Organizational Silence

Organizational silence is a contributing factor to low self-esteem and reduced motivation in the work place.  I once had a job working for a magazine where everyone was afraid to speak out to the editor/publisher. She was very intimidating to the employees because she was “always right”. If someone wanted to speak out on an issue they would hold back because they feared that they wouldn’t get published. I’ve also seen employees who will skip out on work because of their reduced motivation to work. In this particular incident the employees were bored in their jobs and wanted something new.

Currently, I’ve been able to work with very encouraging people. The executives of the company I work for are open to new ideas and actively listen. During my first interview with the company I was told that they were very accepting of new ideas and in fact liked to hear that something could be done a different way; they wanted change. When I actually started working I was thankful to find out that every word was true. If an executive is faced with a new idea that is beneficial to the whole, they will actually try it out. It’s encouraging to know that I can speak up and actually be heard.

The Men’s Wearhouse: Success in a Declining Industry

Men’s Wearhouse offers reasonably priced men’s suits at a convenience. The stores are not located in busy shopping malls, but at direct locations. The reasoning is easy access without the additional clutter of other stores. Instead of attracting customers with occasional great sales, the store keeps a reasonable price for its suits.

George Zimmer, Chairman of Men’s Wearhouse, started the business in the early 70’s and drastically expanded the store locations through the United States. Zimmer believed the Men’s Wearhouse had five stakeholder groups (listed by importance): The employees, the customers, the vendors, the communities and the shareholders. Zimmer believed that by taking care of your employees, your customers, your vendors and your communities, you will maximize long term shareholder value.

Additionally, the sales positions took on the role as wardrobe consultants. The company wanted a distinction from aggressive sales people to more personable and caring consultants. The suit consultants act as servant leaders to the customers. Defined in the company’s training materials, servant leaders are the people you manage and work with.

Training is an important aspect of the company. It is stated that Zimmer and other top executives would personally train or mentor new hires. As times passed, the company has gotten too large for the few people to personally train everyone. However, the company stresses the importance of “touch”. This is a personal contact with individuals, instead of electronic or telephonic means.

“Touch” is an important aspect for a successful relationship to happen. The individual whom you personally take the time to meet with will appreciate it. Face time is an important tactic for building lasting relationships. Going back to the training – I did not see anything that referenced continued training after an employee had been with the company for x amount of years. Could this be the quarterly meetings? If so, I think continued training outside of the company would be benficiial.

The company does a lot of internal promotions, which is good and bad. It’s good because those people have the most exposure to the company/market. It’s bad because those people are not interacting with new business practices. I think additional outside training would be beneficial for the companies expanded growth.

I found it endearing that the company will will exhaust all other possibilities before a firing or demoting an employee, such as transferring stores. I’ve never heard of this tactic before. I’m curious to know what the outcome of most transfers is.

A lot of what was mentioned in this article reinforces the idea of good customer relation. I think Zimmer’s opening quote sums up their company’s philosophy perfectly, “We’re in the people business, not the suit business.”

Chapter Reading

Case study: The Treadway Tire Company

Treadway Tire Company was in an obvious rut. The foreman,  workers and company were not effectively working. The company faced a high turnover rate and a disconnect between workers. The foreman had no support from the company and the workers had no respect for the foreman. Everyone was on their own agenda.

I believe a lot of the problems with the company start from the lack of training. The company (trying to save costs) does not provide a training program for new employees. The attitude is more ’sink or swim’ philosophy and new hires are left to fend for themselves. In the long run it would probably save more money to impliment a training program. If employees are properly trained they won’t mess up or worse, quit.

The employees face a hard 12 hr shift on their feet. A lot of times employees call in because they just don’t want to come to work. This leaves the foreman flustered and scrambling to get workers to come in. This is just one example of the ‘no respect’ i refereed to.

I feel sorry for the HR person who is faced with the challenge to figure out why this turnover is happening. This is really a job that the head of the company should address. However, she is faced with the problem and she needs to move forward.

The turnover rate is a huge problem with the company. The company needs proper training from the start and possibly to bring in new people. I suggest new people, so that the company can start fresh. Constantly hiring from within may keep the same bad morale.

Extra Readings

Article: The Layoff

If you’ve ever been laid off, you know how hard it is to comprehend; the feelings of regret and confusion cross your mind. These feelings especially come up when the layoff is completely out of the blue. There are instances, when employees are given notice that a layoff is coming, but also times when there is not. Both scenarios are devastating, not only to the employee, but to the employer who is going to loose hardworking employees.

There are many approaches to downsizing, but all of the outcomes include lost jobs and fewer employees. Layoffs place stress on the employee and the manager. The manager may secretly know that an employee is going to get let go or vise versa.

Layoffs can be very emotional and the timing is crucial. I’ve seen instances were people are laid off in the morning, right when they arrive to work. Additionally, I’ve seen layoffs happen at the end of the day, yet right before everyone has gone home. All mentioned scenarios leave the employee feeling abandoned and humiliated.

The article touches on layoffs and how one company must decide to proceed. After reading the story and weighing the facts, I think the company should first offer early retirement plans for those qualified.  Qualifying members, most likely earn the highest salaries. If they take early retirement, it could save the company a lot of costs without jeopardizing the jobs of individuals who are still working.

I would then explain to the company what the situation is ad notify them of an increase in pay – across the board. This way, no one looses there jobs and the employees are informed about why they are getting a pay reduction. Hopefully, employees will understand that it was one or the other and accept the reduced pay.

There are several approaches to take. In the end, it is all about the culture of the company and HONESTY.

Article: Good Leadership Requires Executives To Put Themselves Last

 

Mr. Leven was thrown into some tough financial situations. These situations were completely out of his control. Nonetheless, they were under his leadership. Given the tough circumstances, he handled them in the most respectable way that he could.

It’s embarrassing enough to have to face your employees when a mistake has been made. But it is even tougher when the mistake was on your watch. The mistakes made at Mr. Leven’s company could have cost more jobs, or worse, the entire company. Even though the fraud was not Mr. Leven’s fault, he was still responsible. He illustrated great leadership by taking control of the situation and offering up his salary. He put aside any ego and owned up to the problem.

 

Article: For Lt. Withers, Act of Mercy Has Unexpected Sequel

This is a very touching story about how one man’s influence saved the life of another. Mr. Lt. Withers was a courageous leader who risked the safety of his job and his convoy to help two holocaust refugees.

Lt. Withers stood up for human rights. This was something more than just going to work every day. He saved two innocent men from dying a cruel death.

The story illustrates a cohesive unit that accepted Lt. Withers decision. No one revolted against his choice. I think this is an example of great leadership. If they whole convey accepted his decision, this meant that they respected and trusted his leadership.

It was also inspiring to read that he encouraged the two men to be succeed. He didn’t treat them different then the rest of the men; he put them to work and encouraged them to learn. He is a true teacher and leader.

Weekly Reading

Article: Diamonds in the Data Mine By: Gary Loveman   |   Case Study: Gary Loveman and Harrah’s Entertainment

The above publications, remind me of a childhood dream that was made reality. Gary Loveman was not a man of vast experience in management, but he was very educated and intuitive man. He used what he knew to help other manage their companies as a consultant. But he himself had never managed any more than an administrative assistant. His knowledge and really connections allowed him to move from associate professor of business administration at the Harvard University Graduate School of Business Administration to President and CEO of Harrah’s Entertainment.

Luckily, Loveman was able to put his knowledge to good work and create substantial results for Harrah’s employees and Board. He was able to look at the company as an outsider, but was also familiarized with the company to make practical decision making.

Philip Satre was CEO when he hired Loveman as the COO of the company. The decision was risky in many ways. First Loveman had no experience with actually managing people or the gaming industry. Second, it was possible that tension from tenure employees could get tight. But Satre saw the potential in Loveman and threw him in the ring. Satre sounds like he was a great support system for Loveman. I thought the following phrase was encouraging “I never overruled Gary, but I tried to set an example for him and then to support him.” Satre had the right leadership skills to help Loveman move forward and keep the company together.

The beginning phases of the rewards system, remind me of situations that we all get ourselves into…. And that is overlooking good information that we already have. I see a lot of companies who struggle with this. My theory is that people see daily tasks, as just that and they don’t question what they are doing. For instance, why are we doing this? How can we use it to our advantage for other projects? The problem is that we are presented with the same daily information and so we can’t see out of the box.

Loveman came from the outside, and while it was risky, was able to use his outside knowledge to strengthen the company. He had a great support system that guided him forward because the leadership behind him knew the company needed to change.

At first, I was a little concerned when the study said that Loveman came in with a state of urgency… it sounded a bit frightening. I’m assuming this approach kept employees on their toes, so they didn’t get too comfortable in the daily routine. I was nervous at first, because I know how stressful being on the spot can get. But it looks like it worked to his advantage.

I completely agreed with everything stated on marketing. Daily lives and jobs are all about marketing. Marketing is the key to standing out in the crowd. In the same way bad service makes an impact on us; good experience makes a very positive impact that influence people to try it again. Harrah’s was creating that positive experience with their reward system and customer service.

 

Article: The Dean’s Disease: how the Darker of Power Manifests Itself in the Office of Dean

 

The article refers to a problem called the Dean’s Disease, which can relate to other high-ranking positions. It refers to an effect, which anyone in a high-ranking position, can emit. I believe that the biggest mistake in this event is loosing sight of your values. Sometimes individuals take new position in hopes to change the previous outcomes or improve upon them. However, their new ideas may get pushed aside when they start to “group think”. They get into a new position and start accepting the way things were done and stick to them. A major downfall is loosing site of important ideas and being blinded by the “glamour” of a high-powered position.

Another downfall is loosing site of the people who work below you. When executives can’t relate to their workers, the workers can sense it. Situations like this can intimidate people. These workers could have great ideas, for the growth of the company, and they won’t share them because they are intimidated. This intimidation could arise because they see their executive’s negative reactions to new ideas or the executive’s lack of time spent with employees.

True leaders are honest and confident. They encourage the people around them to succeed and share new ideas. True leaders, are not intimidated by other people’s talent; and in fact, they advance other’s talent to improve on areas that they cannot.

Weekly Readings

Article: “Evidence Based Management” by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton

“Evidence based management is conducted best not by know-it-alls but by managers who profoundly appreciate how much they do not know.”

I was puzzled by the authors’ comparison of physicians and managers. Due to the authors’ own choice to associate the decision practices of physicians and managers. After reading the article, and taking a step back, I could somewhat see the correlation. However, I still don’t know that it was the “right fit”.

The authors’ main decision was to indicate that both parties should practice their craft by best logic and evidence. The authors believe that the managers, who already use this practice, have a competitive advantage.

People assume that businesses, who have been in the industry the longest, are the most successful. But, this is not always the case. For the most part, new ideas and innovation are what create a successful business. The most seasoned manager may overlook a new and great idea for a traditional and comfortable practice. I think Apple is a great example of a company who has taken over its market (without being the first in its industry).  Without creating new ideas and practice within your company, the best you can do is mimic what has already been done. To me, that doesn’t sound like a company looking to love upward.

The article gave four examples to start an evidence-based approach. First, get the facts. This is important for a number of reason, but most importantly to gather reliable information and using that information to see what is still needed. Also, facts are important to support decision-making. Secondly, examine logic. As a manager, it’s your duty to evaluate the information given to you. You shouldn’t rely on others to tell you something is fact when you, yourself have not seen the evidence. The author states, that when staff watches senior executives look for answers, they start to see the company in a new perspective. Third, look at your company as being in a product phase. When thinking of your product as a sample, you will search for ways to improve it. Never think of the company as a finished product or you may overlook much needed improvements. Lastly, open up to new ideas. Managers who set aside their egos are more apt to learning and applying new techniques. New and efficient techniques are what give companies a competitive edge.

From my perspective, I think the article touched on a lot of key factors to support evidence-based management. I particularly thought the third example was key. If you look at your company as a prototype, you will most certainly search for ways to enhance the product and never get comfortable with it.

Article: INDEPTH: IRAQ
United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence: report on pre-Iraq war intelligence.

The article is about the intelligence-gathering efforts in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. For the betterment, it’s really about the lack of evidence gathered and what the article refers to as, “collective group think”.

The article references a report that bashes CIA director George Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush’s 2003 state of the union address, which contained important references for decision-making.

The above reference, reminds me of the article I just read, “Evidence- Based Management” and its recommendation to demand evidence. The CIA director and intelligence should have sought evidence and researched its facts before making a decision. They should not have relied on information that was given to be facts.

Group think can be devastating to companies and groups looking to grow respect. The whole group suffers if people are slacking and relying on others to give them the answers. Everyone should search out the truth. The only facts you can rely on  are the facts you discover. When you rely on others to hand you the answer, you are setting yourself up for error.

Article: Good to Great, or Just Good?

I loved this article! I haven’t read Good to Great by Jim Collins, but I could only imagine what my reaction to this article would have been, if I had read it. First, I would like to point out, that the information I have (on the mentioned book) is solely based from the article Good to Great, or Just Good by Bruce Niendorf and Kristine Beck.

It’s noteworthy that Collins tried to reinvent the wheel, by creating a theory from the ground up. I think this theory, once examined, illustrated great trial and error. However, it seems GTG was on the best-sellers list. I can only imagine this is due to the creativity of the theory and language of the book.

Once the theory was actually examined, by Neiendorf and Beck, the two found discrepancies in Collins theory. The two sought out the truth and found it wasn’t represented in this theory. The main reason is because not all the information was based form hard evidence, but rather by comparison.

The above reference, illustrates individuals who went against the “group think” and questioned what everyone around them was accepting to be true. The individuals examined the evidence and found their own truths. Unfortunately for Collins, a lot of his data was based from association, not actual studies. His interesting system caused scrutiny.

Luckily, there were individuals who examined the data and pointed out errors with the system. Before making the same mistake, this is important for “copy-cats” to read.

Article: Sins of Commission: Be Careful What You Pay For, You May Get It

The article goes back to the fundamental question about commissions – are they worth it? And if you are going to implement a commissions system, how are people going to behave to get that commission?

Like the article, I too had horrible customer service when buying a new car. I’d visited the dealership twice in a 7-day period and was reading to make my purchase. The only question I still had was whether I wanted to buy or lease. When I asked the sales manager about options, he quickly skimmed past my lease inquiry and jumped right into purchasing. Unless I was going to buy the car at the sticker price, he was a closed book.  Due to his lack of customer service, I drove to the neighboring state to if they had better service. Fortunately, I was able to get some answers. Needless to say, I got the car that day! I’m curious to know what their commission incentives were to buy versus lease. Ironically, the dealership closed its doors last week.

Personally, I am still undecided about commission programs. I believe good results are guided by good direction. If we make commission objectives too simple, people will take short cuts. I think the article gives a great example of an incentive program gone array – The city of Albuquerque, New Mexico decided to pay its drivers for full days regardless of how the tasks took before completion. These incentive strategies lead to erroneous behavior and poor workmanship.

I agree with George Simmer, founder and CEO of the Men’s Warehouse, who believes that incentives should be just large enough but not too large. I completely agree with this statement, I think good behavior should be recognized. However, I do not think it should be the determining factor to if you make or break your paycheck. Rewards should be given to provide recognition.

Case study: Compensation and Performance evaluation at Arrow Electronics

Annually, Arrow Electronic required its general mangers to conduct employee performance evaluations and submit the results to HR and CEO for review. The managers had to rate individual employees on seven components and give them a 1 to 5 score (with 5 being the highest rating).

Steve Kaufman, the CEO of Arrow Electronics, was very dissatisfied with the reviews he received and asked the managers to reconduct the performance evaluations.  Unfortunately, Kaufman also made the decision to control how the managers rated their staff. He gave them guidelines of how many people could receive each score. The managers expressed their concern to Kaufman, believing that this was unfair, but Kaufman didn’t agree. Because Kaufman received low scores from shareholders, he believed that other people in the company should also receive low scores.

Basically, Kaufman was unhappy with the first performance evaluations because the reviews came back very positive. He couldn’t justify giving everyone a raise because they got high markings. Case one to why annual performance evaluations should not control compensation. Instead of evaluating other aspects of the market or employee value to the company, he was basing his compensation packages on the reviews given by managers. Due to the number of employees within the company upper management couldn’t evaluate each employee from personal knowledge.

The new system put in place-required managers to give employees areas to improve upon. From the perspective of the employee, this was often unmotivated and discouraging. Once they approved in one aspect of their job they were given a new area to work on. Companies should find the strengths of their employees and utilize those.

I read through the employee evaluations we were given and they were inconsistent. Employees would have positive remarks and then areas that didn’t coincide with their positive marks to improve on. Also, everyone received an average score.

I think it was wrong of Kaufman to put restrictions on the ratings managers can give. If the system he was using was failing then its time for him to revaluate the system, not manipulate the data to fit your expectations.

Article: Strategies of Effective New Product Team Leaders

The article is based from a study that assess the effectiveness of new product team leaders based on the extent to which they must be transformed. The first stage of research was conducted by interviewing six managers directly involved with new products for new technologies. The second stage was conducted by interviewing forty managers directly involved in the new product development process.

The study found that team leaders must transform their behavior to be effective team leaders and provide quick and efficient new product development.

The article illustrates how when a company is compartmentalized it takes longer for the pieces to come together, thus slowing down production time. I’ve seen first hand how departments segregate themselves from other departments and it makes for a difficult working environment. When one department can’t create a product without the other departments knowledge it effects everyone directly and indirectly involved with that product. I think the example given for an effective team leader in this situation is perfect, “They create a social environment in which teams come to resemble less a battleground for turf protection behaviors and more a sanctuary in which people with divergent orientations and talents can share hidden agendas, ask for help, take risks, and develop collaborative relationships with others.”

To create harmony among departments a team leader also needs to have strong relationships with other departments. Teams leaders need to be skilled at human interaction issues and not solely technical issues. I’ve also seen companies were the manager is very intelligent and technical savvy, but when it comes to creating relationships with their staff they lack. When this happens the staff either walks all over the manager and only goes to them when they have a technical issue or the staff has no clear direction and is making a lot of errors without disciplinary action.

I thought it was very important that the article also noted that team leaders should be though of as facilitators and not the heroes.  In must companies the managers’ duty is to coordinate the employees creating the product. They usually are not the ones creating the product. I think this is really important to note because the some people think their managers’ should be doing all the work. Obviously the managers’ are doing work, but it tends to indirectly help the finished product.

Case Studies

Case Study – Nordstrom: Dissension in the Ranks?

As a consumer, my customer service experience at Nordstrom has been over-the-top! I can attest to receiving thank you cards and special deliveries. Due to the quality in service and product, I am a repeat customer. However, my current stance has changed slightly after reading about the internal process of management.

I was shocked to read, from the case study, that hourly compensation was being jeopardized because of Nordstrom’s commission strategy. Sales staff was neglecting to clock in for over time because they didn’t want their sales per hour (SPH) ratio to be negatively effected. This system encouraged employees to work off the clock, violating several labor laws. And employees would work off the clock to get a sale. If the employees were able and willing to work over-time Nordstrom should have compensated the employees for their outside efforts. Reprimanding good behavior does not encourage employees to work harder.

By chance, employees started speaking out about the unfair and unlawful practices of the retailer and unions caught on. Union investigations proved that these testimonials were correct. Unfortunately, Nordstrom’s reaction to the allegations was pitiful. Never was the retailer apologetic or willing to admit fault. Instead, the reaction was defensive. The retailer even went as far as to compare the sales people with other business professionals (who are paid salary).

An additional downside was the employee turnover. Because Nordstrom did not treat employees with respect and fairness, employees would often leave. From a customer stand point; it is hard to believe that the culture of its people survived through turnover. Customer service was always #1, but I guess that’s what happens when commissions are based off an unfair system like Nordstrom’s.

Case Study: SAS Institute

I’ve previously heard of the SAS Institute and its role as a business software company. But I had absolutely no idea what a huge company it was until this case study.

After reading the case, I could see a lot of similarities between them and Southwest. Both companies are very involved with keeping the culture of their companies intact. And I liked that the majority of its employees were internal promotions or employee referrals. To me, this illustrates that the company values the work and opinions of its employees. As well as, expresses the companies low turnover rate.

Its benefits package and office structure are amazing! I couldn’t believe all the resources the employees have available to them on site. Benefits like these are worth working for –most people do not have these kinds of advantages. From a company standpoint, its smart to employee these “needs” items, such as; doctors, nurses, daycare, etc. the employee is not taking too much time away from work.

I found it interesting that SAS accepts almost every new idea to create a program for its consumers and then tests it with people who would be interested in it. Most companies try to think in the long run; thinking of new ideas and creating them for use later. Instead, it seems like, SAS waits for the request to come from a consumer first. They are more reactive than proactive.

As far as compensation, I like the idea that salaries are competitive with the industry and adjusted regularly to fit the market. I believe, this decreases competition amongst coworkers and probably provides a more cohesive work environment. If people aren’t pinned against each other, they are probably working in a more team orientated environment.

In addition, there were no performance evaluations given to employees. This is another item that I’m sure is respected by employees. However, I was confused as to what the quarterly review really entailed. The only information given was that the employees were given a number, (1-4) every quarter.

The CEO reminded me a lot of Herb Kelleher, from Southwest, when the case explained that he would interact with all the employees. An interesting concept that SAS has, is that the CEO is actually working on program and other on hand projects, besides managing. And he has 27 direct reports!

This was a great case to read because it pointed out some unique operational styles. I would love to see its facility in Cary.

Case Study: Specialty Medical Chemicals

It’s unfortunate that Carl Burke felt like he had been mislead by the search firm. I can definitely see why he felt this way, but I can also see how he really wasn’t misled. The company brought him to SMC to rekindle the growth of the company. The growth of the company was dependent on change. And change is exactly what Burke needed to bring to the table.

Alternatively, the Executive Team’s reactions to Burke’s complain of his direct reports were interesting. They congratulated him on the coherence of his assessment. If in fact, the company was hiring him for this restructure, why wasn’t this stated from the beginning? This is most likely why Burke would feel misled.

I really liked the idea of Burke bringing in Laura Wells. I thought it was a great operational move. Some people may wonder why he couldn’t restructure the company on his own…. Burke brining in Laura, gave him more supporting evidence for his decision making. If he were to fire, re-structure and/or hire based solely on his “gut feelings” people would take out any frustrations on him alone. Because Burke had the backing of the Executive team and a well-educated consultant; I would think that people would be less accusatory to him. It’s pretty obvious that the company had been running under par for a number of years. An outside review was probably a real eye-opener.

Unfortunately, we are not told the outcome of the situation. I would really like to know what the final restructure was and how it was taken by the current employees. What would really be interesting is Laura’s summary for Burke, which was not included.

Chapter 6 Readings

Article: Get Rid of the Performance Review!

 

I agree with the article, let’s get rid of performance reviews! The quote, “It’s a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work,” sums up all the reasons why I do not believe in performance reviews.  The very idea of them is stressful… on both ends of the conversation.

For me, a performance review to discuss employee/manager successes and regrets is a waste of valuable work time. Issues of success and particularly issues of regret should be recognized immediately. If it is an issue of “what should have happened” there should be an immediate action plan from the employee and manager (as a team) for future circumstances. If it is a success, the story should be shared with the rest of the department, so that others may see the good example and the employee will also feel valued. If an employee feels valued, you better believe that they will continue to succeed.

If managers are engaged in the duties and goals of their employees, there shouldn’t need to be an annual meeting to discuss all of the issues/successes from the year. This should be an open conversation at all times. Performance reviews make it awkward for employees, who may feel the need to “showcase” their value to the company. Real time response are always more effective than drawn out recognitions, which may or may not be remembered when the annual meeting rolls around.

On the manager side, I think it is important to set the bar high from the beginning. Let the employee know what you expect from them short-term and long-term. By continually setting goals high, the employees have something to move towards. Not only will the employee feel like they are working to a bigger goal, but you will be able to evaluate their performance based on the outcomes of each completion.

Again, keeping an open conversation will help to guide an evaluation process. I obviously don’t believe in performance reviews, but I do believe in recognizing employee performance on a regular basis. I would even suggest a weekly or biweekly meeting to go over objectives for reaching new goals. This is also an opportunity for everyone involved to be aware of what is going on, on each end of the task.