Despite an organizational
trend leading companies to structure themselves as a cross functional and flat
system instead of a hierarchical and controlling one, complex adaptive systems
are still somewhat sparse (Obolensky, 2014). A true complex adaptive system (CAS)
requires serious organizational evolution that addresses the way leaders think
about things like the contributions of their employees. On top of that, these
systems are willing to abandon ideas that don’t work and replace them with ideas
that do (Obolensky, 2014). In a complex adaptive system, there is little to no
fear of throwing out a process because it’s always worked in the past. Instead,
the failing process is quickly abandoned and is replaced instead with a process
that aligns with the current business atmosphere.
Google is a key example of a
company that has embraced the CAS organizational structure and has profited in
its reputation and its earnings as a result. One key element of a CAS organization
is that it puts incredible weight on the feedback of employees at all levels.
In most companies, feedback means one-way communication from the boss to the
employee (Obolensky, 2014). In order to display the qualities of a CAS organization,
leaders must develop an interactive communication style where they spend just
as much time listening as they do talking.
At Google, employee input is
so important that it instituted something called “20-percent time,” which
allows employees to spend 20% of their time doing whatever they feel like – as long
as it’s something that will in some way add value to Google (Weir, 2008). This
20% of time can be spent finishing extra work, pitching a new idea, taking with
other functions on collaboration projects, or any other combination of things
one could imagine. The point is that it allows employees to stop their “day job,”
talk to one another, and collaborate directly with leadership.
The idea behind this approach
is to improve each employee’s job satisfaction, but also to improve their
ability to think in creative ways. Google relies heavily on the ideas of its
employees to establish its strategy, predict market changes, and invent methods
of adapting to those changes. Two way feedback, as well as two way strategy
development are key CAS behaviors that suggest advanced organizational
evolution.
Google also values the idea
that its organization can function like a self-running machine instead of a
machine that needs to be controlled (Obolensky, 2014). Google relies very
heavily on the ability of its employees to be innovative and they feed this need
by providing extra perks to its employees. These perks include things like allowing
them facilities and time so that they can play games, go outside for a volleyball
match, or even hit up the snack bar for a treat and cup of caffeine (Weir,
2008). This focus on innovation and the desire to build an organization that
runs like a well-oiled machine is what enabled Google to become a $62 billion
company between 1998 and 2014 (Ross, 2015).
Implications
on My Organization and How to Move Forward
The approach that CAS companies
like Google, Morning Star, and St. Luke have taken resulted from the
understanding that the degree of clarity a strategy has is largely based on how
that strategy came to be (Obolensky, 2014). Some of the muddiest strategies are
those that were developed in large companies, by top level leaders, and then
dumped on the rest of the organization. The behavior of these companies makes
it clear that employees at all levels must have a say in strategy development.
On top of this, these CAS companies make a deliberate attempt not to be too deliberate about strategy
development, recognizing that sometimes a strategy simply emerges from collaborative
discussion. As Hamel (1998) stated “no one seems to know much about how to
create a strategy,” so there is a good chance that some of the best strategies
create themselves when employees and leaders are provided the flexibility to
interact.
My company can benefit from
the approach of companies like Google because it has proven that the CAS
approach can be hugely successful, even in an extremely competitive market. In
order to move forward, my company must focus on three main actions. First, it
has to become more interested in what its employees think. Boeing is a massive
company and it can be difficult to formulate a way to gather feedback, analyze it,
and determine an action plan based on that feedback, but it’s absolutely
critical that top tiered leaders find a way to do just this. The hesitancy is understandable,
considering that many employees would take the offer to provide feedback as an
opportunity to complain about their pay, or their boss, or everything under the
sun. However, leaders must be willing to put in the extra work associated with
gathering key feedback from the workforce.
The second thing my company
must do is learn how to be more adaptive to the changing environment. As Hamel
(1998) pointed out, “in industry after industry, it is the revolutionaries –
usually newcomers – who are creating the new wealth.” Boeing is not the
newcomer and it never will be unless it completely changes who and what it is.
Instead of attempting this change, Boeing must get better at adapting to its environment.
Some of the ways it can do this is to better message the value it places on
employees who exhibit qualities like flexibility and level-headedness. In my
organization, the most ridged and high strung people seem to be promoted most
often, and this is sending the wrong message.
Finally, Boeing put renewed
value on creating and innovating, like Google, if it wants to emulate the
qualities of a CAS organization. This might just be where Boeing faces the
largest uphill battle because it is at such a steep disadvantage compared to
others in the Seattle area. As a result of its work environment and culture,
Boeing loses many young and creative minds to companies in the area like
Starbucks, Microsoft, and Amazon, who all have reputations for making employees
work hard, but rewarding them with a more enjoyable work environment and the
confidence that their creativity is valued.
Your
Strategy Needs a Strategy: Implications on my Organization
In his Ted Talk “Your Strategy Needs a Strategy,”
Martin Reeves (2014) discussed the substantial changes to the way businesses
view strategies in today’s environment. At one time, strategy was a buzz word
throughout corporations. Leaders have invested copious amounts of time trying
to find the perfect strategy to lock into their own organizations. But as strategy
became more popular, the health of corporate America’s biggest businesses continued
to fail. In fact, Reeves (2014) revealed that although strategy has
historically been a buzz word in the largest corporates, only 7% of these
giants are named in the list of the 3 most profitable companies in their
industry. What this means, is that traditional strategy isn’t working. Rather,
strategy has become an “old fashion” word that leaders today ignore rather than
try and understand. As a result, the “winners are winning bigger” while the
losers continue to struggle (Reeves, 2014).
This video clearly relates to my organization as
The Boeing Company is one of the two major players in the commercial airframe manufacturing
industry, yet they struggle from year to year to post the kinds of margins that
some of the smaller manufacturers do. In addition, the suppliers supporting the
production of Boeing aircraft are securing larger profit margins than Boeing
generally does. Although there are certainly factors outside of Boeing’s
control (oil prices, political unrest, economic downturn, etc), perhaps part of
this discrepancy can be attributed to a need to revise the way Boeing thinks
about strategy.
Reeves (2014) suggested that organizations refocus
their efforts on finding the perfect strategy based on what they see others
doing and realize that this is not a “one size fits all” solution. Organizations
must be willing to experiment with their strategy, embrace change, and adapt to
evolving situations. More importantly, they have to be comfortable with the
idea of failure.
For example, Boeing has been discussing a
reorganization of several of its departments for over half a year now, and to
date there is no clear indication of when (or if!) a decision will be made. Boeing
can’t afford to spend three months to a year planning a strategy that is obsolete
within one month (Reeves, 2014). Simply put, indecisiveness can’t be afforded
in this economy, especially when a company is fighting against aggressive and
very successful competition. As Buytendijk (2010) depicted – strategy is all
about making choices, both big and small. My organization can benefit from this
video by understanding that the right approach to strategy is decided based on
the situation at hand. This means that the right approach could be A today, but
D next week. What Boeing cannot afford to do, is be irresolute and hope that somehow
the decisions will get easier in time.
References
Bogage, J. (2016). Uber’s controversial strategy to
finally defeat lift. Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/23/ubers-controversial-strategy-to-finally-defeat-lyft/?utm_term=.83e89f317c32
Buytendijk, F. (2010). Dealing with dilemnas: Where
business analytics fall short. TDWI
Education. Retrieved from http://download.101com.com/pub/tdwi/files/MK_ Buytendijk_20100218.pdf
Hamel,
G. (1998, Winter98). Strategy Innovation and the Quest for Value. Sloan
Management Review. pp. 7-14.
Obolensky, N. (2014). Complex Adaptive Leadership:
Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty (2nd ed.). New York, New York: Gower
Publishing.
Reeves, M. (2014). Martin Reeves: Your strategy needs a
strategy [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/YE_ETgaFVo8
Ross, A. (2015). Why did Google abandon 20% time
for innovation? HR Zone. Retrieved
from https://www.hrzone.com/lead/culture/why-did-google-abandon-20-time-for-innovation
Weir, D. (2008). Innovation from the bottom up at google.
CBS Money Watch. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/innovation-from-the-bottom-up-at-google/
No comments:
Post a Comment