Comments on: Harvard Business Discovers Level 6 Work – The Strategy of Combining Two Models http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models Equipping Managers via Requisite Organization Systems Design. Talent Management, Leadership, Organization Design. Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:30:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-185 Michelle Malay Carter Sat, 08 Mar 2008 19:57:00 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-185 Will, I can always count on you to keep me honest. Yes, you're right. There are a variety of factors at play beyond cognitive capability that influence an organization's change readiness. I think you've hit several of them. I agree with your thoughts. Thanks for the comment. Michelle Will,

I can always count on you to keep me honest. Yes, you’re right. There are a variety of factors at play beyond cognitive capability that influence an organization’s change readiness. I think you’ve hit several of them. I agree with your thoughts.

Thanks for the comment.

Michelle

]]> By: Will http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-184 Will Sat, 08 Mar 2008 17:53:31 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-184 I'm not sure that the Big Three's overlooking Deming was so much a matter of their being short-sighted as it was that they suffered from both high business model inertia and the arrogance that comes from long-term market dominance. Quite simply, they weren't facing the kind of crisis that would have motivated them and their associated unions (a factor that can't be ignored) to attempt the kind of organization culture overhaul that would have been necessary as a part of adopting Deming's model. By contrast, Toyota was both small enough, desperate enough, and free enough from outside encumbrances (read: unions) to make the attempt. That they followed through is a testament to their ability to see the long term. My point isn't that the Big Three's top executives might not have been operating at too low of a level. Rather, I'm saying that their circumstances were such that they probably wouldn't have made the decision to change even if they had level 6 or 7 ability. In other words, we may never know what they were personally capable of, just that their organizations' cultures overrode any individual ability they may have had (a situation that continues to this day, for the most part). I’m not sure that the Big Three’s overlooking Deming was so much a matter of their being short-sighted as it was that they suffered from both high business model inertia and the arrogance that comes from long-term market dominance. Quite simply, they weren’t facing the kind of crisis that would have motivated them and their associated unions (a factor that can’t be ignored) to attempt the kind of organization culture overhaul that would have been necessary as a part of adopting Deming’s model.

By contrast, Toyota was both small enough, desperate enough, and free enough from outside encumbrances (read: unions) to make the attempt. That they followed through is a testament to their ability to see the long term.

My point isn’t that the Big Three’s top executives might not have been operating at too low of a level. Rather, I’m saying that their circumstances were such that they probably wouldn’t have made the decision to change even if they had level 6 or 7 ability. In other words, we may never know what they were personally capable of, just that their organizations’ cultures overrode any individual ability they may have had (a situation that continues to this day, for the most part).

]]> By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-182 Michelle Malay Carter Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:17:29 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-182 Daniel, Hello, thanks for stoppping by and commenting. Yes, Deming played a role in this. When one person (or industry) appears short-sighted in comparison to another, that is an indicator of differing cognitive capacity. As cognitive capacity increases so does one's ability to manage longer time horizons. Michelle Daniel,

Hello, thanks for stoppping by and commenting. Yes, Deming played a role in this.

When one person (or industry) appears short-sighted in comparison to another, that is an indicator of differing cognitive capacity. As cognitive capacity increases so does one’s ability to manage longer time horizons.

Michelle

]]> By: Daniel DeLeon http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-183 Daniel DeLeon Sat, 08 Mar 2008 03:30:59 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-183 Michelle, You reference the Auto Industries of the 1960's and how the Japanese made the transformation. In 1960's the American Auto Industry was revolutionary at its time. however became shortsided.They did however have the opportunity to see change which was presented to them by a gentlemen named "Edward Deming". The Americam Auto Industry had problems absorbing or understanding "The Deming Philosphy" and packed up his bag and went to Japan. The Japanese truly embraced & implemented such idea's and have never looked back since. Michelle,

You reference the Auto Industries of the 1960′s
and how the Japanese made the transformation.

In 1960′s the American Auto Industry was revolutionary at its time. however became shortsided.They did however have the opportunity to see change which was presented to them by a gentlemen named “Edward Deming”.

The Americam Auto Industry had problems absorbing or understanding “The Deming Philosphy” and packed up his bag and went to Japan. The Japanese truly embraced & implemented such idea’s and have never looked back since.

]]> By: Michelle Malay Carter http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-181 Michelle Malay Carter Thu, 28 Feb 2008 02:07:41 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-181 Will, Good points. Thanks for you insight and for the pointers about the article. Regards, Michelle Will,

Good points. Thanks for you insight and for the pointers about the article.

Regards,

Michelle

]]> By: Will http://www.missionmindedmanagement.com/harvard-business-discovers-level-6-work-the-strategy-of-combining-two-models/comment-page-1#comment-180 Will Wed, 27 Feb 2008 21:18:44 +0000 http://69.89.31.143/~organja8/missionmindedmanagement/?p=221#comment-180 With regard to your statement that "embracing paradoxes need NOT be the role of ALL CEOs," I would agree only if we limited the discussion to the area of market strategy models (which was obviously what was on your mind when you wrote this). In all fairness to the authors of the paper you shared with us, though, they were considering CEO issues (what they called "management dualities") beyond just market strategy (see Figure 3 on page 42). Many (though certainly not all) of those dualities are present even in organizations that fit Level 5 criteria. What would be true is that a Level 6 or higher CEO will find that the degree of separation between the two endpoints of any duality is likely to be greater than in a Level 5 situation because of the increase in organization size and complexity. The difference between Level 5 and the higher levels (with regard to the paper in question) in the common categories is one of degree, with the addition of certain other categories in the higher levels. For those readers who haven't yet tackled this paper, note that the table and figures referenced in the body of the paper are all located on pages 40-42. Also, you'll find that the findings of the study begins on page 14--if you read the abstract on page 2, you could skip right to page 14 and only miss out on the process description and survey of current literature on the topic. With regard to your statement that “embracing paradoxes need NOT be the role of ALL CEOs,” I would agree only if we limited the discussion to the area of market strategy models (which was obviously what was on your mind when you wrote this). In all fairness to the authors of the paper you shared with us, though, they were considering CEO issues (what they called “management dualities”) beyond just market strategy (see Figure 3 on page 42). Many (though certainly not all) of those dualities are present even in organizations that fit Level 5 criteria. What would be true is that a Level 6 or higher CEO will find that the degree of separation between the two endpoints of any duality is likely to be greater than in a Level 5 situation because of the increase in organization size and complexity. The difference between Level 5 and the higher levels (with regard to the paper in question) in the common categories is one of degree, with the addition of certain other categories in the higher levels.

For those readers who haven’t yet tackled this paper, note that the table and figures referenced in the body of the paper are all located on pages 40-42. Also, you’ll find that the findings of the study begins on page 14–if you read the abstract on page 2, you could skip right to page 14 and only miss out on the process description and survey of current literature on the topic.

]]>