Suchergebnisse

Why and how systemic change overcomes ineffectiveness
Michael Beer, from Harvard Business School, provides insight into why and how systemic change overcomes ineffectiveness in organizations. According to leading academics and consultants, seventy percent of corporate transformations are failures. The organization is stuck in neutral, ineffective, and unable to make systemic change in order to perform better. Strategy changes follow changes in the competitive environment. The system of organizing, managing, and leading must then be realigned with the new strategy or friction and conflict between groups that must coordinate for the organization to survive will arise. A decline in effectiveness and performance will begin. Firing people or creating new programs to re-educate them doesn't work. Edward Deming, the quality guru who taught the Japanese how to compete on quality, found that "94% of problems in business are system driven and only 6% are people driven." When confronted with strategic inflection points, 7 silent capabilities must be confronted through honest conversations. Most managers do not, however, know why or how.

The "Silent Killers" of business success
Dr. Michael (Mike) Beer, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Business School, explains the "silent killers" of business success that top management are unaware of. For the past forty years, I and my colleagues at TruePoint, a management consulting firm I co-founded, have worked with courageous leaders willing to enable truth to speak to power - them and their top team - about barriers to their organization's effectiveness and performance. Hundreds of organizations across the globe, in many different industries, in for-profit and not-for-profit organizations, have reported the same syndrome of seven highly interdependent barriers. We have called these barriers the "silent killers" of learning and change because, like hypertension and cholesterol in the human body, they are hidden barriers to organizational health and effectiveness.

Combatting organizational silence: How to have an honest conversation
Hewlett Packard's Santa Rosa Systems Division was formed to take HP into a new and growing internet market. Yet, two years later, growth and profits were so disappointing that the senior team thought they were six months from being replaced. What saved them? An honest conversation about what was going wrong and overcoming organizational silence. Everyone in SRSD knew what the problems were, but no one could find a way to talk openly about it. Research – our own and others' – finds that 80% of business, nonprofit, educational, governmental, and nongovernmental institutions fail to confront the truth about the flaws in their system of organizing, managing, and leading that keep them from carrying out their strategies. This phenomenon is called organizational silence. It undermines employee engagement, trust, and commitment and thus prevents senior management from learning about what is working and not working. Organizations beset with organizational silence are stuck in neutral, generally unable to learn what is holding them back and unable to change even what they do know about.

ABSTRACTTop‐down total quality management (TQM) programs often fail to create deep and sustained change in organizations. They become a fad soon replaced by another fad. Failure to institutionalize TQM can be attributed to a gap between top management's rhetoric about their intentions for TQM and the reality of implementation in various subunits of the organization. The gap varies from subunit to subunit due to the quality of management in each. By quality of management is meant the capacity of senior team to (1) develop commitment to the new TQM direction and behave and make decisions that are consistent with it, (2) develop the cross‐functional mechanisms, leadership skills, and team culture needed for TQM implementation, and (3) create a climate of open dialogues about progress in the TQM transformation that will enable learning and further change. The TQM transformations will persist only if top management requires and ultimately institutionalizes an honest organizational‐wide conversation that surfaces valid data about the quality of management in each subunit of the firm and leads to changes in management quality or replacement of managers.