Workplace, Teams, & Culture

Even the most seasoned executives may have strongly opposing views about the wisest course of action for an organization, particularly given their diverse personal backgrounds or previous immersion in other corporate cultures. But such differences in approach don't necessarily lead to conflicts that are unproductive and damaging to an organization. To investigate such issues, the authors conducted a study of the organizational values of the top management teams in 31 companies. (As defined by the authors, organizational values are the objectives that an individual or group believes are important in running a business, such as industry leadership, employee welfare, and profit maximization.) The authors investigated two specific types of team conflict: task and relationship. Task conflict is characterized by substantive, issue-related differences in opinion. This type of disagreement can be beneficial when it ensures that a greater number of possible solutions are explored and that ideas are battle-tested within the group before significant resources are deployed. In contrast, relationship conflict -- characterized by disagreements over personalized, individually oriented matters -- is generally detrimental. It corrodes trust, hinders communication, slows the acceptance of ideas and leads to isolation and politicization among group members. When it comes to both task and relationship conflicts, the study results showed that behavior is driven by perception rather than reality. Specifically, the greater the perceived difference in organizational values among members of a top management team and their CEO the greater the conflict. Interestingly, any actual dissimilarity was not a factor. Thus, the bottom line is that many top management teams are unnecessarily encountering difficulties because of members' faulty assumptions. To lessen this tendency, the authors advise companies to consider the following: establish an appropriate atmosphere for the team; because perceptions become reality, understand and manage them; investigate the gaps between perceptions and reality; and act decisively to correct gross misperceptions.

During the last few decades, companies have moved away from hierarchical, integrated supply chains in favor of fragmented networks of strategic partnerships with external entities. This change has caused ripples throughout the old supply network and raised questions about the future. The authors consider the impact of vertical disintegration in large-scale supply networks, particularly in the textile and electronics industries. They focus on supply chain strategies that have been adopted by network players in order to accommodate for the changing governance and ownership structures. Their broad hypothesis is that the process of disintegration in many industries is not sustainable from a coordination and control viewpoint, and therefore will be followed by eventual reintegration - although it may take different forms in different industries. They discuss the expanded role of the systems integrator, which, in many cases, goes beyond critical coordination services and extends into issues related to control and governance of portions of the supply network. They also explore the challenges that systems integrators are likely to face, and they contrast two different models of coordination and governance that could be adopted by such players.

Coaching increases performance, productivity and job satisfaction at all levels.

The conventional models of organizational change present an unrealistic image of change as an episodic phenomenon in which corporate leaders develop and implement elaborate change programs on an occasional basis in response to specific, isolated environmental shocks. This type of change does occur, but more often the corporate environment is characterized by change that is open-ended, fluid and less closely tied to specific shocks. In fact, continuous change is a cycle with four phases, each with its own dynamics and specific type of champion. "Evangelists" promote the value of innovation and creativity, influencing those around them so that new ideas spread and take root. "Autocrats" choose which ideas are translated into practice, using their authority to alter behaviors. "Architects" design and implement systems that embed change into the organizational infrastructure. Finally, "educators" create work experiences that increase employees' expertise and sense of mastery, leading to the generation of new ideas that extend and potentially transform the organization's direction, thereby keeping the cycle going around. An understanding of these four phases can help managers transform their companies into organizations that experience change, not as a tumultuous, anxiety-inducing event, but as part of an everyday routine.

There is a new wave of business communication tools including blogs, wikis and group messaging software -- which the author has dubbed, collectively, Enterprise 2.0 -- that allow for more spontaneous, knowledge-based collaboration. These new tools, the author contends, may well supplant other communication and knowledge management systems with their superior ability to capture tacit knowledge, best practices and relevant experiences from throughout a company and make them readily available to more users. This article offers a paradigm that highlights the salient characteristics of these new technologies, which the author refers to as SLATES (search, links, authoring, tags, extensions, signals). The resulting organizational communication patterns can lead to highly productive and highly collaborative environments by making both the practices of knowledge work and its outputs more visible. Drawing on case studies and survey data, the article offers managers a set of ground rules for implementing the new technologies. First, it is necessary to create a receptive culture in order to prepare the way for new practices. Second, a common platform must be created to allow for a collaboration infrastructure. Third, an informal rollout of the technologies may be preferred to a more formal procedural change. And fourth, managerial support and leadership is crucial. Even when implanted and implemented well, these new technologies will certainly bring with them new challenges. These tools may well reduce management's ability to exert unilateral control and to express some level of negativity. Whether a company's leaders really want this to happen and will be able to resist the temptation to silence dissent is an open question. Leaders will have to play a delicate role if they want Enterprise 2.0 technologies to succeed.

Traditionally, executives are expected to create the vision for the organization they lead; the leaders' vision is then disseminated throughout the ranks. However, such top-down vision creation may mean that not all employees wholeheartedly embrace the vision they are given. An alternative approach to vision creation is found in the concept of "meaning-making." A meaning-maker is a member of a group who -- regardless of whether he or she is a formal authority figure -- articulates what the group is trying to accomplish in its work. Meaning-makers are typically deeply engaged in their work settings and are usually observant people who listen well and are in tune with a group's or an organization's rhythm. Using techniques such as images, humor or a new perspective on a situation, they are able to express a group's collective insight. For example, a pizza restaurant company was floundering until one of the senior managers articulated the idea that the company was not in a restaurant business so much as in a distribution business. This new model galvanized the organization, and local managers sought new outlets to distribute the company's pizza. Managers who are meaning-makers also may help others to articulate the meaning of the group's work, and such managers tend to embody a flexible style of leadership that recognizes that leadership is expressed in how people interact. While some have wondered whether meaning-making has to do with spirituality, the role of the meaning-maker in most organizations has less to do with transcendental, universal meaning than with identifying a here-and-now meaning related to the work people do together.

Companies are incurring enormous losses from the misappropriation of their trade secrets. In a 2002 survey of more than 130 firms, 40% reported actual or suspected losses, and the data suggest the true figure might be significantly higher. The study also estimated that the companies represented by the survey participants -- the Fortune 1000 corporations and 600 additional small and medium-sized companies -- were likely to have experienced trade-secret and other intellectual-property losses of more than $50 billion during a one-year period. Research has shown that the biggest threat to a company's trade secrets comes not from spying competitors but from within: current and former employees. Consequently, the protection of trade secrets is largely a managerial issue, and firms need to take the appropriate measures to ensure that employees keep trade secrets from leaking. But many organizations make a number of crucial missteps, sometimes failing to implement the right precautions or relying on a well-intentioned but ineffective practice -- or worse, a wrongheaded policy that only leads to more information being divulged. The following are the most common mistakes: giving short shrift to new-employee orientations, not communicating regularly with employees, signaling to employees that they aren't trusted, punishing instead of helping employees, not practicing what is preached, forgetting to clarify who owns ideas, defining the scope of trade secrets too narrowly and failing to address the subject of departing employees. By avoiding such mistakes, companies can help ensure that their trade secrets indeed stay secret.

The frequent failure of strategy might lie in its very definition.

Good communication is a prerequisite for good teamwork. But how much is enough?

The seeds of effective change must be planted by embedding procedural and behavioral changes in an organization long before the initiative is launched.