In my last blog post I detailed the leadership of Alan Mullaly and how it was key to the transformation and turnaround at Ford Motor Company. In this post I would like to go in the other direction and discuss how bad leadership can destroy a company. Carly Fiorina, former Senate Candidate and HP CEO, is a prime example of this.
Carly Fiorina took over HP in 1999 after completing the split between AT&T and Lucent Technologies, a split that was bound to lead to the demise of Lucent Tech. There were high hopes for Fiorina, after all it was the height of the tech bubble and HP's stock price was skyrocketing. Fiorina was a charismatic leader, she gave speeches praising the employees and labeling them the 'shining star' of HP. She had a way of making her employees feel like what they were working for actually mattered.
Fiorina completely altered the culture at HP when she took over. She was a big believer in positive reinforcement. Employees were give gold stars to wear on their name badges, the more gold stars an employee had the better benefits they got. For instance, one employee recalls getting his first gold start 6 months after being hired, he was given free lunch for the week. Employees strived to get gold stars. Fiorina, in this aspect, was also a believer in extrinsic motivation. She motivated employees through lunches, vacations, and bonuses.
But as the tech bubble burst, Fiorina had to alter her strategy. 6000 employees were fired as part of a cost savings initiative, followed 2 weeks later by the announcement that HP was going to be buying Compaq at the cost of $21 billion. Fiorina, during those fiery speeches that made her so popular and inspiring, made promises to not cut jobs. She had to break that promise. She spent lavishly on corporate jets, high end clothes, and bonuses for high level employees. Fiorina also eliminated many of the positive reinforcement programs that had made her popular.
Fiorina had lost all the trust that she built up and was then completely ineffective as a leader. Employees all blamed her for the troubles HP had. The layoffs followed quickly by a merger completely dissolved all motivation Fiorina may have been able to conjure up. She was not respected and only followed because of her position. Employees did not want to work for Carly Fiorina, they had to. Fiorina may have been a transformational leader in that she had a larger view for HP, but her decisions as CEO did not reflect this. She made many mistakes, appearing on Oprah with Gwen Stafani during the merger for one. Her refusal to see long term indicates more of a transactional leader. Fiorina, when she left in 2002 after 3 short years, was cheered by many as she walked out. It's not surprise why; Fiorina was as bad as it gets in terms of leadership.
Article based on http://www.businesspundit.com/10-reasons-people-hate-carly-fiorina/2/
Chase Behrendt
Friday, June 24, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Developing Critical Thinkers and Creative Leaders
As discussed in class, effective leadership can lend itself to cognitive development, such as creativity and critical thinking, in the workplace. It has been shown that the correct amount of conflict fosters creativity and innovation, whereas some leadership styles help develop critical thinking skills. Interestingly enough, this article questions whether or not business and industry properly trains and prepares employees to become creative, critical thinkers. As such, the military is suggested as a positive model for leaders to parallel in shaping employees who are concerned with more than just business operations and bottom line.
First, it has been shown that businesses and industry spend the vast majority of their time in business execution, whereas very little time is spent directing cognitive development. In fact, it seems that the majority of training consists of the command - control stereotype that surrounds business and industry, instead of focusing on how to improve both the individual and the organization. Conversely, the military devotes equal amounts of time to executing and developing competence through actual experiences. Many ambiguous events are created to force trainees into critical thinking and realization that there are many solutions to the problem. Furthermore, immersing members of the military into actual experiences (developed by the leader) not only provides them with practical experience, but it also facilitates creative thinking and creativity as they learn. This experiential training in the military is an excellent way of teaching "how to think," as opposed to business's training of "what to think."
Next, it is important to discuss a limitation of actual, experiential training the military imposes. To begin, the physical nature of military is literally impossible for business and industry to imitate. Situations such as those require muscle memory and an innate sense of how to make the most out of the environment. Although businesses cannot recreate combat training in a corporate environment, it is possible for them to focus on the theme of military training: improving human capital. As stated by the article, training and missions are only considered a success if there are both proper execution and improving competence.
Finally, the military focuses on providing an immense amount of feedback after all training exercises. Trainees sit down with the leaders and discuss the timeline of the actions, from planning to result, with their leader and the leader subsequently discusses strategy and beneficial changes to their behavior through feedback. In essence, leaders must become very good at coaching, supporting, directing, and delegating in order to be effective in fostering development amongst trainees.
So, what do you think? Given the synopsis of this article, is this an effective approach for developing employees in business? Instead of focusing on the physicality of military training, pay attention to the theme of creating situations for trainees to develop creative and critical thinking. Does removing constraint while allowing for risky decision making work in business training? If not, what is another effective way of encouraging employees "how to think," instead of "what to think?"
Matthew Fowles
Blogging and Leadership - Plus Other Communication Issues
As a communicator and speechwriter for two IT executives, I often find myself wondering about the best way to communicate with employees. When a colleague indicates he or she has no idea about the newest campaign in our department, it makes me think twice about the way we attempt to disseminate information. Because our department is made up of over 10,000 people, we struggle with several communication barriers. One is that our employees tend to engage in selective perception. The weekly online newsletter we send out has so much information in it, employees cannot help but filter through the messages and only pay attention to what they think involves them. I also believe that some of our employees do not know our executives very well and therefore disregard most messages sent from them, indicating a lack of source familiarity or credibility. Additionally, as an IT organization, we tend to use acronyms. AIAOT (An Insane Amount of Them). This jargon means something to part of our department, but for the non-techie folks, the message falls flat when it uses a lot of these semantics.
All of these barriers seem to lead back to the fact that employees are trying to deal with information overload - the idea that there is simply too much out there to know. Verbal communication to everyone from executives is just out of the question; when the executives try to disseminate messages through mid-level management, the message seems to get lost. Which brings me back to my original concern: How do we get the important messages to the employees in a way that they will pay attention? Last year we began experimenting with blogs. We have a monthly post from one of our top three IT executives on the most relevant topic to everyone in the department at that time. Employees can comment on the blog and occasionally, the executives will respond to certain comments. While we do see good readership numbers with these blogs, I don't think we're necessarily using them to the extent of their capabilities.
All of these barriers seem to lead back to the fact that employees are trying to deal with information overload - the idea that there is simply too much out there to know. Verbal communication to everyone from executives is just out of the question; when the executives try to disseminate messages through mid-level management, the message seems to get lost. Which brings me back to my original concern: How do we get the important messages to the employees in a way that they will pay attention? Last year we began experimenting with blogs. We have a monthly post from one of our top three IT executives on the most relevant topic to everyone in the department at that time. Employees can comment on the blog and occasionally, the executives will respond to certain comments. While we do see good readership numbers with these blogs, I don't think we're necessarily using them to the extent of their capabilities.
Northern Trust CEO Rick Waddell is an example of a leader who takes advantage of his internal blog. Waddell started his blog in 2007 at the behest of his communication team, who did a survey and found out employees wanted to hear more from senior leaders. Waddell posts twice a month and addresses important issues such as what happens at the company's board meetings and the company's diversity. He even used the blog to announce a change in benefits. Employees are allowed to post comments - and Waddell responds personally. The blog is well-received internally, and Northern's Trust company culture has no doubt played a part in 2007 fourth-quarter results that were better than expected in light of the banking crisis.
Effective employee communication can also help during times of change. Although blogging is perhaps the most fashionable way to get the message to employees these days, internal memos and documents have done the trick in the past. When Microsoft was facing the threat of falling behind the industry in web technology, CEO Bill Gates sent a memo assigning the Internet the "highest level of priority" at the company. Gates created a vision for change and then communicated that change in a way that showed the transition was supported directly by him and other senior leaders, a key element of ensuring the change resonates with employees.
At my company, we are undergoing a lot of organizational change, including ones related to technology, hiring, and a change in consumer base. The more our leaders are called upon to communicate about this, the more we need to seriously consider the best way to get the message across to all employees. What methods would you suggest if you were in my position?
Traci Finch
Sustainable Leadership: The Problem with Iconic Leaders
Work is going great at your company. Everyone is getting his or her jobs done swiftly and effectively and the boss man has a solid hold on the situation. Then, boss man gets sick, or wants to retire. What is a company to do then? They (board of directors) have not groomed anybody to take boss man’s place, thinking he would last forever. But forever is impossible. So what should the company do?
Many organizations are having problems just like this. Apple is unsure of Steve Jobs health, and cannot seem to even think of an individual who can replace him. Their tactic is to ignore the issue in hopes that Jobs will get better. Becoming an iconic leader takes a lot of hard work and respect. Jobs is innovative and charismatic. From what I can gather, he helped sky rocket Apple Corporation into a technology guru. Apple comes out with many new gadgets first, of which is followed down the line of organizations hoping to cash in on the success.
From what we have studied in class, iconic leaders are few and far between (granted we did not talk specifically about iconic leaders per se, but we mentioned a few and their impact on the business world). The article discusses ways that organizations can be prepared for a situation where their main leader, for someone reason, does not return to work. Edward Lawler, the author, suggests that all companies install a sustainable leadership model. The best way to describe the model is to say that it puts many responsibilities of the organization in many hands as opposed to putting them in the hands of one. This way the company is grooming future employees to potentially take over some day. Edwards makes a good point, noting that, “When leadership is shared, people throughout the organization take advantage of leadership moments to influence the direction of the corporation.” This shared leadership approach lets other individuals in the organization step up to the plate and take a crack at helping to run an organization. Examples of successful shared leadership approaches include Bill Gates and Microsoft as well as Herb Kellehe at Southwest Airlines. Each of these companies has had continued success with their leader turnaround.
Why is it so difficult to replace an iconic leader? One could say, that because of what they have done for their company and their success while working at that company is irreplaceable. However at some point, a replacement or shift does happen. Looking at what makes a good leader could help with this situation. However, let it be noted, that each company is different and works differently, so a different minded leader works in different situations.
The book for class mentions four traits that have been studied that make for a good leader and are what could be a starting point for organizations to look for when trying to find that new iconic leader. They include; intelligence, personality, self-esteem, and integrity. One would guess that you would have to be highly intelligent with an open and extraverted personality, have a good self-esteem and have some kind of a moral compass, to be a successful leader. Okay, yes this is somewhat the case, however there is more to it than that. Although intelligence is a factor in being successful, the book notes that a paper and pencil IQ test has shown that individuals tend to have weaker IQs then what they portray or are being perceived as. And though mental abilities are important, sometimes, emotional abilities are just as critical. The balance between the two is what makes for a solid leader.
When we refer to personality, we are referring to the Big 5 Personality Traits. They include; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. It has been highly studied that extraverted individuals make for the best leaders. They are sociable and assertive. To go along with that it has been found that conscientious individuals make for good leaders as well, because they are organized, take initiative and are persistent in their endeavors. Something to be aware of when hiring for a leadership position is agreeableness. Those who tend to agree with everything show that they may not have an idea of their own or that they may not care. These individuals are the ones you may see being used and being pushed over because they are too trusting and kind. It could be difficult to determine the type of leader an individual will be with just one meeting, but during that meeting looking for these qualities in an individual are important to the well being and future success of an organization.
Lastly we have self-esteem and integrity. Those individuals who are comfortable with who they are and how they work and believe in their own worth is someone most companies want working for them. Those with high self-esteem are more confident in their decisions and are more then likely to portray charisma in their leadership approach. A lot can be said for charisma being a key component for success and employees willingness to follow. Steve Jobs charisma inspires an organization beyond everyday thought, and his motivation and belief in the organization gets passed down through its employees. Those individuals, who are honest and work to follow a moral compass, tend to have only the best outlook for an organization. They work hard to see the company succeed and are not afraid of asking questions.
When looking for new leaders, as the article suggests, it could be easier to breed them yourselves. Letting others take over some leadership situations will help to maintain the group dynamic of the organization. Although this is true, something can be said for bringing in a new person, an outsider with an unbiased look at the organization who may have a slue of ideas. It’s getting that individual to meld with the rest of the organization that becomes the tricky part. Everyone who has ever been a leader works in his or her own way. It’s finding that one individual who can mesh with your company, that makes the hiring process that much more daunting, and although daunting, could make your company that much more successful in the future.
Angela Minichiello
article: http://blogs.forbes.com/edwardlawler/2011/04/18/sustainable-leadership-the-problem-with-iconic-leaders/
Many organizations are having problems just like this. Apple is unsure of Steve Jobs health, and cannot seem to even think of an individual who can replace him. Their tactic is to ignore the issue in hopes that Jobs will get better. Becoming an iconic leader takes a lot of hard work and respect. Jobs is innovative and charismatic. From what I can gather, he helped sky rocket Apple Corporation into a technology guru. Apple comes out with many new gadgets first, of which is followed down the line of organizations hoping to cash in on the success.
From what we have studied in class, iconic leaders are few and far between (granted we did not talk specifically about iconic leaders per se, but we mentioned a few and their impact on the business world). The article discusses ways that organizations can be prepared for a situation where their main leader, for someone reason, does not return to work. Edward Lawler, the author, suggests that all companies install a sustainable leadership model. The best way to describe the model is to say that it puts many responsibilities of the organization in many hands as opposed to putting them in the hands of one. This way the company is grooming future employees to potentially take over some day. Edwards makes a good point, noting that, “When leadership is shared, people throughout the organization take advantage of leadership moments to influence the direction of the corporation.” This shared leadership approach lets other individuals in the organization step up to the plate and take a crack at helping to run an organization. Examples of successful shared leadership approaches include Bill Gates and Microsoft as well as Herb Kellehe at Southwest Airlines. Each of these companies has had continued success with their leader turnaround.
Why is it so difficult to replace an iconic leader? One could say, that because of what they have done for their company and their success while working at that company is irreplaceable. However at some point, a replacement or shift does happen. Looking at what makes a good leader could help with this situation. However, let it be noted, that each company is different and works differently, so a different minded leader works in different situations.
The book for class mentions four traits that have been studied that make for a good leader and are what could be a starting point for organizations to look for when trying to find that new iconic leader. They include; intelligence, personality, self-esteem, and integrity. One would guess that you would have to be highly intelligent with an open and extraverted personality, have a good self-esteem and have some kind of a moral compass, to be a successful leader. Okay, yes this is somewhat the case, however there is more to it than that. Although intelligence is a factor in being successful, the book notes that a paper and pencil IQ test has shown that individuals tend to have weaker IQs then what they portray or are being perceived as. And though mental abilities are important, sometimes, emotional abilities are just as critical. The balance between the two is what makes for a solid leader.
When we refer to personality, we are referring to the Big 5 Personality Traits. They include; openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism. It has been highly studied that extraverted individuals make for the best leaders. They are sociable and assertive. To go along with that it has been found that conscientious individuals make for good leaders as well, because they are organized, take initiative and are persistent in their endeavors. Something to be aware of when hiring for a leadership position is agreeableness. Those who tend to agree with everything show that they may not have an idea of their own or that they may not care. These individuals are the ones you may see being used and being pushed over because they are too trusting and kind. It could be difficult to determine the type of leader an individual will be with just one meeting, but during that meeting looking for these qualities in an individual are important to the well being and future success of an organization.
Lastly we have self-esteem and integrity. Those individuals who are comfortable with who they are and how they work and believe in their own worth is someone most companies want working for them. Those with high self-esteem are more confident in their decisions and are more then likely to portray charisma in their leadership approach. A lot can be said for charisma being a key component for success and employees willingness to follow. Steve Jobs charisma inspires an organization beyond everyday thought, and his motivation and belief in the organization gets passed down through its employees. Those individuals, who are honest and work to follow a moral compass, tend to have only the best outlook for an organization. They work hard to see the company succeed and are not afraid of asking questions.
When looking for new leaders, as the article suggests, it could be easier to breed them yourselves. Letting others take over some leadership situations will help to maintain the group dynamic of the organization. Although this is true, something can be said for bringing in a new person, an outsider with an unbiased look at the organization who may have a slue of ideas. It’s getting that individual to meld with the rest of the organization that becomes the tricky part. Everyone who has ever been a leader works in his or her own way. It’s finding that one individual who can mesh with your company, that makes the hiring process that much more daunting, and although daunting, could make your company that much more successful in the future.
Angela Minichiello
article: http://blogs.forbes.com/edwardlawler/2011/04/18/sustainable-leadership-the-problem-with-iconic-leaders/
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Eliminating “Silos” in Toyota – Culturally Feasible?
Because I drive a Toyota (a cute blue Corolla, if you must know), I followed the Toyota safety scandal pretty closely last year. I love my little car, and I was concerned that at some point I would need to trade it in or even change to a different company. Thankfully, my model didn’t have any recalls and it seemed like Toyota fixed their issues – everyone moved on.
But a report that came out last week indicated otherwise. According to a panel Toyota asked to evaluate the company’s actions after the safety crisis, several elements need to be reassessed, including ways decisions are made, its overall culture, and leadership models within the company.
The idea of changing Toyota’s leadership model struck me as quite the challenge. This is, after all, a nearly 80-year-old company that recently overtook GM as the world’s largest automaker. It seems as though they have a pretty successful operation on inside their headquarters. But Toyota’s “top-down management style,” in part, led to the 2010 acceleration scare.
The panel suggests the company eliminate the “silos” between its North American executives, who all head different divisions of the company, by appointing one person in charge of operations. Another suggestion included giving “regional managers more autonomy.” Toyota’s hierarchical leadership model apparently hinders anyone but senior leadership to feel comfortable speaking up – and even that seems like it is against company culture. This seems contradictory to an intra-company philosophy known as the Toyota Production System, which encourages workers to speak up and even stop production on the manufacturing floor when they notice something isn’t right.
However, as Bauer and Erdogan (2009) describe in their case study of Toyota, “it is not uncommon that individuals feel reluctant to pass bad news up the chain within a family company… No Toyota executive in the United States is authorized to issue a recall” (p. 346). Obviously, the panel was correct in its suggestion of giving more authority to North American executives and regional managers.
But while focusing on removing silos will help remove communication barriers between the North American operations, I wonder how much this would work for Toyota. Without having read the entire 60-page report myself, I’m not sure if panel members took Toyota’s culture into account when considering its existing leadership model.
Culture is something that can’t be discounted. Toyota is headquartered in Japan, where characteristics such as masculinity, collectivism, and low uncertainty avoidance are regarded highly. Indeed, Toyota’s board of directors “is composed of 29 Japanese men, all of whom are Toyota insiders” (Bauer & Erdogan, p. 346, 2009). Highly favoring masculinity means also highly favoring competitiveness, achievement, and making money above most other elements, which could have factored into someone not speaking up about a safety issue. A collectivist culture tends to value the group over themselves as individuals, and this extreme loyalty to Toyota may also have led to a reluctance to bring up any issues that would cause unfavorable views of the company. And low uncertainty avoidance, specifically in Japan, can mean that people try extremely hard to keep their jobs. Revealing a problem in the manufacturing of automobiles may be looked down upon by the Toyota culture. Bauer and Erdogan point out that Toyota’s flow of information is one-way – from managers to executives in Japan, where they make the decisions: “Authority is not generally delegated within the company; all U.S. executives are assigned a Japanese boss to mentor them” (p. 346).
And how does that mix with its North American counterparts? Is the culture the same in both countries (probably not), or is that part of the problem? I haven’t researched Toyota in-depth before, so I’m not sure. But I’d be interested in your thoughts. What do you think Toyota could have done differently in the safety crisis? Do you think the company should reassess its leadership model or focus on another element the panel suggested?
Traci Finch
Monday, May 30, 2011
WoldBlu: Organizational Democracy
Although politics is usually among the most mundane reads on the internet, stumbling upon WorldBlu's transparent and democratic approach to leadership has been quite interesting. Companies such as WorldBlu have adopted this approach in order to encourage innovation, collaboration, accountability, and performance in the workplace. In addition, WorldBlu uses the transparency of organizational democracy to assess and display the happiness of their employees. In all, organizational democracy is a sans power distance leadership approach that allows participative decision making to be a catalyst for trust, responsibility, innovation, accountability, and much more.
The first thing that came to my mind was, just how transparent is WorldBlu? Do they share everything with their employees? The answer to those questions is quite simple; Traci Fenton, CEO and Founder of WorldBlu, has made the entire organization transparent down to the salaries of employees. Even though this came as somewhat of a surprise, it immediately eliminates any cultural differences regarding acceptability of sharing wages and salaries among employees. Also, trust and responsibility become imperative amongst employees when provided with a wealth of knowledge about the company that includes company earnings, budget plans, and open book accounting. What do you think? Is WorldBlu putting themselves at risk with this level of transparency or is it a good strategy for building team moral?
Furthermore, WorldBlu uses organizational democracy as a tool to increase innovation. As a part of WorldBlu, all employees end up feeling as though they are partial owner because everyone is always involved in the decision making process. In addition to innovation, research has shown that participative decision making such as this contributes to organizational commitment and ethical behavior. Think about that for a second. Would you act ethically if someone gave you orders to complete a goal or would you act ethically if you participated in setting the goal? How would you work toward fulfilling the goal? Would you cut corners if someone gave you orders to fulfill the goal? If, in fact, you think that you would act ethically when participating in the goal setting, then you are in good company among the paucity of other research participants who act the same way. WorldBlu feels that the added participation "unleashes positive energy in the workplace" and helps motivate employees without financial incentives.
It seems that having a voice in the workplace also contributes to improved job satisfaction and happiness in the workplace. WorldBlu facilitates a simple ball game to assess the happiness of their employees as they leave after a day of work. For example, when exiting for the day, employees grab a tennis ball out a large bucket and then place the ball in a happy ("H") bucket or an unhappy ("U") bucket to indicate their feelings about the day. This is not only an ingenious and simple way to assess employee affect, but it is also an excellent way to draw correlations with employee affect, performance, and productivity. Moreover, independent variables possibly affecting the happiness of employees can be correlated with employee affect. For instance, are employees leaving happy because the company was more profitable today or are they leaving happy because it was an easy day? Either way, this type of transparency allows for employees to be proactive about finding solutions to the problems. If someone is unhappy and starts slacking at work, then other employees are at liberty call them out and enforce accountability.
This style of leadership is somewhat new to the business field and it definitely contains the ability to make the workplace uncomfortable during its inception. People aren't used to the transparency, accountability, and innovative style that organizational democracy has to offer. Instead, people grow accustomed to their own self-serving biases that discard accountability and potentially excuse mistakes. Conversely, organizational leadership rids the business of hierarchies, sheds light on mistakes and subsequently uses that mistake as a way to innovate and grow in the future. In fact, "the business world talks about innovation around technology, but rarely talks about innovation with regard to how we do our business. Democratic companies will continue to have a competitive advantage in the future, and we will eventually get to a place where employees demand it." So, what do you think? Is this the type of company you would want to work for?
Matthew Fowles
Analysis based on:
http://blogs.forbes.com/glennllopis/2011/05/16/corporations-must-bring-democracy-into-the-workplace-a-conversation-with-worldblu-hcl-technologies-and-groupon/
and
http://blogs.forbes.com/csr/2011/05/25/worldblu-spreading-workplace-democracy-through-happiness/
Sunday, May 29, 2011
How Bob Iger Unchained Disney
If there was an opposite cliché for “two peas in a pod” Bob Iger and Michael Eisner would be it. They could not be more different in their leadership techniques if they tried. Bob Iger is the current CEO and President of the Walt Disney Company and took over in 2005 from Michael Eisner. You could say that both individuals are responsible for the turn-around success that Disney acquired in the 2006 season (shortly after the change of command). The company’s net income increased 33% and revenues improved by 7%, only to continue in an upward pattern the following year. But how could two different leadership styles be responsible for the turnaround?
During Eisner’s reign at Disney he was described as micromanaging, imperious and bullying. The article goes on to say, “Eisner left behind a place where division chiefs were afraid to make decisions.” How do these qualities make for a successful work environment? From what we have talked about in class, there are different qualities in an individual that work for success but also hinder that success as well. One could argue that Eisner was conscientious in the work place. He was organized, systematic, and achievement oriented. Although this could be the case, those traits seemed to have clouded others and took a negative effect on the employee morale.
The control aspect of Eisner’s personality seemed to hinder the atmosphere as well. He would be involved in every phase of the creative process. Although this is true, his attention to detail helped start the turn-around of the Walt Disney Company, even though the work may have been done with less enthusiasm then is seen at the company today. Eisner’s attitude about work and how it should be done was strong willed and strategic and one could say of the need for power stance. He was doing what he thought would be best at the time. He took chances and controlled the ideas of the company. This autocratic atmosphere left something to be desired by its employees, who were most likely having a negative affect feeling towards Eisner. However, all of this is also is what helped Iger to “hit the ground running” according to him.
Then there is Bob Iger. A big picture thinker who passes the power around. Iger believes in the work of a team-oriented environment, everyone working together in hopes of reaching and surpassing certain goals. You could say that Iger has a very proactive personality. He changed what he perceived to be wrong, changed the status quo so that everyone felt like what they were doing was important for the company, and used multiple initiatives to solve different problems, such as the division chiefs being unconfident in their decisions. Iger designed his own office to feel more inviting by installing a door to a heavily trafficked hallway. He also moved studio chiefs up to his floor to encourage more interaction. Another change he made was to hold meetings that were more supportive of conversation and less autocratic. Iger increased motivation ten-fold with his can-do attitude.
But how does all of this make for a successful organization? Removing the cloud hanging over the company helped to raise employee spirits and employee engagement with the company. Having the opportunity to take the lead on different projects helped to instill trustworthiness and openness within the company. The employees were allowed to use their own creative influences and intellectual ideas without feeling like everything they were doing was wrong. Every idea was considered with an open mind and the ability to be discussed. Having the feeling of failure surrounding them when Eisner was around made for a very closed environment, closed to feeling like they needed to try and closed to cooperating with Eisner. Iger was able to change that with one flick of his magic wand and now the Disney Company is working more efficiently and effectively then ever before.
Although Eisner was controlling and closed minded, Iger does not speak ill of him. Iger believes that he could not be doing what he is doing today without the basis of what Eisner set up. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, and even though there were rocky times in this village, the base on which its foundation is resting is strong and only becoming stronger with each different CEO that the company goes through and each individual personality they bring to the table.
Angela Minichiello
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020085.htm
During Eisner’s reign at Disney he was described as micromanaging, imperious and bullying. The article goes on to say, “Eisner left behind a place where division chiefs were afraid to make decisions.” How do these qualities make for a successful work environment? From what we have talked about in class, there are different qualities in an individual that work for success but also hinder that success as well. One could argue that Eisner was conscientious in the work place. He was organized, systematic, and achievement oriented. Although this could be the case, those traits seemed to have clouded others and took a negative effect on the employee morale.
The control aspect of Eisner’s personality seemed to hinder the atmosphere as well. He would be involved in every phase of the creative process. Although this is true, his attention to detail helped start the turn-around of the Walt Disney Company, even though the work may have been done with less enthusiasm then is seen at the company today. Eisner’s attitude about work and how it should be done was strong willed and strategic and one could say of the need for power stance. He was doing what he thought would be best at the time. He took chances and controlled the ideas of the company. This autocratic atmosphere left something to be desired by its employees, who were most likely having a negative affect feeling towards Eisner. However, all of this is also is what helped Iger to “hit the ground running” according to him.
Then there is Bob Iger. A big picture thinker who passes the power around. Iger believes in the work of a team-oriented environment, everyone working together in hopes of reaching and surpassing certain goals. You could say that Iger has a very proactive personality. He changed what he perceived to be wrong, changed the status quo so that everyone felt like what they were doing was important for the company, and used multiple initiatives to solve different problems, such as the division chiefs being unconfident in their decisions. Iger designed his own office to feel more inviting by installing a door to a heavily trafficked hallway. He also moved studio chiefs up to his floor to encourage more interaction. Another change he made was to hold meetings that were more supportive of conversation and less autocratic. Iger increased motivation ten-fold with his can-do attitude.
But how does all of this make for a successful organization? Removing the cloud hanging over the company helped to raise employee spirits and employee engagement with the company. Having the opportunity to take the lead on different projects helped to instill trustworthiness and openness within the company. The employees were allowed to use their own creative influences and intellectual ideas without feeling like everything they were doing was wrong. Every idea was considered with an open mind and the ability to be discussed. Having the feeling of failure surrounding them when Eisner was around made for a very closed environment, closed to feeling like they needed to try and closed to cooperating with Eisner. Iger was able to change that with one flick of his magic wand and now the Disney Company is working more efficiently and effectively then ever before.
Although Eisner was controlling and closed minded, Iger does not speak ill of him. Iger believes that he could not be doing what he is doing today without the basis of what Eisner set up. As the saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child, and even though there were rocky times in this village, the base on which its foundation is resting is strong and only becoming stronger with each different CEO that the company goes through and each individual personality they bring to the table.
Angela Minichiello
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020085.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)