Monthly Archives: November 2013

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303789604579198281053673534

Jack Welch, who was the CEO of GE and is the founder of the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal to support Microsoft’s new evaluation system for employees’ performance. The concept behind this system is called “differentiation,” which allows the company to find out how much difference in goal setting and culture exists between employees and the company. Through evaluating the employees’ performance twice a year, and letting their employees know where they stand in the company, company officials believe that transparent grades—just like how well students do in a class— would advance a company’s mission and strengthen its core values once they can get rid of the bottom 10 percent.

After reading this article, I began wondering to what extent differentiation can be applied to employees of a professional bureaucracy, such as teachers working for a city’s department of education or professors employed by a university. In New York City, for instance, teachers are being evaluated under a new system imposed by the state Department of Education after the city failed to reach an agreement with the teacher’s union. The system ranks teachers on a scale of 1 to 4, with 1 meaning “ineffective” and 4, “highly effective.” After a series of observations, along with their students’ performance on standardized tests, each teacher will receive a grade from 0 to 100 at the end of the year.

While any system designed to improve worker performance is good for a company, I wonder who is really responsible for designing these assessments. Is it the teachers? Principals? Or outside consultants who may have studied a teacher teaches, but who themselves have never actually taught? Obviously, there will always be some push back when it comes to evaluation, but when assessments are imposed by faceless bureaucratic institutions that do not seek the input of employees, these evaluation systems always run the risk of being met with fierce resistance.

I also wondered about just how effective it is to arithmetically grade teachers based on how they arrange furniture in a classroom, for instance, or whether their students always call each other by name? It seems that even differentiation, while quantitative, acknowledges that much of how a worker functions in his or her workplace is also qualitative and cannot be expressed in the form of a letter or a numerical grade.

While thinking about last week’s discussion, I recalled a story I had read some time ago about an experiment involving monkeys. A scientist put four monkeys into a small cage with limited food for a week. Then, the scientist hung a bunch of bananas on top of the cage. One reached out for a banana immediately, but was hurt by a big pot of hot water that fell down on him. The other three monkeys were also burned by hot water when each climbed up to get the bananas. In the end, all the monkeys could do was sit at the bottom of the cage and stare up at the bananas.

A few days later, a new monkey, hungry for days, replaced one of the originals. When that monkey spotted the bananas hanging from the top of the cage and tried to climb up to retrieve them, it was stopped and warned by the other three who had been burned before by the water. A few days later, yet another monkey replaced one of the three originals, which was when the scientist noticed something interesting-the two originals and the one newcomer had banded together to prevent the latest addition from trying to grab the bananas. The experiment went on until none of the monkeys were physically hurt by hot water, which had also been removed. Even though the fresh bananas still hung from the top of the cage, none of the monkeys went anywhere near them.

Just as the monkeys established a culture of cooperation and communication among themselves, even though the threat of being splashed by hot water no longer existed, so too each organization develops its own way of incorporating certain values and behaviors into its own culture. The danger, though, is in establishing a culture that is so rigid that workers are unable to react accordingly to rapid changes from the outside environment. This situation is challenging for anyone who has worked in an organization his or her entire life, or for a newcomer who tries to change culture or restructure the organization from within. In the case study from last Thursday’s  discussion, Dr. Lopez’s leadership and management skills ultimately saved Hammond Community College from being forced to close. However, Dr. Lopez did not gain the support of faculty and staff, with more than half signing a petition expressing a lack of confidence in her leadership skills.

Obviously, this must have come as a shock to Dr. Lopez, who assumed that everything had been going well at the college. With 15 minutes before the faculty meeting, what should she do? Should she go in with a scowl on her face, slam down her papers on the desk and berate all of the faculty members who gave her a vote of no confidence? In the heat of the moment, this of course is a tempting choice. But sitting down and having a talk with her detractors after the meeting, once she and everyone else have cooled down, is a better starting point. This was the scenario that all five groups agreed upon last week. In doing so, Dr. Lopez needs not so much to identify her opponents and supporters as to understand why they feel the way they do. Assuming the letter was not confidential, it seems as if the faculty was unafraid of expressing their opinion to Dr. Lopez. Thus, Dr. Lopez should seize this opportunity and let faculty and staff candidly express to her why she does not command their confidence. Such a situation may be awkward for everyone involved, but Dr. Lopez should give faculty and staff the opportunity to speak frankly as she listens and, later, reflects on their assessment.

Just like the monkeys who did not question whether the pot of boiling water was still next to the bananas, Hammond’s faculty and staff resisted thinking about the positive changes Dr. Lopez, an outsider, brought to their school. In short, they were stuck in their old ways. In light of the letter she received from the faculty, Dr. Lopez should still question her own impressions of herself and consider how the feedback of those who work with her daily might make Hammond Community College an institute where everyone—including faculty, staff and students—has confidence in her ability to serve as president.

Due to school, these days I have been juggling with many readings, assignments and other school-related stuff. However, this has not prevented me to allocate a few minutes a day of reading Alex Ferguson’s auto bio–a book that has just come out. Alex Ferguson was the Manager of Manchester United Football Club (English football league). Ferguson was the manager of Manchester United for about 27 years in which he won 49 trophies. Because of all the trophies, his game style, great players he coached, and the transformation that the club undertook during his reign, he is regarded as one of the most successful football coach in British history and, arguably, the most successful football coach in the world. Whatever the case is, he is up there.

It is a real thrill to read his book. As I was reading this book, on the early pages of his book, I got caught on a line that reads “I decided right away that in order to build trust and loyalty with the players, I had to give it to them first.” I feel this line is loaded and would like to elaborate on this, which is also related to what we’ve seen in class.

Teams are something interesting to watch–for better or worse. Prof. Hackman (from the class reading “why teams fail”) reveals that working in teams doesn’t guarantee efficiency. They are as likely to under perform themselves, if they are not certain measures to be taken. Yet, putting the right pieces together can make teams amazing such as the case at hand.

One aspect in teams I want to point out is loyalty—which I think it is crucial for the development and efficiency of the team. Prof. HAckman does not elaborate much on this matter, but here are a few thoughts to build upon his material.

The dictionary tells us that loyalty means to be “faithful to one’s oath, commitments, or obligations. ” Loyalty is not only to be loyal to others but to ourselves as well. When Ferguson wrote this, it took me to a journey of self-reflection. Being loyal is to show one’s commitment not only for the well-being of the group but for the well-being of oneself. Ferguson showed his commitment not only to other aspect of the club but also to every single player, to the development of the player and the relationship between him and the player.

It is interesting to see that Ferguson is the one that initiates the contact with the player first and not all the way around. I find that very interesting because in a team and in life, taking the initiative to anything in life is eventually rewarding. In this case, players are human beings as well, and having Ferguson (as the boss) initiating the relationship and shows care to his players, players responded with the same actions. Since teams are formed by people, it is important to keep that human aspect in the back of our minds. This also show us that regardless of the structure, both parties (the leader and the leading need each other) People are reciprocal and appreciative towards those who help them—although this may not always apply, it is, more often than not, true. In a team, when you help others, you are indirectly helping yourself anyways, creating a win-win situation.
Moreover, having a sense of loyalty in the team is an important asset because it keeps the team members focused and bounded towards thesame goal. Ferguson also mentions “trust.” Trust is like the fuel needed to keep on going. The fuel that tells you to continue on regardless of adversities. When you have loyalty and trust mixed together towards the right goal, amazing things are likely to happened as Ferguson showed us for the past 27 years. Any thoughts on this to further develop it?

Andres

One of the many stories that frames the character of my current organization is the struggle to eliminate the Workfare Employment Program (WEP). This campaign dates back to the founding of my organization called, Community Voices Heard (CVH). CVH is a nonprofit that was founded in 1994, by a small group of mothers on welfare fighting the city for a voice.

Their primary reform campaign was WEP. This workfare program, spearheaded by Mayor Rudolph Guliani, abused workers who are required to work for nothing in order to receive benefits [and still does today]. The story of these mothers is the spirit of the organization. My work actually does not involve this project as CVH has grown, and today several other projects are in progress. Despite my lack of involvement in today’s WEP campaign, the story of mothers on welfare taking the streets to protest informs the work of every staffer.

– CK

Two qualities make this case important for me. 1) The cultural frames’ strong impact on individual behavior and 2) the amorphous quality of culture that varies depending on the organization. Lehurutshe failed to respond in time, but as we discussed in class he may have made the right decision for him. Despite what we may think about his dishonesty, Lehurutshe was clearly not a good fit for his former company’s culture. My takeaway from this case is that culture naturally selects for the “right fit” in many cases. Popular examples are the finance industry, public sector work, and technology companies. The personality types that are drawn to each industry serve many companies and individuals alike. The matching in this natural selection allows each industry to fulfill its mission with precisely the right personnel in each organization.

– CK

Hi all,

I want to share something that is related to what we are seeing in class this semester. I recently got admitted into a program called Lincoln Center Student Advisory Council. The program is composed of about 15 graduate students—although we have 2 undergrads amongst us—most of us are in our twenties and are pursuing advanced degrees.

As you may imagine, Lincoln Center is a well-known cultural institution. It has thousands of performing art events throughout the year, events in all forms such as dance, theater, opera, music concerts etc. Unfortunately, for the past decade or so, Lincoln Center has been losing its appeal towards younger generations—college students and young professionals etc. Unlike people of my generation, older generations have been able to develop a better appreciation for these arts. For this reason, Lincoln Center has brought this group of students together to brainstorm ideas and design strategies on how to attract younger people.

Please keep reading, there is a purpose of why I am sharing this.

Recently, we received a survey in regards to the structure of our council. This question really made me think of our class indeed! We have been learning about organizations’ structure, team dynamics, leadership etc. The options were:

Collective (1 vote per person on every major issue)

Committees (Everyone signs up and advances their mini-group’s work)

Hierarchical (Select chair and tell me what to do)

Other

Now let me describe the scenario in which this council will operate. As far as we know, the environment will be unpredictable and fast as students in NYC, like everybody else, are usually rushed, busy; they usually have some sort of responsibilities and so on. For this reason, I picked Committees because in an unpredictable and fast changing environment, different committees will focus on different responsibilities of the marketing process–in this case Adhocracy comes to mind. I argue, these committees have to be autonomous enough. This autonomy will create creativity and allow the flexibility necessary to deal with unpredictable cases while ensuring communication among us. Committees should not be too autonomous because too much decentralization may trigger extreme division among committees. A proper decentralization should avoid some sort of machine bureaucracy and centralization in the vertical sense. Hierarchical will create a fixed, top-down approach and will lead to the same questions and answers in a changing scenario–not suitable.  I did not advocate for collective because we are a team of 15 folks. According to the article by the title of “Why teams fail,” Prof. Hackman from Harvard University said that “as team gets bigger, the number of links that need to be managed among members goes up… It’s managing the links between members that gets teams into trouble.” I understand that as the team gets bigger, there is more opinions on the table and can create confusion. But honestly, I do not understand what “link” mean in this context, somebody?

Do you agree or disagree with me? Please share your opinions.

This case reminds me a lot of the Preventing Pollution in Massachusetts: The Blackstone Project and the type of structures explained by Mintzberg, by the way!

In essence, the mission is to reach out students who don’t know what Lincoln Center offers or have a misconception of it. In other words, educate them and attract them. Our next challenge is how we will design our group structure. I’ve shared this with you because I was told I should as it is actually very relevant to class. I would like to know what you have to say based on what we have read in class. Any suggestions or disagreements are welcomed! I look forward for some candid and insightful discussions. 🙂

Thanks everybody,

Andres