A631.1.4.RB_MedleyKim_"The Return to Yourself, the Return to Innocence"

“The Return to Yourself, the Return to Innocence”

            Imagine for a moment, the characters of the popular television show, The Big Bang Theory, Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Dr. Leonard Hofstadter, Dr. Raj Koothrappali, and Howard Wolowitz being selected by a company, like Seagate, for its annual “Eco Seagate”, described by Max (2006) as “an intense week of team-building” that begins high atop New Zealand’s mountain range, “The Remarkables”, and ends with “an all-day race” requiring that which O’Brien (2008) refers to as “Type-A, engineers, hyper-educated Ph.Ds.” and brilliant scientists, “accustomed to being the smartest, most confident people in any room” to, as Max (2006) continues, “kayak, hike, bike, swim, and rappel” their way to shed inhibitions to become a better teammate. How long would it be before a character such as Penny had to intervene in order to master skills such as orienteering, create a bird call, or develop a “choreographed haka” (Max, 2006)? Yet, each year, since 2000, this is exactly what happens with 200 Seagate staffers.

            Brown (2011) explains “outdoor experiential laboratory training”, aka “boot camp”, has grown in popularity over the last ten years as a method for developing teams and leadership (p. 273). The concept is quite simple and Seagate has taken it to an extreme level. Folks who typically work together in one particular environment, in this case, an environment that produces hardware for computer storage, a tech environment, are flown around the world to an environment where tech experience does not guarantee survival (Brown, 2011; Max, 2006, O’Brien, 2008). The first of two videos, presented by Ming Chao (2008a), captures a very primal call, one expressed by Enigma with their song, “Return to Innocence”, presented by Emimusic (2009). The first segments of Ming Chao’s (2008a) film present a backdrop of spiritual music, showcase sacrificial tasks, like crossing a cable stretched across a ravine, capture words of encouragement and images of helping others in the face of defeat, and highlight chivalry, long thought dead, as a man helps a woman with her bike as she struggles to cross a fast-flowing stream. In an office setting, would she have been so quick to accept that help? I well remember a poster titled, “Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten”. The problem, in my opinion, is we forget those simple lessons; and, companies like Seagate are searching for ways to reintroduce those simplistic lessons.

            Kindergartners are fearless. Put them in a room and ask them to “imitate the sound the New Zealand birds” assigned to their groups and most will bravely begin to call out a plethora of sounds (Max, 2006). Kindergartners and even younger children, who have not yet developed solid language skills, never cease to amaze as they instinctively and intuitively communicate with one another, despite “languages and cultural divides” (O’Brien, 2008). Somewhere along the way, on the road to adulthood, we forget those simple lessons. We remain quiet in meeting rooms. We don’t ask for clarification or even help. We suppress feelings and emotions. Enigma chants, “Don’t’ be afraid to be weak, don’t be proud to be strong”; and, yet, that is precisely what transpires (Emimusic, 2009). We dare not show weakness. Perhaps we fear a culture that once existed at Seagate, one known as “Slavegate” wherein the CEO kept “a grenade on his desk” and fired people “all the time” (O’Brien, 2008). Ming Chao (2008a) clearly captures a stronger man carrying not only his bike; but, that of a fellow teammate, who happens to be a woman. He doesn’t ask permission; he simply grabs it and helps. In an executive environment, would that have been considered as chauvinistic? Just as Enigma’s video features mythical, unicorn, renewal, ocean waves, and bountiful, tilled lands, elements, each of which requires a reflection of one’s feelings and emotions; so, too does Eco Seagate (Emimusic, 2009).

            Teams of forty divided into four tribes, experience renewal through religious chants and signature bird calls that transcend cultural diversity and language barriers (O’Brien, 2008). Inhibitions are further cast aside as office attire gives way to “war paint, headbands, and makeshift grass skirts” (Max, 2006). Seagate’s team building is filled with risk, designed to encourage its selected staffers to take risks, like Tish Sanchez who earned “an extra token” for her team by “volunteering to rappel off a bridge” in spite of her fear of heights (Max, 2006). She learned to trust and accept help by facing a situation in an environment completely foreign to the one found within the walls of “the world’s biggest maker of hard drives” (Max, 2006). As explained by Brown (2011), the OD practitioner allows teams to critique, debrief, and discuss the day’s activities. Eco Seagate follows this and provides motivational speeches from a host of experts who challenge participants to consider not who they are; but, who they can become (Ming Chao, 2008b). Eco Seagate provides a communal approach to modify individual behavior such that the more people tire, the more they are “apt to ask for help and work as a team” (O’Brien, 2006).

            The value of such a program is found by the sheer numbers who attempt to be selected. According to O’Brien (2008), of the 55,000 employed worldwide, Seagate has chosen 200 staffers each year, has spent $10,000 per person, and has considered the applications of the same applicants for more than a decade. Teams are put together knowing each participant has a weakness, either readily or not readily apparent (O’Brien, 2006). Seagate developed its team building concept and its employees keep coming. I wonder how many of those who participate actually spoke to one another before the Eco Seagate experience. I wonder how creativity increased once people found their voice. Seagate has transformed from a company defined by a culture known as “Slavegate” to one that is “open, honest, and encouraged people to work together” (Max, 2006). The break from the typical tech environment challenges high performance teams they do need to rely on one another. They shouldn’t be afraid to expose their weaknesses or their strengths. As Brown (2011) observes, “Negotiating the elements takes ingenuity and teamwork”, so, too does negotiating the design room, the war room, and even the board room (p. 274).

          The characters of The Big Bang Theory often find themselves out of their university laboratory element. How many times has a girl from Nebraska, who barely graduated high school, provided the simple solution to that which was first thought to be a complex problem? Likewise, how often have their skills rescued her? Ming Chao’s (2008b) second video includes a score that mirrors the message of Enigma wherein the individual, through a communal experience, learns to live again, learns to love again, and more importantly, learns that a return to yourself is the return to innocence. It's an experience from which any organization would benefit. 

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8^th ed.). Upper

            Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Emimusic. (2009, Mar. 10). Enigma – Return to Innocence. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/Rk_sAHh9s08

Max, S. (2006, April 3). Seagate’s Morale-athon. Bloomberg Business. Retrieved from

            http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2006-04-02/seagates-morale-athon

Ming Chao. (2008a, April 25). Eco Seagate 2008 1/3. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            https://youtu.be/zCOfOFMiLtE

Ming Chao. (2008b, April 25). Eco Seagate 2008 2/3. [Video file]. Retrieve from

            https://youtu.be/Etwuap-_Azk

O’Brien, J.M. (2008, May 21). Team building in paradise. Fortune. Retrieved from

            http://archive.fortune.com/2008/05/20/technology/obrien_seagate.fortune/index.htm

A630.9.4.RB_MedleyKim_Who Makes the Team: Without Disagreement, You Have Nothing

Who Makes the Team: Without Disagreement, You Have Nothing

            In an address before a McKinsey & Company (2011) conference, Eric Schmidt, Google’s executive chair, characterizes his function, as well as that of co-founders, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, as providing “adult supervision”. Schmidt explains deciding who makes the team at Google “makes a difference… at every level”; yet, long before D’Onfro (2014) questioned How Google Works, John Mackey, co-CEO of Whole Foods Market, had developed that which Erickson and Gratton (2007) define as a “signature experience”, a unique and visible component of a company’s total “employee experience” that “creates value for the firm” and acts as a significant and “constant symbol” of the firm’s “culture and values”. The overarching message from both Mackey and Schmidt, “team-based” or “peer-based” hiring produces better results than that represented by the typical “hierarchical model”, is further affirmed by Brown (2011) as he observes “group consensus” is comprised of “all members” sharing in the decision making process such that the final decision is “one they will support and buy into even though they may not be totally supportive” (p. 202).

            Whole Foods Market, as explained by Erickson and Gratton (2007), is divided into separate departments: produce, meat, bakery and each department is organized into “a small, decentralized entrepreneurial team”. New hires are advised of this arrangement. During a four week trial period, new hires are observed by all team members to determine if they are “workers” or “lone wolves” (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). This process comports with the company’s profit sharing model through which successful team members, and their overall group performance, are able to realize an additional two dollars per hour per paycheck, thirteen times during the year (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). The team has the final say as to who makes the team and who does not; and, must reach a two-thirds consensus vote for the new hire to remain (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). Although the group uses the voting method to reach a decision, with apparent success based on the company’s repeated listing on Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work For" (Erickson & Gratton, 2007), Schmidt contends if a group has “consensus without disagreement”; then, the group essentially has “nothing” (McKinsey & Company, 2011).

            Absent first-hand knowledge, it is not clear if the meetings held by Whole Food Market teams follow a process similar to those conducted by Schmidt at Google. He explains he stokes discord in order to have a strong personality offer opinions, thus paving the way for more shy members to feel comfortable with expressing opposite opinions (McKinsey & Company, 2011). As outlined by McKinsey & Company (2011), Schmidt fervently believes in a spending more time to “ruthlessly” identify and interview those with certain “academic qualifications, intelligence, intellectual flexibility, passion, and commitment”. The major hurdle to this approach is most hiring becomes the decision of one manager and any hiring team that does exist simply becomes a “rubber-stamp” for the hiring executive’s decision (D’Onfro, 2014). Here, Schmidt agrees with Mackey’s team-based approach; yet, Schmidt has had to implement procedures that reduce the number of applicant interviews from eighteen to five (McKinsey & Company, 2011). Three years later, as presented by D’Onfro (2014) Schmidt is still trying to flatten hierarchy in hiring.

            The approaches of both Google and Whole Foods Market are completely well-founded in the principle expressed by Schmidt, “In a peer-based hiring process, the emphasis is on the people, not the organization” (D’Onfro, 2014). When group members have a say, one that will be heard and heeded by management, members have buy-in and a vested interest that allows for the flow of “group task” and group-building and maintenance functions” (Brown, 2011, p. 201). The hiring methods of both Mackey and Schmidt help provide “group norms and growth” whereby members are able to express ideas of what “members should do and feel, how this behavior should be regulated, and what sanctions should be applied when behavior does not coincide” (Brown, 2011, p. 202). Could such an approach backfire? That would depend on whose view is sought.

            From a team whose added bonus is tied to overall team performance, weeding out “lone wolves” guarantees the pitfalls of hiring manager choosing a friend over an applicant with better qualifications do not affect the team in a negative manner (Erickson & Gratton, 2007). By hiring those with the same driving passion that insures the “right seating of people”, does that provide for the potential of quelling needed discourse in a team (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? Do the “odd people” that may not gel with the group provide a key component for any organization (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? Is there incompatibility with other people an automatic non-starter and should it be? Is the function of the manager to be there to simply assist, or is a manager’s function that of actually managing the company (McKinsey & Company, 2011)? The answer may very well rest with the type of company and functions required to make the company a success. As noted by Brown (2011) Schmidt admits “the consensus-management structure at Google can be maddening at times but it is effective” (p. 35). Perhaps this madness might night work as well at another organization; but, empowering employees to decide who makes the team fosters the very environment sought in an increasing global economy, one that seeks feedback and focuses on the people first, then the company.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

D’Onfro, J. (2014, Sept. 23). Former Google CEO Explains Why A Committee Should Do

            Your Company’s Hiring. Business Insider. Retrieved from

            http://www.businessinsider.com/former-google-ceo-eric-schmidt-on-hiring-2014-9

Erickson, T.J., & Gratton, L. (2007, March). What It Means to Work Here. Harvard Business

            Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/03/what-it-means-to-work-here

McKinsey & Company. (2011, May). Eric Schmidt on business culture, technology, and social

            issues. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.mckinsey.com/business-            functions/strategy-and-corporate-finance/our-insights/eric-schmidt-on-business-culture-        technology-and-social-issues

A630.8.4.RB_MedleyKim_From Ta-Da to Uh-Oh: Team Building Can be Challenging

From Ta-Da to Uh-Oh: Team Building

Can be Challenging

            As explained by Brown (2011), “An effective work group must be able to identify problems, examine possible actions, and make decisions” (p. 202). That which a group does, the task, and the process a group goes through to finish the task provide for specific functions to be present within the group (Brown, 2011). “Behaviors that directly help the group solve its task” combine with behaviors such as “harmonizing and compromising” to provide growth and improved “interpersonal relationships” opportunities for the group (Brown, 2011, p. 201). The communication process that occurs within a group is vitally important in order for the tasks, processes, and functions to take place. Organization development (OD) practitioners, like Tom Wujec, study and observe how group members talk during discussions, record such observations, identify those who listen, those who speak the most, those who interrupt, and the impact of the interruptions (Brown, 2011). One method that provides for such observations to take place is the introduction of a game, developed by Peter Skillman and presented by TED2010 (2010), known as the “marshmallow game”.

            A simple game, designed for teams of four, requires the team to construct the tallest tower from twenty sticks of spaghetti, one yard of string, one yard of tape, and one marshmallow, with two conditions; the marshmallow must be placed on top of the tower and the tower must be built in thirty minutes (TED2010, 2010). Of the more than seventy workshops conducted and observed by Wujec, kindergarteners outperform business school graduates with the “tallest and most interesting” tower configurations (TED2010, 2010). Citing Skillman’s studies, Wujec states the reason kindergartners build a better tower is that none are seeking to attain power by becoming “CEO of Spaghetti, Inc.” (TED2010, 2010). As he continues, he adds another piece to this puzzle. “Business students are trained to find the single right plan” and then execute it (TED2010, 2010). Football teams are trained to initiate and suggest the goal of the game should be to win. They then seek opinions and information needed to formulate a plan. They have spent so much time on formulating and sticking to a plan; yet, when it fails to lead them to victory, a hail Mary pass is thrown which results in either a “ta-da” or “uh-oh” moment (TED2010, 2010). As Wujec provides, business students begin with task orientation, talk about the task, imagine how the completed task will look, position for power in the group, plan, organize, sketch, and “lay out spaghetti” only to realize their time has run out and the hail Mary is the placement of the marshmallow on top which has the same “ta-da” or “uh-oh” moment (TED2010, 2010). So why do children have better success?

            Often times, storytellers begin with the end and work backwards. This is what the children do. They start by putting the marshmallow on top and construct a successful prototype that supports the top (TED2010, 2010). How many of us have been given math problems that have the answer and we are tasked with producing the equation that equals the answer? Each attempt provides immediate feedback so the tower may be either strengthened or reconfigured to accommodate the marshmallow. Wujec provides engineers and architects outperform all groups because they understand the stabilizing advantages of geometric figures and patterns, like triangles and rectangles. CEOs do better than business students; but, when an executive administrator joins team CEO, the results improve dramatically (TED2010, 2010). Why? Because administrators they have skills that provide for facilitation and management of the work process (TED2010, 2010).

            Wujec provides this simple game allows teams to discover the marshmallow challenge that exists in every project. “Hidden assumptions” can be discovered and opportunities for “shared experience, common language, and a common stance to build the right prototype” can be developed within the group, which is the goal of process intervention (TED2010, 2010). Wujec’s approach offers a fun method through which teams may identify their norms, develop and apply process interventions, and ultimately learn to problem solve and make decisions without an OD practitioner (Brown, 2011). This then allows the group to “understand the impact of leadership styles and authority issues” such that group and leadership functions begin to be “shared among team members”, a skill already present in kindergarten.

References

Brown, D.R. (2011). An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. (8^th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

TED2010. (2010, Feb.). Tom Wujec: Build a tower, build a team. [Video file]. Retrieved from

            http://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower