A630.7.4.RB - Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention

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?

 

Yes, Honeywell is a successful organization. Honeywell International, Inc. is an American multinational diversified industrial conglomerate company that produces a variety of commercial and consumer products, engineering services, and aerospace systems for a wide variety of customers, from private consumers to major corporations and governments. Honeywell invents and manufactures advanced technologies for some of the world’s toughest challenges and opportunities initiated by revolutionary macrotrends in science, technology and society. A Fortune 100 company, Honeywell creates solutions to improve the quality of life of people around the world. Honeywell has a superior brand recognition and equips customers to be even more productive and successful. With approximately 132,000 employees worldwide, including more than 22,000 engineers and scientists, Honeywell has an unrelenting commitment passion to quality and delivering business results. Honeywell International is the product of a merger in which Honeywell, Inc. was acquired by the larger AlliedSignal in 1999 (Michael Bonsignore, CEO). 2014 revenue was over $40 billion and operating income was over $4 billion. In addition, Honeywell is in process of implementing a "Five Year Strategic Plan 2014-2018" to ensure growth and future success. (Honeywell, 2015)

 

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

 

Some of the barriers that Michael Bonsignore, CEO, faced included: convincing shareholders and Wall Street, workers, customers, managers etc. that the merger and new enterprise would be "healthy", grow and succeed in the future. Financials such as revenue, operating income and stock price are important for all stakeholders. Bonsignore stated there were three things to focus on the "pivotal moment": 1. (108) years the company has been around 2. don't take success for granted, i.e., don't be complacent and stubborn 3. "kick in the seat of the pants" to jump start everything. The economy is now an era of mergers and acquisitions. The most important thing is to establish a vision: leadership and control, customers, profit, growth and "stretch goals." Another huge challenge is providing for public safety, e.g., Bendix school bus ABS electronic control unit recall. (Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention, 2011)

 

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

 

Michael Bonsignore, CEO, is described as a "spectacular salesman" because of his qualifications. He attended the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. He is knowledgeable and has confidence his abilities. He has the passion and drive to go all the way. Organizational strategies include 1. communication (town hall meetings, leadership eating lunch with employees, and employee involvement 2. serving the customer 3. be flexible and adaptable 4. era of mergers and acquisitions 5. reward employees for new and best practices and punish those that don't perform.  Globalization and global expansion should be a priority. And most importantly and above all, lead change and don't become a dinosaur or obsolete. For example, Bonsignore gives an example of a roundtable he had with engineers on the shop floor concerning computers and programming and he wasn't knowledgeable in what was being discussed or understanding because it was all new stuff material to him. Keep your skills and knowledge up to date! The fundamentals are there for to make a model for 21st century enterprise and it's just a matter of putting the pieces together and connecting the dots. And most importantly, be process oriented and focused, e.g., lean manufacturing and six sigma with change agents and leaders to lead change initiatives. (Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention, 2011)   

 

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

 

I have had the opportunity to be part of a huge and successful merger acquisition. In 1997, Boeing purchased McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell creating the world's largest aerospace company. At the time, I worked at McDonnell Douglas which was a "troubled" aerospace company. There were three cultures to integrate into one. Would this happen overnight or in a few years? Of course not. Boeing developed a "2016 Vision" of "People working together as a global enterprise for aerospace industry leadership" including strategies, core competencies and values. In fact, this journey has taken almost twenty years. It all starts with leadership at top setting the vision and executing the strategy and plan. And leading change? Boeing for the first time hired an outsider Jim McNerney from 3M as CEO for a new approach and ideas. He also worked at General Electric (GE) and was trained and mentored by Jack Welch. Boeing is a learning and teaching organization, for example, "The Leadership Center" (corporate university) in St Louis is a leader in executive education and leadership development. The college study program "Learning Together" is one of the best in the world. Self-directed and high performance teams are in engineering, production, quality and supply chain to achieve business results. Process management is used to develop and build products and services. Lean manufacturing and six sigma are used to focus on waste and variation. I have had a hands on experience in all this too and has been a great learning and developing opportunity for me. (Boeing, 2015)

 

References

Boeing (2015). Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/boeing/

 

Honeywell (2015). Retrieved from http://honeywell.com/pages/home.aspx

 

Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention (2011). Retrieved from

http://digital.films.com/play/GWEU7L

A630.6.4.RB - 50 Reasons Not to Change The Tribes We Lead

How do you react when you hear colleagues using some of the excuses listed in the 50 Reasons Not to Change graphic? At work, I interact, work with and problem-solve with many teams in manufacturing, engineering, quality and supply chain. Sometimes, in continuous process improvement events (kaizen) I hear responses and feedback "we have always done it this way", "that's a stupid idea and won't work" and "we looked at doing it this way before and it didn't work". What are these phrases? They are paradigms (ways of thinking) and mental models, patterns and examples (Barker, 1993). There are many great mechanics who are legends at building airplanes but unfortunately for some their wealth and breadth of knowledge, skills, abilities and experience can work against them. My reaction is that they are not receptive open to change and new ideas. And maybe being a little stubborn too. However, once I convince them to at least try the idea starts the ball rolling forward. And once they see their ideas being implemented changes their attitude. (50 Reasons Not to Change!, 2011)    

 

Do you ever use any of these excuses yourself? Unfortunately, yes I am human and sometimes get caught in the paradigm web. It is important to keep an open mind and attitude to change along with critical thinking. And awareness and focus are a big part of it too. It's easy (too easy) to become paralyzed by the fear of failure, ridicule from others and making mistakes. Keep the focus on the idea, process and vision.  

 

How can you overcome the thinking that creates those responses to change efforts? How do these "paradigm" situations get addressed? Always have a team charter and guiding operating principles to provide focus, direction and flow. Paradigms are harder to deal with because critical thinking skills are required. The hard part is removing the old paradigms and replacing them with new ones. Always be open to change and new ideas. Joel Barker, futurist, author and lecturer, states that the role of leadership is to find, recognize, and secure the future. He states that paradigms effect the quality of leadership. We can learn from the past, the present is too slim in which to act, it is with the future we must plan and prepare. We all know the rules for success in our business or professions, yet we also know that these rules—paradigms—can change at any time. Managers must allow and be willing to hear from their employees who step outside the box to solve a problem. Managers must facilitate and encourage cross talk means with people of diverse backgrounds, diverse opinions and sit together and talk. Especially people from different paradigm can be particularly good at helping get past another person's paradigm. By listening to all those screwy, crazy and weird ideas, managers gain a special leverage for creativity and innovation because many screwy ideas may produce one good idea. Always be open and receptive, no one says you have to adopt the idea. Managers are in a unique position because they hear all the ideas, can make connections and can make things happen. (Barker, 1993)    

 

Do you agree with Seth Godin’s concept that change is driven by tribes? Yes, change is driven by tribes. A tribe is a group of people connected to a leader and connected to a shared idea or passion. Tribes usually have small and humble beginnings but can grow into strong and powerful forces. Tribes can be used to break free of the status quo and promoting operational excellence to enhance current standards. It is important to grow a cohesive close-knit tribe with "chemistry" by focusing on creating intimate fans instead of a large mass audience tribe. People want to join tribes because they want to connect with people, ideas and passion. Leaders of tribes challenge the status quo, build a culture and connect people. If leadership is the ability to create change your tribe believes in, and the market demands change, then the market demands leaders. Managers manage by using the authority the factory gives them. You listen to your manager or lose your job. A manager can't make change because that's no his job. His job is to complete tasks for the factory. Leaders, on the other hand, don't follow structure or official blessings. They use passion, ideas and people to lead, change the status quo and make things happen. Most organizations are waiting for someone like me to lead them. (Seth Godin: The tribes we lead, TED - 2009) (Godin, 2008)    

 

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? I will make a choice. I can choose to lead or not. I can choose to have faith or not. I can choose to contribute to the tribe or not. And there are thousands of reasons (or excuses) why I, of all people, aren't the right one to lead? Why I don't have the resources or the authority or the genes or the momentum to lead? Yes, probably so. So what? I still get to make the choice. I will be under huge pressure to reconsider my choice, to compromise, to thumb it down, to give up or quit. Of course I can. It's the world's job to get me to be quiet and follow. The status quo is the status quo for a reason.    I choose to be a leader of a tribe at work and make change happen with ideas, passion and people. Actually, I am already leading several tribes and making things happen in employee involvement (EI) and engagement activities.   

 

References

Barker, Joel A. (1993). Paradigms: Business of Discovering the Future. New York City: HarperCollins.

 

Godin, Seth (2008). Tribes. New York, New York: Penguin Group.

Seth Godin: The tribes we lead (TED - 2009). Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_godin_on_the_tribes_we_lead

50 Reasons Not to Change! (2011). Retrieved from

https://prezi.com/z2v2cvo4t9tc/50-reasons-not-to-change/   

 

A630.5.4.RB - NASA Culture Change

Why did NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe address NASA employees to describe the plan to bring about proposed changes to NASA's culture? O'Keefe emphasized that since its inception in 1958, NASA has accomplished many great scientific and technological feats in air and space. He indicated that there are many positive aspects to the culture at NASA including: technical and engineering excellence, an entrepreneurial spirit of teamwork and pride, and a positive-can-do-attitude and approach to task achievement. He emphasized NASA has the right people with the dedication, focus, fire, passion and drive for success. He stated NASA is on the cusp of being a stellar exemplar organization IF we choose to do this and act. Unfortunately, NASA's tenure has also included tragedy too. e.g., Columbia (2003) and Challenger (1986).

Was he believable? Is it important whether he appeared to be believable? I do not think he was believable because of several factors. First and most important is credibility. Due to these two huge tragedies, NASA has lost considerable credible issues. Second, O'Keefe's body language and voice left me (and probably the public too) with the impression of "laissez-fare" and not challenging the "status-quo" of the federal government "greatest agency." Third, he boasted and bragged of NASA being the "greatest government agency" and "the leader of the pack." In addition, my perception was that this was a public relations (PR) boost that NASA was being "proactive" and had an action plan in place.

Why did he talk about NASA values? O'Keefe emphasized three features (values) for great organizations: 1. respect for each other 2. exemplar organization for safety 3. someone notices both positive and negative for the highest rated federal government agency. Some improvement is needed in leadership because it is not as good as it should be. NASA need to focus on how we communicate with each other. It all begins with me. We all need to get out of our offices (even though we are too busy)  and walk around, interact, and communicate with the workforce. Tom Peters (researcher, management and leadership guru and speaker) calls this MBWA - management by wandering around. From a critical thinking perspective, there are several "paradigms" mental models mindsets that need to be addressed. Shift from a "no - because" culture to a "yes - if" culture because it leaves open opportunities for improvement. e.g., safety.    

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? The most important lesson learned is to never make the same mistake twice. Unfortunately for NASA, this happened which impacted their credibility and the lives and families of employees. The second take away application is to fix the process (including culture with organization structure) and root cause and not "symptoms." And third, execution of the plan was poor due to a lack of project management skills along with critical thinking "paradigms" and "group think." On Feb 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia and crew of seven were lost during return to earth. A group of distinguished experts was appointed to lead the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), and this group spent about six months conducting a root cause analysis of the accident. The CAIB findings indicated that NASA's history and culture contributed as much to the Columbia accident as any technical failure. As a result of the CAIB, NASA established the goal of transforming its organizational and safety culture. There is a very important question to ask. Can negative patterns repeat and why do they repeat? For example, is it true that as the press concluded after Columbia (2003), that the lessons of Challenger (1986) weren't learned with an action plan? In a similar scenario, the Commission's 1986 report with "Findings" and "Recommendations" they located cause primarily in individual mistakes, errors in judgment, flawed analysis, flawed decision-making and communication failures. The findings about schedule pressures and safety structure were attributed to flawed decision-making, not by engineers or middle managers, but by NASA leaders. A plan was put in place to adjust decision-making and creating structure changes in safety. NASA acted on these recommendations from the Commission so we could say that the lessons were learned. (NASA, 2015)  

There is an additional lesson: we see how hard it is to learn and implement the lessons of an organization system failure even when they were identified by the CAIB Report. NASA leaders had difficulty integrating new structures with existing parts of the process and operation. Cultural change and how to go about it eluded them. Even with BST as a NASA OD consultant, NASA found the recommendations puzzling because they had seen their system working and operating well. Even when the lessons are learned, negative patterns can still repeat. But even when everything possible is done, we cannot have mistake-free organizations because system effects will produce unanticipated consequences. (NASA, 2015)  

References

 

C-SPAN - NASA Cultural Changes (2004). Retrieved from

http://www.c-span.org/video/?181348-1/nasa-cultural-changes

NASA (2015). Available http://www.nasa.gov/

A630.4.4.RB - How Companies Can Make Better Decisions

Yes, there is a positive correlation high degree of success (relationship between variables) between decision-making effectiveness and financial performance along with employee engagement. Effective decision making and execution enhance competitiveness, value and profits. Effective decisions are important including speed, implementation process and intensity level of the team and plan. Companies have become more complex with the global economy and explosion in technology. Few if any use a standard line and staff of functional organization chart and instead manage and lead by a matrix 360 degree structure. No company can live up to its full potential unless it can decide and deliver. (How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster, 2010)

There are five steps to improve organizational decision-making effectiveness: 1. Score your organization's decision abilities. Determine how well you currently make and execute important decisions. Decision effectiveness is more than just making good decisions. Other criteria include speed, yield and effort. 2. Identify the key decisions and focus on decisions that have the biggest impact. There are usually two categories: 1. major strategic initiatives with financial impacts 2. daily operational procedures processes which contribute a lot of value over time. 3. Make individual decisions work. Use benchmarking, benchmarks and best tools and practices as enablers for decisions. Clearly explain what decision needs to be made, identify roles responsibilities involved, use a structured decision approach and model, and develop a timeline schedule. 4. Build an organization in which all the parts including structures, processes, culture etc. enable effective fast decision making, execution and delivery. Ensure the right people are in pivotal positions for decision-making. Talent and experience matter along with being strong minded, clear thinking and resolute. Leaders should support and confer with each other. 5. Embed decision capabilities by providing people in the organization with the knowledge, skills and abilities along with behaviors of effective decision-making effectiveness. Videotape speeches by leaders and communicate the messages to the workforce to explain new decision initiatives to employees. (How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster, 2010)

What are practical hands-on applications of this and my reflection with example? Boeing CEO Jim McNerney holds top level executive decision-making retreats for direction of the company usually several per year at locations including Seattle, Chicago, Florida or Palm Springs, California. A Boeing spokesman said McNerney wants two such meetings a year rather than one. "It's a good opportunity for Jim McNerney to keep the leadership focused and aligned," the spokesman said. Elements of strategic alignment involve people, incentives, supportive activities, organizational structure, culture, and leadership. Each element is aligned with strategic goals and with each of the other elements, forming a foundation for change implementation and success. Globalization is also a focus of the events. (Boeing, 2015) Boeing's mission, vision, strategies, core competencies and values are additional decision-making ideas for strategic management because an organization’s present situation may rule out in advance and change existing objectives and strategies and can also identify a specific course of action. A structured decision-making approach process is used by executive leadership. Standard models and decision-making tools are used including: SWOT Analysis, Michael Porter Five Forces Analysis, Strategy Maps and Balanced Scorecard. The strategic management decision-making process is dynamic and continuous, i.e., it is constantly changing. A change in any one of the major components of the model can change any or all of the other components. The answer to where an organization is going can be determined by where the organization has been. A change in any of the environmental factors such as economic, technology etc. can change long-term objectives and strategies. Failing to accomplish annual objectives could change policy. Changes in competitor’s strategy, e.g., Airbus could require changes in the organization’s mission. Airbus is a consortium (cartel) of England, France, Germany and Spain and is members of the European Union (EU). Strategy formulation, implementation and evaluation are continuous activities and should not be done just once or several times a year. The strategic management process and decision-making never ends and is continuously changing based on the operating environment. (Boeing, 2015) What are the business results decision effectiveness of this? Boeing is the world's leading aerospace company. The commercial aviation business is booming and growing. Many new and advanced developments, airplanes and technologies (composites etc) including the 787 Dreamliner and 777X are being launched and introduced to customers. New plants are being built, updated and existing ones are being modernized with automation. The financial business results are growing including revenues, profits and stock price. Employee engagement and teaming is enhanced from flow down of decisions resulting in decision-making at the lowest organizational team levels.

References Boeing (2015). [On-Line] Available http://www.boeing.com/boeing/ How Companies Can Make Better Decisions, Faster (2010). [On-Line] Available https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbxpg6D4Hk8&feature=player_embedded