RSS - PostsReengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate
Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate
by Michael Hammer
Business Process Reengineering
Despite many years of restructuring and downsizing through process rationalization and automation, US companies have not obtained the 
improvements that she needed. This can be attributed to companies leaving the existing processes intact and using computers simply to speed them up! But speeding up those processes cannot address their fundamental performance deficiencies. Many of the job designs, work flows, control mechanisms, and organizational structures came of age in a different competitive environment and before the advent of the computer. Instead of computerizing outdated processes, we should “reengineer” the business processes, that is, to use the power of the computer to radically redesign the business the processes. Only through such a radical approach can companies achieve great improvement in their performances.
The process of “reengineering” involves the breaking of old, traditional ways of doing business and finding new and innovative ways. And from the redesigned processes, new rules will emerge that will determine how the processes will operate. The reengineering process is an all-or-nothing proposition, the results of which are often unknown until the completion of its course. Continue reading
Share this:
Teaching Smart People How to Learn
Teaching Smart People How to Learn
by Chris Argyris 
Competitive success depends on learning, but most people, including professionals in leadership positions, are not very good at it. Learning is a function of how people reason about their own behavior. Yet most people engage in defensive reasoning when confronted with problems. They blame others and avoid examining critically the way they have contributed to problems. Companies need to make managers’ and employees’ reasoning patterns a focus of continuous improvement efforts.
This article includes a one-page preview that quickly summarizes the key ideas and provides an overview of how the concepts work in practice along with suggestions for further reading.
Share this:
Leadership That Gets Results
Article Summary: Goleman, D. (2000) Leadership that gets results. Harvard Business Review, March-April, pp 78-90
Goleman proposes that effective leaders use a combination of six distinct leadership styles. They need to fluid in dynamic in the application of different styles:
:”… the research indicates that leaders with the best results do not rely on only one leadership style, they use most of them in a given week – seamlessly and in different measure – depending on the business situation.” (78-79)
The findings are based on research from Hay/McBer with random sample of 3871 executives from a worldwide database.
The six leadership styles are:
- Coercive: demand immediate compliance
- Authoritative: mobilize people toward a vision
- Affiliative: create emotional bonds and harmony
- Democratic: build consensus through participation
- Pacesetting: expect excellence and self-direction
- Coaching: develop people for the future.
Goleman expands on the concept of emotional intelligence. He breaks the construct down into the following elements:
- Self-awareness
– emotional
– accurate
– confidence - Self-management
– self-control
– trustworthiness
– conscientiousness
– adaptability
– achievement orientation
– initiative - Social Awareness
– empathy
– organizational awareness
– service orientation - Social Skill
– visionary leadership (take charge and inspire)
– influence
– developing others
– communication
– change catalyst
– conflict management
– building bonds
– teamwork and collaboration
Emotional intelligence can be increased. It needs to be done slowly through coaching. The use of 360 degree feedback is useful for uncovering blind-spots. It involves more than the neocortex – it is not just cognitive, “Brain circuits that carry leadership habits have to unlearn the old ones and replace them with the new one.” (90). The behavioural sequence needs to be repeated – until new neural pathways become the default.
Goleman gave specific attention to coaching, suggesting that this form of leadership allowed for short term failure for long term learning. He wrote, “Of the six styles, our research found that the coaching style is used least often.” (87)
The leaders interviewed initially thought that coaching would take too long, but realised that it paid dividend in the long term. Coaching was seen as distinct in focusing on personal development rather than the immediate task. It was, however, seen as effective in improving results, “The reason: it requires constant dialogue, and that dialogue has a way of pushing up every driver of climate”:
“In short, it [coaching] works best with employees who want to be coached. By contrast, the coaching style makes little sense when employees, for whatever reason, are resistant to learning or changing their ways. And it flops if the leader lacks the expertise to help the employee along. The fact is, many managers are unfamiliar with or simply inept at coaching, particularly when it comes to giving ongoing performance feedback that motivates rather than creates fear or apathy”
He writes, “Although the coaching style may not scream ‘bottom-line results’, it delivers them”. (87)
Goleman found that leadership effectiveness tends to be negatively impacted by the pacesetting style (it can be overwhelming – but good with self-motivated professionals) and also negative with the coercive styles. This style can be effective but should be used with extreme caution. It is useful in emergencies and for some problem employees.
