The nature oI change itselI has recently changed, says thage sur. In the past, change was predictable, incremental, and evolutionary, he says. In modern times, change is unpredictable, rapid, and revolutionary, sur says.
The nature oI change itselI has recently changed, says thage sur. In the past, change was predictable, incremental, and evolutionary, he says. In modern times, change is unpredictable, rapid, and revolutionary, sur says.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato DOCX, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
The nature oI change itselI has recently changed, says thage sur. In the past, change was predictable, incremental, and evolutionary, he says. In modern times, change is unpredictable, rapid, and revolutionary, sur says.
Direitos autorais:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Formatos disponíveis
Baixe no formato DOCX, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
"Reengineering and Dumbsizing: Mismanagement of the
Knowledge Resource`` 1
To understand the reasons Ior the radical restructuring process that has recently been occurring in the most modern organizations, people Iirst need to appreciate the underlying transIormation oI their environment. This is an unusual era oI change. Although the Greek philosopher Heraclitus noted that, "There is nothing permanent except change," back in 500 B.C., the nature oI change itselI has recently changed. 1
Paul Shay, a Iuturist and Iormer vice president oI a prestigious think tank, concluded that, "There are rare times in history when changes are so proIound that it amounts to a change oI kind, rather than degree; and this is the Iourth such change in the history oI Western civilization! (The Iirst was the transIormation Irom barbarianism to Greek civilization, the second was the Renaissance, and the third was the Industrial Revolution)." 2
In the past, change was predictable, incremental, and evolutionary. In other words, it was linear. In modern times, however, change is the opposite: It's "nonlinear." It's unpredictable, rapid, and revolutionary. ThereIore, it's considerably more challenging.
The main driving Iorces behind this Iourth transIormation oI change were the development oI the personal computer (PC) and global telecommunications technologies. In the span oI less than two decades, these technologies have totally revolutionized the world. For example, more new inIormation has been generated in the past 30 years than in the previous 5,000 years, and the total amount oI new inIormation being generated is now doubling in time Irames oI less than Iive years. 3 While the amount oI new inIormation is increasing, product liIe cycles are shrinking. What once took a generation Ior Ford's Model T is now down to several months Ior PCs.
The PC and telecommunication technologies have not only changed the processes used to produce goods and services, but also how those processes are managed. For example, the traditional management hierarchy no longer makes business sense because the critical wisdom and inIormation needed to run the new processes are no longer containable at the top. In addition, automation and other advances have reduced the number oI employees needed to produce goods and services, resulting in unemployment.
In sum, there has been an evolution Irom an industrial economy, which is based on natural resources and manual labor, to an information economy, which is based on intellectual capital and knowledge workers. Dealing with rapid, nonlinear change has been a challenge Ior both management and employees. This challenge is compounded by the erosion oI personal time Ior rest, reIlection, and planning. By 1989, the average American was already working the equivalent oI an extra month per year as compared to his or her counterpart 20 years previously. 4
The bottom line is that companies have had to retool their businesses without the beneIit oI historical precedents and without adequate time to properly assess all oI the critical Iactors.
** 1 by ur Poward Llsenberg 1hls arLlcle was publlshed ln Lhe May 1997 lssue of CuallLy rogress and ls copyrlghLed by lLs ubllsher Amerlcan SocleLy for CuallLy age sur
&nderstandably, some major errors were made, but too many companies are continuing to make the same mistakes. They are Iailing to understand the basic concepts oI knowledge management, which enable sustainable proIitability.
Deep ecology and successful corporate cultures
Since organizations are composed oI people, it is instructive to examine how living systems successIully adapt to changing environments. In %e Web of Life, physicist and philosopher FritjoI Capra describes the scientiIic discoveries underlying the paradigm shiIt Irom a mechanistic view to a holistic systems view oI the world. 5 In the holistic systems view, which is called "deep ecology," the world is perceived as an integrated whole rather than a dissociated collection oI parts. Thus, deep ecology requires: O A shiIt in values, Irom selI-serving egocentrism to a concern Ior the well-being oI others O A shiIt in power, Irom domination over others to inIluence oI others O A shiIt in social organization, Irom hierarchies to networks Companies can beneIit by adapting the deep ecology view when running their businesses. Capra identiIied several basic principles oI deep ecology Ior sustainable organizations, including: O nterdependence. Interdependence is about mutual dependence. The success oI a whole community depends on the success oI the individual members, and the success oI each member depends on the success oI the community as a whole. O lexibility. Flexibility results Irom multiple Ieedback loops that bring the system back into balance whenever there is a deviation Irom the norm. The greater the Ilexibility, the greater the ability to adapt to changing conditions. O iversity. Diversity yields greater resiliency Ior adapting to changing conditions, since there are many inIormation sources and resources with which to cope with problems. In summary, sustainable organizations are intelligent systems that learn and apply what they have learned.
These three basic principles oI deep ecology are scientiIically based concepts, but more important, they are also exempliIied by research data on corporate perIormance. James Collins and Jerry Porras oI StanIord &niversity set out to discover what makes truly exceptional companies diIIerent Irom all oI the others. They examined 18 exceptional companies that were the premier institutions in their industries, were widely admired, averaged being in business nearly 100 years, and had outperIormed the general stock market by a Iactor oI 15 since 1926. They then compared each company to its top competitors. The results were published in their book uilt to Last. Successful Habits of Jisionary Companies. 6
Collins and Porras discovered that the exceptional companies shared several timeless qualities: O %ey ave core values. These core values Iorm solid Ioundations that do not change because oI current Iads. (They seem to Iunction like DNA: They organize the processes required Ior thriving and enable the transIer oI eIIective design knowledge to Iuture generations, ensuring long-term survival.) It is important to note, however, age sur
that iI exceptional companies stray Irom their core values, they deenergize their employees and lose their competitive edge. Such was the case with IBM, when it lost is audacious boldness Ior investing in the Iuture and became more conservative and protective. 7
O %ey are driven by more tan making money. The exceptional companies pursue a cluster oI objectives; while making money is one oI those objectives, it is not necessarily the primary one. Yet, these exceptional companies are more proIitable than their competitors, which are driven primarily by making money. O %ey focus on continuous improvement. The companies Iocus more on continually improving themselves rather than on beating the competition. O %ey learn from failures. The companies rely more on trial-and-error experimentation than on academic strategic planning.
These qualities combine to Iorm an organizational culture that is conducive to success--and proIits. Similarly, in their book Corporate Culture and Performance, John Kotter and James Heskett oI Harvard &niversity demonstrate that there is a relationship between organizational culture and proIitability. 8 In their analysis oI more than 200 leading companies, Kotter and Heskett Iound that an "adaptive" corporate culture has a signiIicant eIIect on long-term economic perIormance. (An adaptive culture is characterized by visionary leadership, walking the talk, attentiveness to all stakeholders, empowerment oI employees, and dedication to continuous improvement.) In terms oI Iinancial perIormance, those companies with adaptive cultures increased their revenues over an 11-year period by 682 and improved their net incomes by 756 compared to 166 and 1 respectively, Ior those companies that were not adaptive to change.
Given these Iigures, it's ironic that many executives regard values and culture as "soIt" Iactors. Most likely, these executives also don't understand the real value oI the knowledge resource in their employees. David Packard, one oI the Iounders oI the Hewlett-Packard Company, put it succinctly when he said: 9
I want to discuss why a company exists in the Iirst place. In other words, why are we here? I think that many people assume, wrongly, that a company exists simply to make money. While this is an important result oI a company's existence, we have to go deeper and Iind the real reason Ior our being. As we investigate this, we inevitably come to the conclusion that a group oI people get together and exist as an institution that we call a company. Now they are able to accomplish something collectively that they could not accomplish separately--they make a contribution to society, a phrase that sounds trite but is Iundamental.
The concepts oI making a contribution to society, interdependence, Ilexibility, and diversity are more oIten the exception rather than the rule in companies today. Companies more oIten Iocus solely on making a short-term proIit, view employees as disposable commodities, and create unadaptive cultures. A stark example oI this is the recent trend oI reengineering.
The problems with reengineering:
Reengineering is the radical redesign oI a company's processes, organization, and culture to achieve breakthrough increased perIormance (vs. the slower, incremental improvements age sur
associated with total quality management). The classic book on the subject is Michael Hammer and James Champy's book, #eengineering te Corporation. A Manifesto for usiness #evolution. In their introduction, they not so humbly purport to replace the basic set oI organizing principles Ior business oI the past 200 years. They state that, "In business reengineering, all job titles and old organizational arrangements--departments, divisions, groups, and so on cease to matter. They are artiIacts oI another age...How people and companies did things yesterday doesn't matter to the business reengineer." 10
Although "reengineering" is not the same semantically as "downsizing," in practice, the two terms have become relatively synonymous. For example, an article Irom the Wall Street Journal reIerred to Hammer as, "the management guru whose ideas launched tens oI thousands oI pink slips." 11 Some oI the other widely used synonyms are "reorganization," "restructuring," "rationalizing," and "layoIIs." Then there are the Orwellian euphemisms, such as "rightsizing," "delayering," and "dehiring." The bottom line is that reengineering is usually applied Ior expedient cost cutting rather than Ior value-added objectives and growth.
Hammer and Champy's book launched a Iad that caught on in many companies. While the concept oI taking a Iresh look at a company's underlying business processes instead oI just continuing to do things the same way is sound, the business reengineers inexcusably suIIer Irom a major blind spot. They Iail to see that a business is a business because oI its people and that it exists by serving the needs oI the people. Surgically cutting away part oI the employee body and leaving the remaining employees hemorrhaging dangerously impairs the company's vitality. Three years aIter the publication oI #eengineering te Corporation, Hammer admitted that he "wasn't smart enough" about the importance oI Iactoring in people. He blamed his own engineering background and said he had not been suIIiciently appreciative oI the human dimension. 12
The damage, however, had already been done. Companies had hopped on the bandwagon, with oIten disastrous results.
egative side effects of reengineering on the company
Instead oI making companies lean and mean, reengineering more oIten makes them lean and lame. Reengineering negatively aIIects both a company's bottom line and its Iuture vitality.
Here is a sample oI reports on how reengineering has aIIected companies' bottom lines: O In their article, "Business Process Re-Engineering RIP," Enid MumIord and Rick Hendricks revisited some oI the supposed success stories in #eengineering te Corporation such as Capital Holding Corporation, Hallmark, and Mutual BeneIit LiIe. What they Iound was Iailure. They wrote: "This is the story oI the rise and Iall oI business process re-engineering in the &.S. It is a tale oI Iashion and Iads, oI unIulIilled promises and Iinancial catastrophes." 13 MumIord and Hendricks Iound that many oI the companies were eventually leIt with processes that were more diIIicult to manage than the previous ones. In addition, their costs had increased, they were getting poorer returns on assets and equity, and their employees were demoralized. MumIord and Hendricks concluded that, "values are as important, iI not more important, than they have ever been. Yet many companies tend toward short-term, issues-Iocussed, expedient managerial behavior. These approaches, together with short-term contracts, longer working hours, and increased stress, can produce an age sur
alienated work Iorce which has little or no identiIication with its employer. All the promises oI improved quality, better service, and a stronger customer orientation are brought to nothing." 14
O %raining & evelopment magazine reported that reengineering was Iailing in about 70 oI organizations because oI inadequate consideration oI the human Iactor. 15
O According to surveys by the American Management Associations, every year since 1988, at least 30 (and sometimes more than 50) oI large and mid-size &.S. companies have downsized. But 66 oI the constricting companies did not report any increase in productivity and 55 did not improve their operating proIits. 16
O A survey oI 1,468 companies by the Society Ior Human Resource Management Iound that productivity had actually deteriorated Irom downsizing in more than 50 oI them. 17
O The &niversity oI Wisconsin conducted a study oI the relationship between layoIIs and proIitability in #%& 100 companies. It revealed that Iinancial perIormance over a Iive-year period actually worsened because oI downsizing. 18
O A survey oI 1,005 downsized companies by Wyatt Associates Iound that 68 were not successIul in increasing their proIits. 19
Besides the bottom line, reengineering attacks the vitality oI companies. There are may instructive analogies on how reengineering drains the liIe out oI an organization. For example, reengineering has been compared to: O Anorexia nervosa. The organization becomes thin, but less healthy. First, the organization's Iat is depleted, then its muscle, and eventually even its brainpower. O loodletting. Reengineering is akin to the not-so-old but pseudoscientiIic medical practive oI bloodletting, which was supposed to help rid patients oI harmIul substances, but actually weakened them. 20
O Computer viruses. Just like a computer virus, reengineering decreases organizational memory because layoIIs are oIten covertly targeted to older, usually more experienced employees (i.e., over 40 years oI age). Loss oI organizational memory also occurs when desirable, highly trained employees decide to jump ship because they are oIIered the liIeboat oI an early retirement package or because their Iaith in the company's Iuture is shattered. Finally, the destruction oI the inIormation grapevine and the inIormal bridges between key employees oI various departments results in loss oI the tacit knowledge embedded in the working institutional memory. The remnants oI the reengineered companies are no longer vital social institutions. There is little heart leIt to recharge the stressed-out employees who survived the downsizing or to rebuild the bond between them and their companies. SpeciIically, reengineered companies experience:
Deterioration of teamwork. Although company leaders usually call Ior an increased emphasis on teamwork and communities oI practice, in reality, teamwork actually deteriorates. For the shell-shocked survivors, inIormation is power, so they don't voluntarily share it with others. Employees guard inIormation, believing that it will make them less likely to be let go in the next wave oI downsizing. The net result is a decrease oI collaborative intelligence.
Teamwork also deteriorates due to the use oI technology to replace human interaction. For age sur
example, voice mail is used to replace secretaries, while telecommuting and "virtual teams" take the place oI in-person meetings. The reduction oI Iace-to-Iace contacts, however, substantially reduces the employees' willingness to put themselves out Ior others.
Delayed decision making. Decision making suIIers because the stressed employees Iear making a bad judgment call and, as a result, tend to postpone decisions until the dust settles (oI course, it never does). So analysis paralysis and passing the buck oIten occur at a time when there is a need Ior Iast, decisive actions.
Crippled support functions. Human resources, education and training, and other support Iunctions oIten Iall victim to reengineering because they are usually perceived as being too soIt. The human resources Iunction tends to regress back to the personnel department. What staII and money are leIt are usually devoted to the Iinancial and legal issues surrounding the downsizings, such as employee termination, early retirement packages, outplacement programs, wages and beneIits, and disability claims. As a result, there is little or no support and training Ior the survivors, both oI which are crucial Ior their eIIectiveness and resiliency to cope with Iuture changes.
Decreased creativity. Reengineering creates conditions oI anxiety and anger that hinder creativity, resulting in lost opportunities Ior the company.
egative side effects of reengineering on the survivors
Aside Irom the tragic personal costs to those who become unemployed, reengineering also negatively aIIects the remaining employees. It is gradually being recognized that the survivors oI downsizing also suIIer Irom stress. In Iact, sometimes they Ieels as iI they ended up with the poorer deal in terms oI not obtaining an attractive beneIits package, being burdened with a heavier workload (as they usually have to do more with less), being in a less congenial workplace, and not having Iuture job security. In addition, they are less likely to receive stress and change management training and counseling, which is oIten made available only to downsizing victims through outplacement programs.
Survivors are also plagued by a sense oI guilt. For example, they might Ieel guilty Ior not standing up more Ior the downsizing victims or Ieel they were less qualiIied than those who were discharged. On top oI the guilt, they might Iear not being able to adjust to the new tasks, roles, and relationships. Hence, they become the walking wounded, physically, emotionally, and behaviorally.
The manifestations of stress
Stress is the automatic reaction that people experience emotionally and physiologically when they have to adapt to any situation. Hans Selye, who is known as the Iather oI the stress concept, Iound that when the "adaptation energy" oI laboratory animals became depleted as a result oI their trying to cope with excessive change, they became more vulnerable to various diseases. 21 In addition, it was Iound that even merely worrying about change can trigger stress, deplete liIe energy, and cause vulnerability to illnesses. 22
In the 1960s, Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe took Selye's research a step Iurther when they studied the relationship between the amount oI change humans could endure in a year and what happened to their Iuture well-being. As Selye had theorized, they Iound that once age sur
somebody had experienced an excessive drain oI energy Irom trying to cope with the stress oI change, they were much more likely to become ill. They also Iound that there was oIten a lag time oI up to two years between when the stressIul changes were actually experienced and the resulting development oI the illness. 23
Holmes and Rahe's research suggests that the stress-related illnesses now being seen in employees Irom reengineering are just the tip oI the iceberg; more will soon be emerging. The impact will be like a tidal wave because the downsized organizations will no longer have the slack to Iill in Ior those who become sick, which will result in even greater stress loads and more illnesses Ior the remaining employees.
In addition to the impact on manpower, stress-related illnesses will take its toll Iinancially. (According to the &.S. Health Care Financing Administration, companies are projected to spend more than 60 oI their aIter-tax proIits on the provision oI medical care Ior their employees by the year 2000. 24 ) Consider these reports: O The American Institute oI Stress estimates that job stress now costs the &.S. economy about $300 billion per year. 25 (This is a composite Iigure representing lost production, medical expenses, Workers' Compensation, and disability costs.) O A 1991 survey on employee stress by the Northwestern National LiIe Insurance Co. oI Minneapolis, MN, Iound a 200 increase in stress-related disability claims between 1982 and 1990. In addition, the stress-related disabilities had become more severe and were less responsible to rehabilitation (i.e., the success rate decreased Irom 88 in 1982 to 33 in 1990). The impact was worst in those companies that had undergone restructuring. 26
O Stress claims is the Iastest rising category oI Workers' Compensation payouts. 27
O SaIety experts have Iound a strong correlation between restructuring and the rise in costs Irom increased sick time and accidents. 28
O The incidence oI people suIIering Irom severe anxiety is rapidly increasing due to the higher levels oI stress in modern society. About 25 million American adults currently suIIer Irom this condition, and it is projected that about 65 million people (nearly 25 oI the population) will suIIer Irom an anxiety disorder at some point in their liIetimes. 29
O Anti-anxiety drugs are among the most widely prescribed drugs oI any type. In just the past two years, the number oI prescriptions Ior Prozac and related antidepressants has jumped 20. 30 Plus, there is "selI-medication," with about one in seven adults in the &nited States being a problem drinker. 31
O More people seek relieI Irom depression each year than Irom any other medical condition, including the common cold. The Medical Outcomes Study Iound that depression is associated with as much or more disability than major medical conditions, including heart disease. 32
Stress not only aIIects people physically, but also emotionally and behaviorally. Their emotional and behavioral reactions are partially explained by Abraham Maslow's hierarchy oI human needs. People have various levels oI needs that they seek to meet in progressive order oI complexity. For example, people will try to meet their need Ior Iood and water (a lower- level need) beIore their need Ior selI-actualization (a higher-level need). Along with Iood and water, security is one oI the most basic needs; consequently, since reengineering threatens age sur
people's need Ior security, they Iind it to be a very stressIul situation.
Reengineering can also threaten people's need Ior selI-esteem (a higher-level need). Organizational changes threaten employees' attachments to Iamiliar roles, relationships, skills, territories, schedules, processes, and power. These attachments are oIten an integral part oI their selI-identity and selI-worth. In other words, Ior many people, who they are is largely deIined by what work they do. By changing the work they do, reengineering threatens how they view themselves and their worth.
SuccessIully coping with change requires the sequential and complementary processes oI detachment and then reattachment (i.e., letting go oI the old and moving on by adjusting to the new). As they deal with the processes oI detaching and reattaching, employees usually go through Iour stages: denial, resistance, resignation, and involvement. (Some, however, never progress all the way through to the involvement stage.)
Ideally, employees should be allowed to discuss their Ieelings oI grieving and Iear during the detaching and reattaching processes. Such discussions provide a release as well as validation and support. Employees also need time (and, in some cases, assistance) to make the transition through the Iour stages.
&nIortunately, "dysIunctional organizational denial" is the operative norm in many reengineered companies. There is an implicit message to employees not to acknowledge their Ieelings, but rather to just accept the changes. But denial only deepens employees' Ieelings oI hurt, Iear, and anger, which could result in a wide range oI undesirable emotions and behaviors: O Employees become preoccupied with their Ieelings, causing them to daydream or gossip. O Employees become deenergized and less committed, causing them to work slower and make more errors. O Employees become distrustIul and irritable, causing morale and teamwork to deteriorate. O Employees might sabotage the company by intentionally not communicating, sacriIicing quality, being inconsiderate oI customers, stealing, publicizing proprietary inIormation, or bad-mouthing the company to customers and suppliers. Managers can experience similar Ieelings and display similar behaviors. They are, however, in a double-bind because oI their sense oI loyalty to their staII and their responsibility to senior managers. In addition, they oIten are leIt with the responsibility Ior doing more with less resources. Consequently, they oIten end up Ieeling drained and cynical.
The situation is usually very diIIerent Ior the senior executives, because they are the doers rather than the victims. They oIten obtain positive psychological stroking when the stock market praises them Ior having the judgment and courage Ior doing "what had to be done" and then rewards them by increasing the market value oI their companies (albeit temporarily).
ealing the wounds
What can be done in the aItermath oI reengineering to avoid stressing out the survivors? Many comprehensive studies have demonstrated that the return on investment oI corporate age sur
wellness programs in which stress management is the key Iactor ranges Irom 3-to-1 up to 10- to-1. 33 But, unIortunately, most reengineered companies tend to overly Iocus on cost- containment Ior medical expenses rather than preventative measures. (This is in contrast to the conventional business practices oI investing in preventive maintenance and risk reduction.) In an eIIort to lower costs, many reenginerred companies tend to restrict medical coverage, especially Ior mental health care beneIits. This is shortsighted. Not only are many employees increasingly impaired emotionally Irom the stress oI reengineering, but studies also reveal that mental health counseling actually reduces the subsequent use oI more costly medical treatments. 34
Those companies that do oIIer assistance to reengineering survivors usually do so inadequately. For example, most programs are poorly Iunded, are oIten staIIed by lesser- trained counselors instead oI psychiatrists or psychologists, Iunction in a mostly reactive mode, and are allotted insuIIicient time. Hence, they are restricted to oIIering more oI a Band- Aid than the truly comprehensive solution that is potentially available with state-oI-the-art stress management training. 35
Another Iactor restricting the wider acceptance oI stress management training is Iear, both on the part oI the companies and potential attendees. Companies Iear admitting liability Ior exposing their employees to unhealthy levels oI stress; employees Iear admitting vulnerability by seeking help.
But given the Iact that stress now costs the &.S. economy billions oI dollars each year, it would be smarter Ior companies to Iace their Iear and invest in properly caring Ior the survivors because they can and should be considered as appreciating assets.
As previously stated, even merely worrying about change can trigger stress and deplete vital energy. ThereIore, a key point in stress management training is to teach employees to be resilient by adopting a more appropriate attitude. This can be accomplished through:
!ersonal growth. In this era oI relenting change, people must learn to more properly deIine their sense oI selI-worth and satisIaction in terms oI who they are internally (i.e., their accumulated wisdom and the alignment with their values) rather than by what they have in their external environment.
Ideally, people should expend their personal energies productively by solving problems and exploiting opportunities rather than worrying about what they cannot change. This wisdom is aptly represented in the paraphrase oI the popular "Serenity Prayer" by the Minister Reinhold Niebuhr: Give us the serenity to accept what cannot be changed, the courage to change what should be changed, and the wisdom to know the diIIerence. The underlying notion is that sometimes it is wise to let go and instead apply one's energy to what is controllable, where it will really add value.
Spiritual growth. The workplace has become the primary source oI community. It is the place where employees spend most oI their time, have some oI their most meaningIul relationships, and deIine themselves.
Despite the Iact that employees bring most oI their emotional needs to the workplace, companies are becoming increasingly antihumanistic and insecure environments. Consequently, in these stressIul times, employees would probably be well served by regularly age sur
practicing inward reIlection and contemplation to achieve calmness, wisdom, and resiliency. They should also heed the wisdom oI Selye, who concluded that developing an "altruistic ego" was one oI the most powerIul antidotes against stress. 36 Developing an altruistic ego essentially means caring about other people's needs and committing personal resources to help them. This dovetails with Packard's notion oI why companies exist in the Iirst place.
Organizational leaders, meanwhile, would be well served by accepting their stewardship responsibilities and realizing that employees are not simply earning a living, but also making a liIe Ior themselves. They need to bring spirituality into the workplace to Ioster personal growth, to convey a sense oI heartIelt community, and to make meaningIul contributions to the betterment oI society. As the December 1996 issue oI the Harvard usiness Scool ulletin stated, "For many managers today, the greatest business challenges are no longer technical; rather, they involve Iiguring out how to put more 'soul' into the workplace." 37
Spirituality, in essence, is about the experience oI depth in liIe and concern Ior purposes that extend beyond oneselI. This notion oI spirituality is convergent with the modern scientiIic conception oI deep ecology, particularly in terms oI its basic principle oI interdependence.
Another application oI spirituality in business is the use oI intuition. It's ironic that surveys reveal the dependency oI most successIul leaders on intuition rather than on extrapolations Irom experiences or logical analyses oI current data when making decisions. 38 Yet they are shy to speak openly about their source oI guidance and instead cloak it in a logic trail.
Nevertheless, in this current era oI nonlinear change, intuition is the means Ior innovative thinking and cultivating inspiring visions to take employees Irom Iear to hope and to engage their commitment Ior success.
dvice to lead by
Leaders who are about to take the reengineering and downsizing plunge should heed this advice: ont do it if tere are oter practical and creative alternatives. For example, leaders could instead: O Reduce the organizational Iat in terms oI processes rather than people (e.g., eliminate unproductive meetings, poor communication, lack oI accountability, excessive response time, or excessive waste oI material resources). O Reduce or eliminate bonuses. O Reduce the work Iorce through attrition. O Reduce the use oI temporary workers. O Reduce the use oI external contract services. O Restrict overtime. O Shorten the work week (e.g., work one day less every one or two weeks). O Reduce beneIits (e.g., cost-oI-living increases or vacation pay). O Institute leave without pay. O Reduce pay levels. O Retrain and transIer employees so they can add more value. O &se job banks. II leaders believe they have to reengineer their companies and downsize the work Iorce, they should at least Iollow these guidelines: age sur
O ont do it repeatedly. Repeated reengineering and downsizing is akin to death by a thousand cuts. O Provide as muc advance notification as possible. Employees should not be kept in limbo; they need time to make appropriate preparations. O Communicate directly, onestly, and empatetically wit employees. Such communication will minimize their distress and help them successIully go through the detaching and reattaching processes. O nsure tat management walks te talk. When words and actions are in conIlict, people are inIluenced more by actions. 39
O stablis two-way communication rater tan oarding information at te top and releasing it on a top-down, need-to-know basis. Two-way communication takes the steam out oI the rumor mill and provides potentially corrective Ieedback. O Justify te need for te cange. Leaders should explain that is the positions, not the employees, that are no longer viable or needed. O Honor te past by acknowledging its rigtful place in te companys development. Doing so will help employees avoid Ieeling that their previous work and accomplishments have been a waste oI time. O Present te downsi:ing process as part of a clearly articulated vision of a desired future for te organi:ation. Leaders should show how the changes will beneIit the organization, the employees' Iuture prospects, and the customers. O nvolve employees in designing and implementing te reengineering process. The organization will beneIit Irom employees' collective wisdom, and the employees will have a vested interest in the success oI the process. O ownsi:e gradually. A study by the &niversity oI Michigan Iound that most companies that achieved organizational improvements Irom downsizing did so because they used a slow, studied, and participatory approach. Whereas, in contrast, most companies downsize quickly (i.e., less than two months Ior planning and implementation) and are unsuccessIul. 40
O Provide safety nets for tose wo will be laid off to ease teir transition. SaIety nets can include adequate lead time and beneIit packages that include extended health coverage, counseling, stress and change management training, new skills training, and outplacement services. SaIety nets also lower the stress on the survivors by reducing their guilt and anxieties about their own Iutures. O Act in a socially responsible way to minimi:e te adverse effect of layoffs in te surrounding communities. For example, a company could provide resources to community social workers, support groups, and agencies as well as assist community leaders in recruiting new companies to the area. O #educe te workload in accordance wit te reduced work force. Leaders should not expect the survivors to do more with less. O #einforce risk taking. The survivors will tend to become protective and cautious, so the leaders must reinIorce risk taking Ior innovation by Iollowing W. Edwards Deming's precept to "drive out Iear." 41
References 1. D. Runes, editor, ictionary of Pilosopy (Paterson, NJ: LittleIield Adams, 1963). 2. Keynote address by Paul Shay at the 1991 Annual ConIerence oI the Organization Development Network in Los Angeles, CA. 3. Presentation by Gerald Haman at the 1992 Annual ConIerence oI the American Society Ior Training and Development in New Orleans, LA. age sur
4. Study conducted by Juliet Schor and Laura Leete-Guy oI the Economic Policy Institute in February 1992. 5. FritjoI Capra, %e Web of Life (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1996). 6. James Collins and Jerry Porras, uilt to Last. Successful Habits of Jisionary Companies (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1994). 7. Ibid. 8. John Kotter and James Heskett, Corporate Culture and Performance (Indianapolis, IN: Macmillan, 1992). 9. Taken Irom a speech that David Packard gave to a training group in 1960. 10.Michael Hammer and James Champy, #eengineering te Corporation. A Manifesto for usiness #evolution (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 1993). 11.J. White, "Re-Engineering Gurus Take Steps to Remodel Their Stalling Vehicles," Wall Street Journal, Nov. 26, 1996, p.1. 12.Ibid. 13.Enid MumIord and Rick Hendricks, "Business Process Re-Engineering RIP," People Management, May 1996, pp. 22-29. 14.Ibid. 15.Richard Wellins and Julie Schulz Murphy, "Reengineering: Plug into the Human Factor," %raining & evelopment, January 1995, p. 33. 16.R. HenkoII, "Getting Beyond Downsizing," #%&, Jan.10, 1994, p. 58. 17.R. HenkoII, "Cost Cutting: How to Do It Right," #%&, April 9, 1990, pp. 17-19. 18.Kenneth DeMeuse, Paul Vanderheiden, and Thomas Bergmann, "Announced LayoIIs: Their EIIect on Corporate Financial PerIormance," Human #esource Management, Winter 1994, pp. 509-530. 19.Kim Cameron, "Strategies Ior SuccessIul Organizational Downsizing," Human #esource Management, Summer 1994, pp. 180-211. 20.Wayne Baker, "Bloodletting and Downsizing," xecutive xcellence, May 1996, p. 21.Hans Selye, %e Stress of Life (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1956). 22.Ogden Tanner, Stress (Alexandria, VA: Time-LiIe, 1976). 23.Thomas Holmes and Richard Rahe, "The Social Readjustment Rating Scale," Journal of Psycosomatic #esearc, August 1967, pp. 213-218. 24.Kenneth Pelletier, "A Review and Analysis oI the Health and Cost-EIIective Outcome Studies oI Comprehensive Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programs at the Worksite: 1991-1993 &pdate," American Journal of Healt Promotion, September/October 1993, p. 51. 25.Jean Wallace, "Reduce Job Stress BeIore It Reduces You," Safety & Healt, November 1992, p. 40. 26.Ron Zemke, "Workplace Stress Revisited," %raining, November 1991, pp.35-36. 27.Bernard Kottage, "Stress in the Workplace," Professional Safety, August 1992, p. 25. 28.J. Witherill and J. Kolak, "Is Corporate Reengineering Hurting Your Employees?" Professional Safety, May 1996, pp. 28-32. 29.Paul Foxman, ancing Wit ear. vercoming Anxiety in a World of Stress and &ncertainty (Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1996). 30.Deborah Franklin, "Treat Depression With More Than Drugs," Healt, April 1997, p. 122. 31.Lecture by John Renner Jr. on "Alcoholism" on Sept. 30, 1996, at Harvard &niversity in Boston, MA. The lecture was part oI the post-graduate continuing medical education program, "Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Review and &pdate." age sur
32.Lecture by Jane Murphy on "Psychiatric Epidemiology" on Oct. 1, 1996, at Harvard &niversity in Boston, MA. The lecture was part oI the post-graduate continuing medical education program, "Psychiatry: A Comprehensive Review and &pdate." 33.Howard Eisenberg, Cost/enefit Analyses of Wellness Programs (Stowe, VT: Syntrek Inc., 1995). 34.Richard Friedman, David Sobel, Patricia Myers, Margaret Caudill, and Herbert Benson, "Behavioral Medicine, Clinical Health Psychology, and Cost OIIset," Healt Psycology, November 1995, pp. 509-518. 35.This is based on the author's experiences in designing and Iacilitating stress management programs. 36.Selye, %e Stress of Life. 37.President and Fellows oI Harvard College, "Meditations on the Bottom Line," Harvard usiness Scool ulletin, December 1996, p. 36. 38.Jagdish Parikh, Friedrich Neubauer, and Alden Lank, ntuition. %e ew rontier of Management (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1994). 39.D. Stewart, Hecker, and Graham, "It's More Than What You Say: Assessing the InIluence oI Nonverbal Communication in Marketing," Psycology and Marketing, Vol. 4, 1987, pp. 303-322. 40.Cameron, "Strategies Ior SuccessIul Organizational Downsizing." 41.RaIael Aguayo, r. eming. %e American Wo %augt te Japanese About Quality (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1991). ibliography
Amidon, Debra, nnovation Strategy for te Knowledge conomy. %e Ken Awakening (Stoneham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997). Caudron, S., "Teach Downsizing Survivors How to Thrive," Personnel Journal, January 1996, pp.38-48 Clark, J., and R. Koonce, "Engaging Organizational Survivors," %raining & evelopment, August 1995, pp.23-30. Corrigan, M. and H. Mitchell, "How to Survive Mergers and Downsizings," nfo-Line (a publication oI the American Society Ior Training and Development), October 1990. Doherty, N. and J. Horsted, "Helping Survivors to Stay on Board," People Management, Jan. 12, 1995, pp. 26-31. Downs, A., "The Truth About LayoIIs," Management #eview, October 1995, pp. 57-61. Eisenberg, H., Creative %inking %ools for nnovation. A Primer for te Learning rgan:iation (Stowe, VT: Syntrek Inc., 1994). Eisenberg, H., undamentals of Hig Performance %eamwork (Stow, VT: Syntrek Inc., 1995). Eisenberg, H., Stress Mastery for te #eal World. A Personal Cange Management Program (Stowe, VT: Syntrek Inc., 1991). Feldman, D., and C. Leana, "Better Practices in Managing LayoIIs," Human #esource Management, Summer 1994, pp. 239-260. Imai, M., Kai:en (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1986). Peak, M., "Employees Are Our Greatest Asset and Worst Headache," AMA #eport, November 1995, pp. 7-13. Rosen, R., %e Healty Company (New York, NY: Tarcher, 1991). Strassman, P., "The Hocus-Pocus oI Reengineering," Across te oard, June 1994, pp. 35-38. Waterman, R., J. Waterman, and B. Collard, "Toward a Career-Resilient Work Force," Harvard usiness #eview, July-August 1994, pp. 87-95.
The Conflict With Slavery and Others, Complete, Volume VII, The Works of Whittier: The Conflict With Slavery, Politicsand Reform, The Inner Life and Criticism by Whittier, John Greenleaf, 1807-1892