Flexibilization

Professor Walter Oechsler of the University of Mannheim (Germany) believes the workplace and workforce in the 21st century will be characterized by "flexibilization." Oechsler sees the "flexibilization" of the workplace and workforce leading to "a core group with unlimited full employment, and an increasingly larger group of short-term limited and/or part-time employees who face severe employment risks, ultimately resulting in stress."

Unfortunately, I must agree with Oechsler's rather unpleasant prediction. Increasing global competition will lead to increasing pressure and stress on all employees. Employees who are unprepared for the new workplace will find themselves at great risk.

Oechsler goes on to describe a major change in corporate strategy. "Whereas the typical corporate strategy of the industrial society was uniform mass production with Tayloristic structures and stable employment, the dominant strategy for global competition is flexible specialization...The strategy of flexible specialization is directed toward customer needs.”

This shift in focus from fixed standardized production schedules to flexible customized customer services will dramatically affect the workplace and workforce. The 21st-century employee will have to bring a "flexible specialization" to the 21st-century organization.

Twenty-first century organizations will only be interested in hiring employees who bring a specialization that will serve the flexible needs of customer/clients. Staff positions to support these customer-driven processes will still be available, but these staff positions (non-core competencies) will constantly be re-evaluated in light of possible outsourcing.

Except for a small group of core professionals, employees will have to adopt a mindset of selling their special competencies to different employers. Oechsler envisions these employees as "entrepreneurs marketing their own human resources in order to make a living". Employability will be the key to employee survival, not the stability of the company.

Another powerful trend in the workplace will be the technologically possible "virtual company." Oechsler believes the virtual company can suppress social interaction and lead to new forms of alienation. What we know about group dynamics in face-to-face interactions will have to be re-examined in virtual interactions. How will employees react in the decentralized work structures of the virtual companies? We simply don't know.

Oechsler believes, "Information technologies will dissolve social entities". If Oechsler is correct, what new entities and relationships will be created? I assume the social aspect of our human nature hasn't changed.

Oechsler (2000) summarizes his predictions for the 21st century workforce by saying, "The employee will take on more and severe risks of being unemployed."

The work of organizational effectiveness (OE) consultants will be dramatically affected by these changes in employer-employee relations. The downsizing, outsourcing, and global alliances that began to grab headlines in the 1980s were not simply fads driven by a few greedy capitalists. These trends are indicators of the more powerful megatrends of increasing global competition and increasing technological sophistication. No doubt, numerous psychosocial problems will arise from these trends.

Are you and your organization (or clients) ready for flexibilization? To learn more read Chapter 15 of my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” And for free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

What Do CEOs Want Now?

At about this time every year Accenture releases the findings of its annual research with hundreds of CEOs from around the world. This year Accenture questioned more than 400 leaders of the largest corporations and public-sector organizations worldwide. The questions basically ask, “What are your biggest concerns?” These are the issues that keep CEOs awake at night.

As consultants and managers, we want to know these concerns and offer solutions. By offering solutions to these troublesome issues we enhance our value in our clients’ eyes, and thus build more successful careers.

For all of you who want to get behind the closed doors of the executive suite to find out what’s going on--listen up!

CEOs told Accenture that people issues are their greatest concerns. Attracting and retaining skilled staff ranked as their number one concern. Approximately 40% of these executives fear that their organization will not be able to compete for talent. If you expertise is in the field of talent management, you have valuable knowledge.

The number two concern of the CEOs was changing organizational culture and employee attitudes. The brutal cost cutting in recent years has taken a toll on employee loyalty.

So, how can you use these findings to further your career as a consultant or manager? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Schedule a meeting with senior organizational leaders to discuss the findings of the Accenture survey. Listen carefully and take a lot of notes.

2. Discuss the Accenture findings in your community of practice (see my July 13, 2005 newsletter in the Archives section of my website). Work with your colleagues to develop solutions for organizational leaders.

3. Be proactive. Write a report on these issues for your clients or your boss.


To learn more about improving organizational effectiveness read my book, “Strategic Organizational Change.” And for free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

Organizational Culture Change: Is It Really Worth the Effort?

Much has been written about changing organizational culture. It’s an exciting topic because of the enormous potential benefits derived from changing an organization’s culture. While exciting because of its enormous potential, attempting to change organizational culture can lead to enormous frustration.

It is important to understand how deeply the roots of organizational culture go. Organizational culture is rooted in the shared tacit assumptions of the organization. These tacit beliefs drive behavior throughout the organization.

Edgar Schein believes organizational culture provides members of the organization “stability, consistency, and meaning.” The change agent who threatens those three things will surely meet strong resistance.

Schreyoegg, Oechsler, and Waechter (three German researchers) believe organizational culture provides members with a worldview: how to perceive, how to conceptualize, and how to make decisions.

In my book, “Strategic Organizational Change,” I offered six reasons for organizational culture’s stubborn resistance to change:

1. it is implicit rather than explicit
2. it is woven into everyday practice
3. it leads to uniform thinking and behavior
4. it is historically rooted
5. it guides all decision making
6. it is used to socialize newcomers

The main reason changing organizational culture is so difficult is that it resides in the dark, unexamined recesses of the corporate mind. The unexamined assumptions that make up the organizational culture have not been questioned in years.

We know that most organizational culture change efforts fail. We know that organizational culture changes that succeed only do so after a frustrating uphill-battle against the status quo. We know that powerful organizational members have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

So, my question to you is this: Should an organization spend its limited resources (time, energy, and money) to change the organization’s culture? My answer is “yes.” Let me explain.

Organizational culture change is necessary to support almost all organizational change efforts (strategic, structural, or process). Organizational change efforts will fail if organizational culture remains fundamentally the same. The effectiveness of organizational change efforts requires embedding improvement strategies in the organizational culture.

Changes in procedures remain superficial and short-lived unless there are fundamental changes in values, ways of thinking, and approaches to problem solving. The resisting forces will simply renew their efforts to re-establish the old status quo.

Cameron and Quinn bluntly state, “The status quo will prevail. We repeat! Without culture change, there is little hope of enduring improvement in organizational performance.”

Cameron and Quinn offer the following hints for change agents:

1. Find something easy to change first.
2. Build coalitions of supporters.
3. Set targets for incremental completions.
4. Share information/reduce rumors.
5. Define how results will be measured.
6. Reward desired behaviors.

Organizational cultural change can be slow and frustrating, but the benefits can include dramatically improved organizational performance.

To learn more about how to successfully change organizational culture read Cameron and Quinn’s book, “Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture,” or my book “Strategic Organizational Change.”

And for more free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

You're Effective, We're Effective

Every leader wants his or her organization to be effective. Every leader realizes organizational effectiveness depends on the effectiveness of individuals. Therefore, it is critical to remember what is necessary to make an individual effective (not only for the subordinates, but the leader him/herself).

We have learned (or should have learned) that the unrelenting 24/7 drive toward a goal becomes counter-productive at some point. As early as 1908, the Yerkes-Dodson Curve demonstrated the relationship between performance and stress. Initially, increasing levels of stress increase performance (efficiency). But, further increases in stress levels cause a plateauing of effectiveness. And, if stress levels continue to increase, performance begins to decline rapidly. Extreme and/or consistently high levels of stress affect our performance and efficiency, and eventually our health.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) report some disturbing findings about workplace stress. NIOSH found that “40% of all workers feel overworked, pressured, and squeezed to the point of anxiety, depression, and disease” (Harvard Business Review, November 2005, page 53). Obviously, these workers are not going to be very effective.

So, what’s a frustrated, stressed-out manager to do? First, the manager must apply some basic effectiveness principles to his/her own work habits.

A lot can be learned by a brief review of Dr. Herbert Benson’s work. Professor Benson, of the Harvard Medical School, has spent 35 years conducting research in the fields of neuroscience and stress.

It was Benson’s bestselling 1975 book, “The Relaxation Response,” that first described the benefits of using techniques such as mediation to business managers. His descriptions of stress and relaxation on the physiological level were quite convincing.

Benson basically recommends a three-step process to maximize our effectiveness. First, struggle mightily with the problem. This step involves the hard work of data gathering and problem analysis. Eventually your stress level will reach the point where your effectiveness plateaus and begins to decline. Time for step two!

Step two involves “walking away” from the problem. It’s time to do something completely different. It’s time to relax in a manner that works best for you (go to the art gallery, get a massage, “sleep on it,” listen to calming music, share a meal with an old friend). You can do whatever you want to do. But, here is what you cannot do:

· continue analyzing the problem
· continue controlling the situation
· continue your attachment to the problem

During step two you must disengage!

Step three is the “breakout” step. After you have relaxed and rejuvenated, you return to the problem with renewed vigor, creativity, and insight.

To learn more about this “breakout” level of effectiveness, I recommend Benson’s latest book, The Breakout Principle (2003, with William Proctor), and Csikszentmihalyi’s classic bestseller, Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1990).

And for more free articles and resources on organizational and individual effectiveness visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.

A More Effective OE Consultant

As organizational effectiveness (OE) consultants we make our livings by diagnosing our organizational clients’ effectiveness deficiencies and then recommending interventions for our clients’ greater effectiveness. But, we must also consider our own effectiveness.

As OE consultants, we must continuously engage in discussions about how to become more effective ourselves. It is extremely important for all of us to be involved with communities of practice with other OE consultants, and to attend the conferences with our peers.

I would like to share with you some of the comments expressed at a recent LearnShare event in Ohio. I was impressed by the emphasis on becoming strategic business partners with our clients. As OE consultants, either internal or independent, our job is to add value to our clients’ businesses.

Barry Melnkovic, Vice President of Talent Management & Organizational Effectiveness, said, “You can’t lose your focus on making money.” He went on to say, “If you really focus on business strategies, then I propose that you focus on the few that really matter and drive the business.” Do you know your client well enough to know what drives the business?

Donnee Ramelli, President of General Motors University, emphasized the importance of speaking senior management’s language. Ramelli said, “[During a downturn], training is one of the first things to get whacked. And the reason we get whacked is that we haven’t shown how we offer enterprise value. You pass that test by having the hard metrics that are commonly understood by any of the general managers.” You don’t necessarily need an MBA, but you do need a common language to talk with your client.

Rick McAnally (Director of Talent Management at Deere & Company) and Frank Persico (IBM’s Director of Learning Partnerships) spoke about how internal consultants can keep their services in-house and also about “in-sourcing.”

The concept of “in-sourcing” has received little attention in practitioner journals. Outsourcing, on the other hand, has received an overwhelming amount of press. Outsourcing, as we all know, is the process of finding outside vendors who can provide services more effectively than in-house staff can provide those same services.

Instead of living in fear of outsourcing, several internal consultants that I know now aggressively practice the strategy of “in-sourcing.” They actively look for services provided by outside vendors that they can do more effectively in-house. Bringing these services in-house improves their companies’ bottom lines. And, this strategy adds a lot of perceived value to these in-house professionals.

IBM’s Persico (an organizational learning consultant) concluded the session with a comment that applies to all of OE consultants who want to get to (and stay at) the top of the organization. He said, “Previously, you were a learning professional who knew something about business. What will propel you forward is becoming a business person who knows something about learning.” Substitute the word “learning” with “effectiveness” and the comment applies to all of us!

To learn more about how to become a more effective OE consultant visit my website www.mikebeitler.com.