medical treatment the Santillans were receiving was free of cost) is frivolous because the hospital acted within an insufficient system, and the world needs doctors even those who may make one mistake. Dr. Jaggers' motivations are difficult to read but I think he was internally motivated to “cure” Jessica and especially after his initial mistake, he was too focused on his own internal sense of his professional success (and a really cynical person might say his own ego) to take close enough account of his patient’s condition and the high risk in a second transplant attempt in her weakened state. It was impossible to determine whether the hospital or the surgeon advocated for the second surgery but either way there should have been a closer assessment of Jessica’s condition prior to initiating the procedure. And it was this procedure that ultimately led to Jessica’s death.
Jessica’s family was motivated to cross borders and reside illegally in the US in order to obtain the best medical care for her in an attempt to prolong her life. One cannot blame them for the extraordinary actions they took on behalf of their child, a lot of parents take similar actions, however they should be grateful that their daughter lived to the age she did, and that a surgeon, the hospital he worked for, the community they lived in, and the taxpayers of this nation, donated their time and money to help them at all because this is help they wouldn’t have received in their home country. It is cruel to say “beggars can’t be choosers” in this situation, but it applies, and the Santillans taking out their wrath on the monies of Dr. Jaggers and Duke won’t assuage their anguish but knowing that the misfortune suffered by them will help to save numerous lives in the future will. Even if everything had gone perfectly with Jessica’s surgery there is only a 50% chance that she would be alive today. And revoking Jaggers’ license doesn’t help anyone; perhaps the world is better served if he was held accountable by donating his service to Doctors Without Borders or a similar organization in need of skilled professionals.
In conclusion what happened to Jessica was avoidable and tragic, but the fact remains that people die from mistakes made by hospital organization systems and the people that work within those systems everyday. The rare nature and mortality rates of individuals with congenital heart defects like Jessica make the individuals that suffer with these diseases miracles in themselves, and even had everything gone perfectly with her transplant her survival rate would still have been extremely low, and the lifestyle she would have been forced to live would have been as restrictive as it would have been expensive. Mistakes are made constantly, and consistently, by individuals populating imperfect systems, and until one can foresee the future we can only better our systems by doing as Duke has done and learning from our mistakes, making changes in systems to decrease the frequency to which mistakes occur because as long as human beings are involved there will be imperfections.
These events reveal breakdowns and imperfections in the systems by which individuals receive treatment in the US, However it is my opinion that hospitals generally do a relatively good job (when compared with say the US auto industry, or the US government) of correcting the system when unfortunate things occur. The changes enacted because of Jessica’s death will save lives in the future, and though hindsight is always 20-20, there will always be personal failings because we are human and we make mistakes, and though it is unfortunate that this happened, the girl was undergoing a procedure to lengthen a life that nature deemed unlivable a long time prior (and according to Comorow’s article only 50% of heart-lung transplant patients live 5 years after surgery).
The events, statements, and feelings following her death are too difficult to unravel as it is unclear who said what but Dr. Jaggers is ultimately responsible and should bear all the accountability even if unfairly. Taking Jaggers' license or suing him and the hospital (especially when all the medical treatment the Santillans were receiving was free of cost) is frivolous because the hospital acted within an insufficient system, and the world needs doctors even those who may make one mistake. Dr. Jaggers' motivations are difficult to read but I think he was internally motivated to “cure” Jessica and especially after his initial mistake, he was too focused on his own internal sense of his professional success (and a really cynical person might say his own ego) to take close enough account of his patient’s condition and the high risk in a second transplant attempt in her weakened state. It was impossible to determine whether the hospital or the surgeon advocated for the second surgery but either way there should have been a closer assessment of Jessica’s condition prior to initiating the procedure. And it was this procedure that ultimately led to Jessica’s death.
Jessica’s family was motivated to cross borders and reside illegally in the US in order to obtain the best medical care for her in an attempt to prolong her life. One cannot blame them for the extraordinary actions they took on behalf of their child, a lot of parents take similar actions, however they should be grateful that their daughter lived to the age she did, and that a surgeon, the hospital he worked for, the community they lived in, and the taxpayers of this nation, donated their time and money to help them at all because this is help they wouldn’t have received in their home country. It is cruel to say “beggars can’t be choosers” in this situation, but it applies, and the Santillans taking out their wrath on the monies of Dr. Jaggers and Duke won’t assuage their anguish but knowing that the misfortune suffered by them will help to save numerous lives in the future will. Even if everything had gone perfectly with Jessica’s surgery there is only a 50% chance that she would be alive today. And revoking Jaggers’ license doesn’t help anyone; perhaps the world is better served if he was held accountable by donating his service to Doctors Without Borders or a similar organization in need of skilled professionals.
In conclusion what happened to Jessica was avoidable and tragic, but the fact remains that people die from mistakes made by hospital organization systems and the people that work within those systems everyday. The rare nature and mortality rates of individuals with congenital heart defects like Jessica make the individuals that suffer with these diseases miracles in themselves, and even had everything gone perfectly with her transplant her survival rate would still have been extremely low, and the lifestyle she would have been forced to live would have been as restrictive as it would have been expensive. Mistakes are made constantly, and consistently, by individuals populating imperfect systems, and until one can foresee the future we can only better our systems by doing as Duke has done and learning from our mistakes, making changes in systems to decrease the frequency to which mistakes occur because as long as human beings are involved there will be imperfections.
The Competitve Advantage of Southwest Airlines
Southwest Airlines’ People Department, is touted as the crux on their groundbreaking route to success in the airline industry, and there is no question that both the ingrained and manufactured personality traits along with the both the innate and encouraged behavior patterns of Southwest employees have been an important factor in their recent success, however their true competitive advantage lies in the simplicity and streamlined nature of their product and operation.
Southwest’s original business plan to dominate in the interstate air traffic in both Texas and California was forced upon them by the actions of their competitors, and it was at this time in the company’s history that the underdog/scrapper nature of their employees, especially Herb Kelleher, really made a huge impact. Kelleher even compared himself at the time to a medieval crusader, which shows the depth of his passion and commitment to his company. When Southwest was faced with such a daunting uphill climb to be competitive in the industry, that unique spirit that is still highly-valued was crucial to their success in the introduction and growth phase of the company. That spirit provided the inspiration for extremely high levels of organizational commitment Southwest needed for employees to struggle for years to achieve even the beginnings of a successful airline. Employees felt, and still feel, like they had true ownership in the company and that their behaviors and attitude on a daily basis led to the company’s success. Though these feelings have proven to be helpful it is Southwest’s very targeted business plan and their slow expansion that is their advantage.
Southwest choose to be the best at what they were “given” in the early 1970’s, they threw everything at it with a crusader’s commitment and it worked. Then by maintaining their low cost, no frills beginnings as they unhurriedly expanded the continued underdog attitude has worked because essentially as Southwest expands they are underdogs in the markets they are joining. Their competitive advantage is their business model, a difficult one to initiate and maintain in the airline business therefore they need the unique employee spirit to implement such a difficult strategy. For example, their pilots work more hours for less pay but their commitment to making the Airline a success and the feelings generated by the organizational commitment of upper management and their colleagues make that extra work fulfilling because the pilots are conditioned to feel they themselves and their actions are crucial to Southwest’s triumph.
An analogous situation: Last year the NY Giants were facing undefeated New England in the Super Bowl. The Giants had a talented team, a good coach, but were huge underdogs, and most fans just considered the game a forgone conclusion. Like Southwest Airlines, the Giants’ head coach had a difficult and unique game plan that would take all the passion and commitment of every team member to execute, let alone produce a victory. So like Kelleher the Giants’ head coach imbued his players with that underdog spirit turning them into crusaders for a cause. The Giants’ players executed their coaches’ game plan to perfection which first leveled the playing field, and then they gave him (and each other because team members play for each other too) that extra effort inspired by his own passion which achieved the win under near impossible circumstances.
Southwest Airlines is successful because they have an excellent game plan, and they do an excellent job of teaching that game plan to their employees. Though that game plan is difficult the top management has displayed the necessary behaviors and affective attitudes to execute that game plan so that it is evident to employees and outsiders. Employees then know first hand the passion they need to display and actions they need to take to be successful in executing their task within the company’s game plan. Finally in turn those behaviors become the driving influential force from the very top of the company to the very bottom making the execution of the game plan and in turn the success of “their” airline the important shared purpose required for any organization to achieve success.
Southwest’s original business plan to dominate in the interstate air traffic in both Texas and California was forced upon them by the actions of their competitors, and it was at this time in the company’s history that the underdog/scrapper nature of their employees, especially Herb Kelleher, really made a huge impact. Kelleher even compared himself at the time to a medieval crusader, which shows the depth of his passion and commitment to his company. When Southwest was faced with such a daunting uphill climb to be competitive in the industry, that unique spirit that is still highly-valued was crucial to their success in the introduction and growth phase of the company. That spirit provided the inspiration for extremely high levels of organizational commitment Southwest needed for employees to struggle for years to achieve even the beginnings of a successful airline. Employees felt, and still feel, like they had true ownership in the company and that their behaviors and attitude on a daily basis led to the company’s success. Though these feelings have proven to be helpful it is Southwest’s very targeted business plan and their slow expansion that is their advantage.
Southwest choose to be the best at what they were “given” in the early 1970’s, they threw everything at it with a crusader’s commitment and it worked. Then by maintaining their low cost, no frills beginnings as they unhurriedly expanded the continued underdog attitude has worked because essentially as Southwest expands they are underdogs in the markets they are joining. Their competitive advantage is their business model, a difficult one to initiate and maintain in the airline business therefore they need the unique employee spirit to implement such a difficult strategy. For example, their pilots work more hours for less pay but their commitment to making the Airline a success and the feelings generated by the organizational commitment of upper management and their colleagues make that extra work fulfilling because the pilots are conditioned to feel they themselves and their actions are crucial to Southwest’s triumph.
An analogous situation: Last year the NY Giants were facing undefeated New England in the Super Bowl. The Giants had a talented team, a good coach, but were huge underdogs, and most fans just considered the game a forgone conclusion. Like Southwest Airlines, the Giants’ head coach had a difficult and unique game plan that would take all the passion and commitment of every team member to execute, let alone produce a victory. So like Kelleher the Giants’ head coach imbued his players with that underdog spirit turning them into crusaders for a cause. The Giants’ players executed their coaches’ game plan to perfection which first leveled the playing field, and then they gave him (and each other because team members play for each other too) that extra effort inspired by his own passion which achieved the win under near impossible circumstances.
Southwest Airlines is successful because they have an excellent game plan, and they do an excellent job of teaching that game plan to their employees. Though that game plan is difficult the top management has displayed the necessary behaviors and affective attitudes to execute that game plan so that it is evident to employees and outsiders. Employees then know first hand the passion they need to display and actions they need to take to be successful in executing their task within the company’s game plan. Finally in turn those behaviors become the driving influential force from the very top of the company to the very bottom making the execution of the game plan and in turn the success of “their” airline the important shared purpose required for any organization to achieve success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)