A630.9.4.RB_MedinaM.

Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?

After watching the video and reading the video transcript of Eric Schmidt’s on Google’s culture, I believe Schmidt’s description of Google’s culture makes perfect sense. This type of culture gives employee empowerment over their jobs. Employee empowerment is a technique for unleashing human potential in organizations (Brown, 2011). Companies that give employees the power or freedom over their tasks are more than likely to have employees who are proactive and self-sufficient. In a way, it can be said that these types of companies give employees the power over their careers. If an employees loves his/her job, is happy with his/her tasks, loves the company in which he/she is working for, loves his/her career then, by giving the employee the power to decide up to where their career should take them means that the employee would work to their hardest, smarter, and to their fullest potential. So it does make perfect sense to have this type of culture for a company who wants to be the most efficient in all it does.

Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?

            It is very reasonable. The people who are self-driven and passionate about the work they do, will always look for ways to grow as a person and as professionals. For example, in my line of work it is hard to stay motivated when you are constantly dealing with different customers but I’m passionate about my job. I take pride on it. Others around me have told me “If you got such a great education why do you work for Starbucks? Why do you stay there?” Well other than personal reasons, I love my job. I love what I do, I love the company that I work for, I love the people who I work with, so why would anyone want to leave what they love for something they may not like, something that may not even use their full potential. Look at how Southwest Airlines employees stood by the company even though the company was going through some financial trouble and some employees weren’t getting paid. They are happy with their jobs, they care for the company they work for. So, in my opinion, it is a very reasonable way of looking at the work most people do in their workplace.

As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view?

            Yes! As a leader you need to be able to create a type of culture that is self-driven, positive, goal-driven, and so on. But, this type of culture cannot just be created; it must also be supported, and be enhanced when it’s needed. It takes courage as a leader to empower employees to take charge of their own tasks, projects, and lives. It takes courage to trust them to get it done. For some leaders, it is hard to let go of the old management style habits. So, how can an employee flourish and use it’s own potentials to the fullest if it has a manager or supervisor not supporting this type of work environment? How can anyone work with a supervisor who may constantly shut your ideas down? Honestly, it is not the type of work environment I would be working for. So, yes it takes courage and time to create, to have, to implement, and to support this type of work environment.

Could this approach backfire?

            Yes. If this approach is not properly created, managed, overseen, implemented, or supported it can backfire on the company. Employees may lose sight of what is important, which tasks have priorities, and so on. It can backfire to the point that tasks are not completed, and in turn, cause financial hardship to the company. It’s basically an art to create this type of company culture and at any given moment if management is not careful, it can be devastating for the company and harmful to it’s future.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

            I take away the concept that it is very important to understand the meaning of employee empowerment. Employee empowerment isn’t just about unleashing the employee’s full potential, proactive, and self-sufficient nature. It is also about understanding how important it is for a company to hire the right type of employees for the right position, to have the employee’s needs met, to understand how powerful it is for a company to have employees who are driven by the company’s goals, tasks, and so on. Overall, to immediately use in my career, I take away the understanding employee empowerment and it’s importance for the employee, for management, and for the company.

Reference:

Brown, D. R. (2011). An experiential approach to organization development (8th ed.).

            Boston: Prentice Hall.

A630.8.4.RB_MedinaM.

After watching the TED video “Tom Wujec: Build a tower, build a team” by Tom Wujec, I have to say I agree with Wujec’s analysis. I think one of the reasons why kindergarteners perform better than MBA students is because they have fun building things and watching whether or not they succeed. Whenever kindergarteners see that what they currently built is not going to succeed, they have no problem starting up again from scratch. It just does not bother them. Another reason might be that MBA students are taught to have some type of structure to go off from, and whenever they have to channel their inner creativity some students have a hard time creating something from scratch. In another aspect, it can be taken as far as saying that MBA students are taught structure and therefore, become narrow minded on how to complete tasks. Kids are free of any feelings or emotions of failure, while adults aren’t since they know the consequences of failing. MBA students also spend plenty of time planning and organizing while kindergarteners just begin by building the tower.

 These types of different approaches into the spaghetti challenge help determine the success rate of the group. If the group spends too much time planning, then when they begin to actually build the project they do so with less time. So if they mess up or if the tower falls apart, chances are they will not have enough time to try again. But, when it comes to kindergarteners they just start working as a team from the beginning. I think another reason why kids perform better is because not one kid will get in front of the group and say, “I’m the team leader”. MBA students tend to establish first who is in charge in the group, who is responsible for what part of the project, and so on. But how are kindergarteners and engineers/architects alike? Do they have the critical thinking skills that MBA students must learn? Do kindergarteners and engineers/architects understand more the how and why of things, while MBA students lack the why?

            From my point of view, I believe the reason why CEOs with executive assistants perform better is because: CEOs have the ability to guide people, set expectations, lead the group to success, view from an overview perspective what would happen if a certain decision is made, and the executive assistants have the ability to communicate with the CEOs how they think the group will succeed as well as what to do to improve and/or follow what the CEO’s decision. In other words, they bounce off ideas and the CEO makes the final call on which way to go about completing the project. CEO’s alone cannot lead an entire group of CEO’s to success. One of CEOs would either rise to the occasion while the other CEOs follow or the entire group remains neutral on which CEO should be the person to take charge of the project. No one would want to step down, so I believe they just gather all the information they have and try to make the best of it. In other words, they don’t have someone to follow or choose someone specific to lead the group.

            If I was asked to help a process intervention workshop, I think I could help relate the video to intervention skills by demonstrating how each group communicated to each other, how member roles and functions were determined, how was the leadership and authority of members determined, and how each group approached their problem solving methods as well the decision making aspect of the project. This video will also help by displaying the different and combination types of process intervention. For example, one group asked questions, listened for the each members’ input while another group provided support, coached, counseled team members, provided feedback, and suggestions, and so on. Each group expressed and showed it’s own dynamic and form of approaching a challenge or problem. I think by implementing this video into the workshop may help members understand the different types of process intervention skills and processes of each.

            I think that one of the things that I take from this exercise is the different ways each position on a company thinks differently, and how when you combine or create a form of open communication through various levels of the organization, the organization works more effectively and efficiently. Combining or putting people with diverse and unique set of skills together to create a high performance team is a very efficient form of accomplishing tasks. Another thing that I take away from this exercise to use immediately in my career is to open up my mind to new ideas, to free myself from the every day structure and norms of society and to think for myself, to try different things, not to let others get on the way of accomplishing tasks or goals, and if I fail to get back up with my head held high and continue trying. Also, I now understand the more effective ways to help teams grow and improve as a team and individually as well as the different types of process interventions and group processes.

A630.7.4.RB_MedinaM

Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell, states that Honeywell will not be an extension of the old Honeywell or Allied Signal. He is creating a new culture that blends the best of the merged companies of Honeywell and Allied Signal. He says that Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not. Do you predict Honeywell will be successful?

            In my opinion, it seems a little harsh to hear the CEO express this way. It’s basically saying either get with the new program quickly or you are fired. In a way, I think this strategy might work for the success of the company but in the other aspect, I think it really depends on how the CEO truly goes about making these changes. If he is indeed very serious about letting go of employees who do not follow his rules, chances are that employees who want/need to keep their jobs for personal reasons may begin to come up with short term or faulty ideas just to keep management happy. In another form, this type of pressure may actually help some employees channel their inner creativity to begin looking for new effective and efficient practices. From the organizational perspective, it seems like a great decision but from the human resource part of it, it seems rather harsh and selfish to let go of employees who have dedicated their time and years with the company.

            At the same time, it is very important for the company to create a new corporate culture, specifically one that will nurture the success of the company. Sometimes employees get too caught up on the old habits and practices that instead of working together they continue to work as if it was two different companies. In my opinion, this type of work environment ruins the culture of the company and it will eventually destroy the company from the inside out. Therefore, letting go of employees who do not follow these new rules of creating a new corporate culture, one that reflects the future success of the company, means there’s more room for new employees to join the Honeywell family and who are looking forward to work with others under one roof. New employees have an easier time adhering to the new rules, practices, and corporate culture, as they may not be familiar with the old habits or rules of the separate companies. Some employees may even help management create new practices that will help manage the departments or the entire organization much easier. Overall I think creating this expectation for employees that they must adhere to the new corporate culture will help the organization succeed in the future. So, yes this does predict that Honeywell will continue to be successful.

What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?

            If I understand this question correctly, one of the barriers I foresee with creating an entire new corporate culture is for the employees who were there for the old culture to begin implementing parts of the old culture into the new culture. This may eventually cause some problems between employees, and even create a corporate clash. It may even slow down the progress the company has made so far. Another barrier I have observed is that the CEO of Honeywell does not go into detail about how he plans on creating this new culture. So if no clear leadership is established for this new culture then how are employees expected to create a new culture, to know what the new goals and vision is? In addition to these questions, is the CEO “walking the talk”? Is the CEO actually providing examples or following his new rules or practices of the new corporate culture? From this video it seems to me that the CEO wants to change the culture but he continues to think the same as the old culture and have the same old habits. So, how is an organization supposed to create a new culture with an unclear vision, goals and with a CEO who isn’t actually doing the same thing he wants the employees to do? Lastly, there doesn’t seem to be a set strategy on how the CEO plans on creating a new corporate culture. Therefore, would the strategy actually have an integrated approach to change (structural, technological, and behavioral strategy)? Would there be a stream analysis made? What type of OD intervention should be used?

What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?

            A few of the most critical success factors that Honeywell should consider as it crafts its organizational strategies is implementing an integrated approach to change, considering the second-order consequences of the decisions that will be made, creating a stream analysis in order to have a clear understanding of how one decision may affect the entire change program and so on. Also, selecting an OD intervention may also help improve the health of the client system. Creating programs and activities will help determine which change strategy is needed. This will help the organization understand which aspect of the organization needs to change in order to successfully implement the changed requested.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?

            In my opinion, I think the most important part of this exercise is for me to “walk the talk”. If I say I want things to change, then I must be the first one to show others that I am truly committed to what I have said. There are times where we all get side tracked by other projects and at the end we wonder what did ever happened to what I sought out to do? Another point I immediately take from this exercise is the need to have a clear plan, goal, and vision. If I just want to change something in my life, I can’t just sit around and say “I want to change this” or put someone else on the task and say, “Hey, you need to change this for me”. I need to be the one to start the change with a clear plan, vision, and goal. I also have to be committed to the change. I can’t say I want something changed and continue to act the same old way. New effective and efficient habits must be created but still be opened to new things.

A630.6.4.RB_MedinaM.

After viewing the Prezi presentation on the 50 Reasons Not to Change, I realize that I too have used those same reasons to avoid change on my workplace. Before enrolling on the master program I always thought, “Why fix something that isn’t broken? Changing it may just create new and more complicated problems”. For some reason back then I always thought that the business industry would stay relatively the same and the few changes that it would encounter would be technological changes or upgrades. After the first class on my master program, I realized that the environment around us is constantly changing and it will continue to change with or without us. Therefore, we must learn to deal with a constant changing environment and industry. Even if we are not on a leadership position at our respective workplaces, there will always continue to be a need to learn about change, resistance of change, how to lead and overcome the resistance of change, and so on. This ever-changing industry will continue to change so it is best to always ask questions, continue learning about the importance and benefits of change, and why change is happening.

As I said earlier, in the past I would show all the same exact signs as any other person resisting change. Now that I’m part of a leader position, it has been important for me to learn about the stages of change, how to overcome the resistance to change, the cycle of resistance to change, and how to lead change. With this new position, I have encountered many occasions where employees have resisted change or just don’t agree with the overall purpose of change. Since my enrollment on the master program my reaction to such situations has changed. Instead of forcing change unto others, I try to find out what is mainly making them uncomfortable about the idea of change, what are their fears or concerns about it, and how can I help them overcome such feelings. Other than having a simple conversation with employees on the reasons and explanation of why change is happening and it’s benefits, I try to find more written information about the subject. Whenever I do not have the answer to their questions, I commit myself to finding the right person who has the answer to the questions so employees’ fears are laid to rest. I find sometimes that some employees do not react as quickly as you would like them to when it comes to overcoming change. Some employees like to “sleep” on the idea and it’s benefits before fully committing to the change program, which actually raises the question: Do people overcome change at different times? Can some people overcome change on their own terms?

Honestly, I have found that those same exact steps that I have taken to help others overcome change have also helped me overcome the “change is bad” type of thinking. It has helped me change my personal opinions about change. In a way I follow the notion of “not judging a book by its cover” when it comes to change. In other words, instead of quickly jumping with everyone else on the bandwagon of “change is bad”, I give myself time to think through the idea, find more information, ask questions, weigh the benefits and disadvantages of the idea on my own, how it affects me, how it may affect the organization, and so on. I find all the information I can, answer all my own questions, ask questions, and the judge for myself if I agree with the proposed change program. If for some reason I continue to be skeptical about the change program, I seek help from a higher position.

On the video The tribes we Lead by Seth Godin, Godin argues that “the Internet has ended mass marketing and revived a human social unit from the distant past: Tribes. Founded on shared ideas and values, tribes give ordinary people the power to lead and make big change” (Godin, n.d.). In my opinion, I have to agree with Godin’s argument that change is driven by tribes. We all have different values, beliefs systems, ideas, customs, religion, passions, and so on. We are not all the same or like the same things at least. So, we tend to look for people who have the same interests as us or people who have the same passion as us about a cause and we begin to connect with them, sharing our ideas and opinions. The ideas continue to get as big and as strong with the more people who join and share the same beliefs that it turns into a movement. This movement or tribe is the one who begins the change process. One person alone cannot lead or force change. That person needs followers. Followers who believe in the same ideas, share the same passions about the idea, and are fully committed to those ideas. Only then can an idea or change be implemented successfully. In an organization’s perspective, the organization uses management to help spread the new vision and ideas. As the vision and ideas begin to grow stronger and more employees begin to believe on those ideas and visions, the movement to change begins. Employees begin to feel more committed to the ideas and therefore, the organization gains the full cooperation of employees to make the change successful and possible.

After watching the above-mentioned presentations, what I immediately take from this exercise to use in my workplace is to continue helping employees overcome the resistance to change by helping them understand the need to change, involving employees on the change process and program, the reasons behind the change, the benefits, answering questions, finding more information about the proposed change, motivating employees to join the change movement, and whenever possible find other committed employees to help others overcome their fears and resistance to change. By involving employees more and creating an atmosphere that is conducive to change, it ensures the organization of the success of the change program.

Reference:

Godin, S. (n.d.). Seth Godin: The tribes we lead | Video on TED.com. TED: Ideas worth

            spreading. Retrieved September 25, 2013, from

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