Skip to main content

HOW DO LEADERS BRING ABOUT CHANGE?

Just as the word implies, leaders accomplish things by leading, that is, by guiding and motivating other people. Dictators issue orders, using fear and punishment to command compliance. Leaders shape people’s opinions and win their enthusiasm, using every available opportunity to send out their message and win supporters. For many of the best leaders, the full-court press is instinctive. Others take a more systematic approach, but whether consciously or instinctively, leaders always operate on three distinct levels on the organizations technical, political, and cultural systems. At first this may sound academic, but if you think about it for a minute, you’ll see that it is true. Every group that exists for a purpose has a technical system that organizes its resources to accomplish the purpose; a political system that determines how power, influence, and rewards are used to motivate people; and a cultural system consisting of norms and values that bind people together. All of them affect how people think and behave.
China, for example, is struggling with a technical (economic) system that is rapidly moving toward market-driven capitalism, while its political system is clinging to old-fashioned totalitarian communism, and its cultural system is torn between the two. In the U.S., on the other hand, the three systems are more aligned. The technical system is firmly rooted in capitalism, the political system is democratic, and the cultural environment values the supremacy of personal freedom, as embodied in the Bill of Rights. Sometimes it’s hard to differentiate among the systems because they are so intertwined, but all three are always at work, and the leader who wants to make a lasting difference has to work on all three. At General Electric, Jack Welch tackled the technical system by designing a “GE business engine.” This engine would consist of stable, highly profitable units that generate cash, and fast-growing businesses that would use the cash to produce even greater returns. Welch’s shorthand slogan for this was that the company must be “No. 1 or No. 2 in every business that GE is in, or we fix, close, or sell it.” In fact, being No. 1 or No. 2 was not enough. To remain in the GE portfolio, he declared, a business also must have well above average real returns and a distinct competitive advantage. In 1981, when Welch became CEO, one-half of GE’s $27.2 billion in revenue came from aging slow-growth businesses. Welch decided that the company was wasting capital by staying in businesses that weren’t going to be champions. So over his tenure, he has divested $16.2 billion of marginal businesses, including such old standbys as small appliances and aerospace, and spent $53 billion on acquisitions such as RCA and Borg Warner Chemicals. These massive changes shook up the old order about how GE was going to use its resources to earn profits and clearly sent the message that GE was now playing a new game. In the political arena, Welch took on GE’s massive bureaucracy. For decades, GE’s “scientific management” system had been considered one of the company’s greatest strengths. It allowed the company to discipline and control its far-flung and diverse businesses. But by the early 1980s, the bureaucracy had taken control, and the company was choking on its nitpicking system of formal reviews and approvals. People were judged and paid according to how well they responded to the bureaucratic rules, even though the procedures delayed decisions and often thwarted common sense. Mastering the system had become a stylized art form and a requisite for advancement. The result was that many of GE’s best managers devoted far more energy to internal matters than to their customers. As GEers sometimes expressed it, the company was operating “with its face to the CEO and its ass to the customers.” Jack Welch knew this well because, as head of GE Plastics, he had spent many years hassling, and being hassled by, the enforcers at GE headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut. He believed in risks and fast action, and grew the Plastics business rapidly by doing what he thought needed to be done and apologizing later if he got called down by the corporate staff. Welch made it to the CEO’s job by outwitting the bureaucrats. He understood that they liked documentation and reports, so he became a master of the game. He became famous throughout GE for his beautifully packaged multivolume presentations that were filled with charts, graphs, timelines, and whatever other eye-catching gimmicks he could think of. The fact that he didn’t get kicked off the ladder and now sits in the chairman’s office is evidence that the strategy worked. But as soon as he took over, he called off the game. “One of the first things Jack eliminated when he became CEO,” recalls Larry Buckley, a member of Welch’s Executive Management Staff, “was fancy reports, because he knew how much money he had spent making them.” Welch has replaced the bureaucracy at GE with a new political system based on “integrated diversity.” The headquarters staff has been slashed to several hundred from thousands, and control over planning and much of the capital spending has been pushed out into the operating units. The headquarters in Fairfield still does allocate key resources, especially people, and teaches best practices on leadership, but the units now have the freedom, and responsibility, to play the smartest game possible in their industries.
As Welch described it in a letter to shareholders: “We cleared out stifling bureaucracy, along with the strategic planning apparatus, corporate staff empires, rituals, endless studies and briefings, and all the classic machinery that makes big-company operations smooth and predictable but often glacially slow. As the underbrush of bureaucracy was cleared away, we began to see and talk to each other more clearly and more directly. . . . Freed from bureaucratic tentacles, and charged to act independently [the businesses have done] so, with great success. Corporate management got off their backs, and instead lined up behind them with resources and support.” Welch’s letter paints a glowing picture of success, but his upbeat tone belies the months of anguish he experienced as he watched tradition-bound managers and workers thwart his dreams of a speedy, responsive, and cooperative GE. The problem, he finally decided, was that its corporate culture continued to value hierarchy and me-firstism. If GE was going to enjoy the benefits of the new growth engine it had so painfully built, and if its workers were going to use their new freedom from bureaucratic meddling to work faster and smarter, the corporate culture had to change as well. In the United States, you could mandate communism and start allocating power and rewards through a totalitarian government, but unless you got rid of the populace’s cultural notions of personal freedom and inalienable rights, compliance wouldn’t last long. At GE, there were hundreds of thousands of workers and managers who had grown up in a business that was full of little fiefs, where control of knowledge was control of power, where nobody felt any stake in the success of other fiefs, and where very few people ever got fired. For several years, Welch worried and preached, but nothing changed. He wondered whether he wasn’t being clear enough, or if people were just tuning him out. Finally, he came up with the term “boundarylessness” to describe the cultural environment that he wanted.
In a hallmark speech to several hundred GE managers in 1994, Welch explained the concept of boundarylessness using a simple analogy. “In this company, if you can picture the house, the house got taller and taller and taller. As we grew in size, we added floors. The house got wider and wider and wider. As we got more complex, we built walls functionally. The objective of all of us in this place is to blow up the internal walls the floors vertically and the horizontal ones. That’s the game we’re at, that’s what we are fundamentally after.” He went on, changing metaphors, to explain that the “layers are insulators. They’re like sweaters. When you go outside and you wear four sweaters, you don’t know that it’s cold out. You haven’t faced reality.
You’re not getting the straight scoop on the temperature. You’re all covered up. As you peel each sweater off, you learn more about the temperature. That’s the same thing about layers.” The boundaryless culture Welch wanted instead was one in which information would flow freely, in which people could honestly assess reality without fear, and in which the company would capture “the speed of a small company in the body of a big one.” At the core of a boundaryless company, he told them, are people who act without regard for status or functional loyalty and who look for ideas from anywhere—including from inside the company, from customers, or from suppliers. Welch used every technique he could think of to teach this message and help people live it. He preached it over and over. He provided mechanisms for people to begin to live the new way. GE’s vaunted Work-Out effort involved hundreds of thousands of GE employees, suppliers, and customers in “town hall” problem-solving meetings. Work-Out was not an elective, Welch mandated that every business conduct the sessions. And he prescribed their format people from across functions at different levels would come together to work on specific issues. Hierarchy and functional boundaries had to be left at the door, and everyone was asked for their ideas. The meetings were designed to produce results, and leaders were expected to implement the recommendations from workers. He followed Work-Out with other, more sophisticated tools to help people come together in teams or solve problems, such as the Change Acceleration Program and an aggressive Quality program. He rewarded people for benchmarking and operating ideas from other parts of GE or other companies.
In addition to all of these programs, tools, and exhortations, he confronted those who did not believe in the cultural values. In the old days, GE may have fired a few unpleasant people who didn’t meet their performance goals, but nice guys who didn’t deliver and complete jerks who did deliver were welcome to stay. In the new GE, Welch declared, performance and behavior would both count. People who embraced boundarylessness but couldn’t quite deliver would be helped along and given second, maybe even third chances, but stellar performers who insisted on keeping up the old walls and floors would be dismissed. And he backed up his statement by personally getting rid of some boundaryful people at the top of the company. Finally, he held others responsible for doing the same thing in their parts of the company. He once sternly told a conference of GE’s several hundred managers, “People throughout this company hear us talk about boundarylessness and taking out layers, and they look at what we’ve done. Where we have multiple layers still left, they rightly question our integrity. . . . The only way I am going to get at this thing is to ask you to do it, to simply treat it as an integrity issue. We have no room for boundaryful people at GE, and we must become boundaryless if we are going to get the speed we need to survive.” The magnitude of this GE transformation may or may not make it an extreme example of change. However, the point isn’t the change, but the importance of having technical, political, and cultural systems that support and reinforce one another. Winning companies do a lot better job than losers of keeping the three working together, because their leaders are ever mindful of the need for alignment and to keep them in step with the changing demands of the marketplace. When you look at winning organizations and compare them with the losers, the first things you notice may be good market strategies, efficient operations, and agile response times. Winning companies are exceptionally good at listening to their customers and giving them what they want. But these important qualities are really just intermediate products. From the outset, and in the end, winning is really about leadership. Winning individuals are leaders, people with ideas and values and the energy and edge to do what needs to be done. And organizations are winners because they have good leaders, people who understand the importance of selecting the right things to do and who are able to manage the complex forces required to get them done. Because of this, winning organizations are leader-driven. They value leaders, they have cultures that expect and reward leadership, and everyone in the organization actively puts time and resources into developing leaders. Finally, winners win because of their ability to continually and consistently create more leaders at all levels of their organizations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FUNCTIONS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

Function of the Holy Spirit. This list of the 70 Functions of the Holy Spirit come from her research. He leads and directs. (Matthew 4:1; Mark 1:12; Luke 2:27; 4:1; Acts 8:29; Romans 8:14) The Holy Spirit speaks – in, to and through. (Matthew 10:20; Acts 1:16; 2:4; 13:2; 28:25; Hebrews 3:7) He gives power to cast out devils. (Matthew 12:28) He releases power. (Luke 4:14) The Holy Spirit anoints. (Luke 4:18; Acts 10:38) The Holy Spirit “comes upon” or “falls on”. (Matthew 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 2:25; 3:22; 4:18; John 1:32,33; Acts 10:44; 11:15) He baptizes and fills. (Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:15,41,67; 3:16, 4:1; John 1:33; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4; 4:8,31; 6:3,5; 7:55; 10:47; 11:24; 13:9,52; 1 Corinthians 12:12) He gives new birth. (John 3:5,8) He leads into worship. (John 4:23) He flows like a river from the spirit man. (John 7:38-39) He ministers truth. (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13) He dwells in people. (John 14:

SETTING A DIRECTION VS PLANNING AND BUDGETING

Since the function of leadership is to produce change, setting the direction of that change is fundamental to leadership. Setting direction is never the same as planning or even long-term planning, although people often confuse the two. Planning is a management process, deductive in nature and designed to produce orderly results, not change. Setting a direction is more inductive. Leaders gather a broad range of data and look for patterns, relationships, and linkages that help explain things. What’s more, the direction-setting aspect of leadership does not produce plans; it creates vision and strategies. These describe a business, technology, or corporate culture in terms of what it should become over the long term and articulate a feasible way of achieving this goal. Most discussions of vision have a tendency to degenerate into the mystical. The implication is that a vision is something mysterious that mere mortals, even talented ones, could never hope to have. But developing

ON BUHARI, NEW YORK TMES WROTE

Four months after seizing power, Nigeria’s military leaders appear to be suffering an erosion of popular support. Last Dec. 31, Maj. Gen. Mohammed Buhari led a group of young officers in a coup against the civilian Government of President Shehu Shagari, saying the takeover was necessary to save Nigeria, Africa’s richest and most populous nation, from economic collapse. The military intervention appeared at the time to enjoy enthusiastic support from a broad range of Nigeria’s population. Many intellectuals argued that the corruption and incompetence of the Shagari administration had made drastic action both necessary and inevitable. Traders, merchants and people in the streets welcomed the soldiers and looked forward to a quick improvement in their standard of living. Growing Disappointment Recently, however, there seems to be growing disappointment with both the military Government’s approach and pace. Since coming to power, this Government has not found a sing