Master Class on Change in Complex Organization
Master Class by Michael Maccoby, PhD, a globally recognized expert on leadership who for 35 years has advised leaders in businesses, governments, unions and universities.
- Four examples of change:
• Ideological change- 1970s : democratic organization
Started in Norway, against taylorism, deshumanizing the worker.
Project with autoworkers w/ Volvo. Involve workers in change.
• From monopoly to competition
AT&T/CWA
EDF
• Customer demanded change
ABB Canada and Cominco; MITRE: semi-governmental organization. Air traffic control system.
Work together with the consumer to solve a complex problem.
From bureaucratic to collaborative change.
• Universities becoming competitive
2 models: Sweden Lulea Technological University & George Washington University in D.C.
In order to be effective, leaders need “strategic intelligence”, composed of:
- Foresight: sense of what are the economic, political... factors that will have an impact.
- Partnering: know yourself, know the people you have to partner with.
- Visioning: being able to think about what you’re trying to create. Coupled with System thinking: what the organization should look like.
- Motivating: communicating, understanding the people, being able to connect with them to realize the vision.
--> These are the most effective skills all good leaders had/have (ex: Roosevelt, Lincoln, Obama).
--> Many projects from the past, including the democratic one, tended to be a nice demonstration of the fact that system change is not a single change but a system change.
AT&T: have had a change at several levels: the strategic one, the operational one and the “doing” one. On each level, you have to be clear about everyone’s real roles.
Different logics were at stake: Union leaders and managers don’t represent the same people --> different sources of legitimacy and power.
Constant fights. Resistance to consultants.
France: Unions are highly politicized. Finding a trade union leader who really negociates is rare. You’re not able to build a real contract with the union, only implicit contracts. No strong leadership able to change the system, structural problem.
Many companies get the unions they deserve: if the company is corrupted, the unions will probably be corrupted as well.
What was Maccoby’s role?
He had to create a role. He talked to everybody: unions and managers. Irrational machine, unions didn’t know what to do with it --> anger, dissatisfaction.
In order to work with the Unions, Maccoby needed the top management agreement.
Background of a psychoanalyst --> always started looking at people’s and organizations’ strengths. Asked people about what was positive in the organization.
Used the positive examples as a basis for developing training and working with a few leaders who were ready to innovate, to try something. If there’s no motivation = dead system, don’t go into it, waste of time.
Maccoby presented his report to the executives: Had to write down a contract --> company’s unions would have a 50/50 role in the important decisions of change. But not in strategic decisions about products, markets.
Resistance to change: some supervisors felt they were loosing their authority, some managers tried to get rid of the unions.
--> Start processes of education, make the managers understand the unions’ role and union leaders understand the business and competition.
3 aspects you need to take into account to implement change:
CVA (Customer Value Added--> what would make the customer buy AT&T products)
+
EVA (Economic value added --> prove that it was also profitable).
+
PVA (people value added: training, salaries...--> have quality performance).
--> No change without the addition of these 3 elements.
When Maccoby started, the company wasn’t at high risk.
He tried to make unions appear as a positive added value for the management. Not easy.
Are there countries currently having good relations between companies and unions?
Sweden (The union representative part of the executive team). But even in Sweden, where 80% of employees are unionized (US: 10%), you don’t get everyone thinking this way.
If you want to go further:
Article ”Is there a best way to build a car?”, Harvard Business review, 1998.
Agents of Change, Heckscher, Maccoby, Ramirez, Tixier.
• Ideological change- 1970s : democratic organization
Started in Norway, against taylorism, deshumanizing the worker.
Project with autoworkers w/ Volvo. Involve workers in change.
• From monopoly to competition
AT&T/CWA
EDF
• Customer demanded change
ABB Canada and Cominco; MITRE: semi-governmental organization. Air traffic control system.
Work together with the consumer to solve a complex problem.
From bureaucratic to collaborative change.
• Universities becoming competitive
2 models: Sweden Lulea Technological University & George Washington University in D.C.
In order to be effective, leaders need “strategic intelligence”, composed of:
- Foresight: sense of what are the economic, political... factors that will have an impact.
- Partnering: know yourself, know the people you have to partner with.
- Visioning: being able to think about what you’re trying to create. Coupled with System thinking: what the organization should look like.
- Motivating: communicating, understanding the people, being able to connect with them to realize the vision.
--> These are the most effective skills all good leaders had/have (ex: Roosevelt, Lincoln, Obama).
--> Many projects from the past, including the democratic one, tended to be a nice demonstration of the fact that system change is not a single change but a system change.
AT&T: have had a change at several levels: the strategic one, the operational one and the “doing” one. On each level, you have to be clear about everyone’s real roles.
Different logics were at stake: Union leaders and managers don’t represent the same people --> different sources of legitimacy and power.
Constant fights. Resistance to consultants.
France: Unions are highly politicized. Finding a trade union leader who really negociates is rare. You’re not able to build a real contract with the union, only implicit contracts. No strong leadership able to change the system, structural problem.
Many companies get the unions they deserve: if the company is corrupted, the unions will probably be corrupted as well.
What was Maccoby’s role?
He had to create a role. He talked to everybody: unions and managers. Irrational machine, unions didn’t know what to do with it --> anger, dissatisfaction.
In order to work with the Unions, Maccoby needed the top management agreement.
Background of a psychoanalyst --> always started looking at people’s and organizations’ strengths. Asked people about what was positive in the organization.
Used the positive examples as a basis for developing training and working with a few leaders who were ready to innovate, to try something. If there’s no motivation = dead system, don’t go into it, waste of time.
Maccoby presented his report to the executives: Had to write down a contract --> company’s unions would have a 50/50 role in the important decisions of change. But not in strategic decisions about products, markets.
Resistance to change: some supervisors felt they were loosing their authority, some managers tried to get rid of the unions.
--> Start processes of education, make the managers understand the unions’ role and union leaders understand the business and competition.
3 aspects you need to take into account to implement change:
CVA (Customer Value Added--> what would make the customer buy AT&T products)
+
EVA (Economic value added --> prove that it was also profitable).
+
PVA (people value added: training, salaries...--> have quality performance).
--> No change without the addition of these 3 elements.
When Maccoby started, the company wasn’t at high risk.
He tried to make unions appear as a positive added value for the management. Not easy.
Are there countries currently having good relations between companies and unions?
Sweden (The union representative part of the executive team). But even in Sweden, where 80% of employees are unionized (US: 10%), you don’t get everyone thinking this way.
If you want to go further:
Article ”Is there a best way to build a car?”, Harvard Business review, 1998.
Agents of Change, Heckscher, Maccoby, Ramirez, Tixier.
(Synthesis: Agathe Kossakowski)
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire