Creating work cultures with competitive advantage

High-performance, high-commitment work cultures can be found at a number of progressive companies. Competence, caring, and flexibility are the characteristics that give these organizations their competitive advantage.

Creating Work Cultures With Competitive Advantage John J. Sherwood d3 he world of work is the scene of much innovation and change. Some Weyerhaeuser Company employees, for example, are on temporary assignment to work at customer companies. At Tektronix’s Forest Grove plant, a group of technicians met with technicians from a supplier and jointly solved a nagging quality problem involving particulate matter contamination. After redesigning their jobs, workers at a General Electric plant set production schedules 50% higher than those previously established by management. A packaging team at The Procter & Gamble Company’s soap plant in Lima, Ohio redesigned, installed, and started up an innovation in packaging that was based on the insight of one team member who persisted with an untried idea in the packaging of liquid l

: $ : i r! i $ 2

l

0 Copyright

products. Initially, engineers at the plant were not interested in the idea. After self-managing work teams were introduced into the policyholder services area at Shenandoah Life Insurance Company, the employee-to-supervisor ratio changed from 7 to 1 to about 37 to 1, service improved, and complaints and errors declined. Digital Equipment’s factory in Enfield, Connecticut has no supervisors. Ford’s car assembly plant in Hermosillo, Mexico has only one job classification for all assembly workers, who do all their own quality control and on-line maintenance. When necessary, the workers can stop the assembly line. During their first year, they established a lower defect rate than most Japanese automobile makers. At Aetna Life’s new benefits claim office

1988 by John

l

l

l

l

I. Sherwood

5

in Rocky Hill, Connecticut, each 12-person team handles all the various claims-handling functions that used to be done in several different departments. They also manage their own work flow, scheduling, overtime, hiring, and performance evaluations. At a new General Foods plant in Iowa, the corporate business team manager personally visits the plant and briefs each new group of employees on the product, market, competition, and business plan. For more than 15 years, the Gaines Pet Food plant in Topeka, Kansas has had an open storeroom, and employees have keys to the main doors of the plant. Over a four-year period at Dana Corporation, the corporate staff was reduced from nearly 475 to less than 100, and the number of levels of management was reduced from about 14 to about 6. During this time, sales increased fourfold. These are examples of some of the creative approaches to work in high-performance, high-commitment work systems. They are planned work cultures designed to achieve competitive advantage. This article describes what these work systems are, how they are designed, and why they successfully yield competitive advantage. l

l

l

HISTORICAL

PERSPECTIVE

During the 198Os, two major changes have occurred in industry: First, most markets have become genuinely international in scope, and second, as a result, various attempts have been made to gain or regain competitive advantage through productivity improvements. However, as Wickham Skinner observed in ‘The Productivity Paradox” (Harvard Business Review, July-August 1986), “The very way managers define productivity improvement and the tools they use to achieve it push their goal further out of reach.” Skinner’s re-

search shows that attempts by managers to squeeze ever more out of the same production systems are doomed to failure because of the narrowness of their vision. While engineers usually look to efficiencies for solutions, mainly by reducing direct labor or by adding new technology (automation, robotics, computer-integrated manufacturing, and so forth), others seek keys to productivity gains in “people management” through goal setting, training in excellence, quality circles, employee involvement, or various other quality-improvement and performance-improvement programs. Both efforts at improving efficiencies and employee-centered approaches are too limited in their perspectives. Since Thomas J. Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr.‘s book In Search of Excelfence (Harper and Row) appeared in 1982, management has pursued the quest for excellence with vigor and, apparently, with good reason. Peters and Waterman’s ideas are useful and have commonsense appeal. However, I believe that organizations can only go so far by doing more of what they are already doing or by doing it better. Instead, they have to do some things differently. Management needs to rethink how work itself is designed and how people (including management and staff support roles) are organized to get their jobs done. I want to call attention to two major levers for enhancing both productivity and the quality of worklife in the workplace: the design of work itself and the structure of work organizations. I will also show how these levers have been used to create planned and successful work cultures with competitive advantage-work cultures characterized by energy, learning, and quality. People exhibit energy (or enthusiasm) when work is challenging and significant and continuous learning is both stressed and rewarded. Pride in producing the highest quality products or services is an inherent part of such a work system. I will outline an

John J. Sherwood is president of Orgunizational Consultants, a San Francisco-bused consulting firm specializing in the design and implementation of innovative work organizations to enhance operational effectiveness as well as the quality of worklife of both managers and the people who do the work. Since 1975, he has offered public seminars on “Consulting for Organizational Effectiveness” and “Sociotechnical Systems and the Quality of Worklife. ” Sherwood joined Organizational Consultants, Inc. on a full-time basis in 1983 after 18 years as a professor in the Krannert Graduate School of Management at Purdue University. He has also been a professor of organizational behavior at the Harvard Business School. His Ph.D. degree is from the University of Michigan, and his B.A. degree is from Stanford University. He has served on the boards of directors of a number of companies, and for more than 20 years he has consulted with a wide variety of companies, unions, and other organizations. At this point in his career, Shenuood is particularly interested in one-on-one reflective consulting conversations with chief executive officers and other key executiues us well as in helping organizations change their cultures. He is optimistic about our ability to manage genuine cultural change.

approach to the design or redesign of a work organization to create a high-performance work culture in which the basic management strategy is to engender high commitment from

all parties, whether in operating, staff-support, or management positions. In such a high-commitment work high-performance, system, the culture itself is an asset that is valued and maintained. The basis for sustained competitive advantage is provided by a competent, committed, and flexible workforce. Most attention will be given to manufacturing organizations because most of the literature on high-performance work cultures has focused on innovative manufacturing systems, such as the Sherwin-Williams’ paint plant in Richmond, Kentucky and the Gaines pet food plant in Topeka, Kansas. However, high-performance work cultures might also be created by restructuring a staff department, installing a new information system technology, or redesigning office work (as at Aetna, Kemper, Lincoln National, The Travelers, and Shenandoah Life, for example). Although redesigning an established and traditional work organization is more complex and presents some significantly different challenges, the same fundamental principles and the same basic approach apply as those used in creating a new plant or a new division. Since the industrial revolution, most manufacturing has relied on highly engineered technologies that call for workers to be paid as much as necessary (yet as little as possible) to get them to do routine, repetitive, unchallenging jobs requiring only modest skill. A classic example of this approach to the design of work is the General Motors Corp. assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio, which began making Vega automobiles in 1971. The promise of the Lordstown plant was a highly engineered assembly process designed to enhance productivity. However, the plant did not deliver the anticipated levels of productivity and quality because its designers failed to consider the people who would work there. All the workers got was more money and faster-paced work. Around the same time as the Lordstown plant opened, re-

searchers began to write about the “bluecollar blues,” pointing out that high hourly wage rates are not enough to ensure the commitment necessary to operate a factory effectively. Until management changes its views about people, traditional approaches to engineering have taken us about as far as they can in our quest for competitive advantage. Organizations will continue to be limited by the limits of technology unless management changes its views about people and about the design of work. Most approaches to productivity improvement have tried either to increase efficiency or to develop skills and awareness (for example, statistical process control). In doing so, these approaches have, according to Skinner, detracted “attention from the structure of the production system itself. “ Today, in many organizations, tasks have been divided into small enough pieces that the workers require little training. To ensure reliable output, these organizations have created elaborate control systems with large numbers and several levels of supervisors and staff managers as well as accounting and management information systems. Richard E. Walton calls this approach to the design of work a “control strategy” of workforce management. In his article “How to Counter Alienation in the Plant” (Harvard Business Review, November-December 1972), he says that this approach is obsolete as a contemporary management choice. Moreover, he writes that any approach “that assumes low employee commitment and that is designed to produce reliable rather than outstanding performance simply cannot match the standards of excellence set by world-class competitors.” When management thinks of people principally as a variable cost (which can almost always be reduced), then it is most likely to seek changes in technology or in work methods (resulting in less labor input) as

ways to control costs. However, if management views people as both resources and collaborators in the competitive marketplace, it is more likely to seek ways in which everyone’s commitment, competence, and intelligence can be aligned behind the company’s purpose. Management’s challenge shifts from “How can we do it our way better?” or “How can we all work harder?” to “How can we create the conditions for commitment to a common purpose and provide what it takes to get there?” Perhaps the first step is to question the belief that the future lies exclusively in ever more highly developed technology. Management needs to seek and accept modifications in technology that offer employees more central roles in using and managing the production process. I am not simply suggesting yet another human relations program but rather a new way of understanding the role of people in the workplace. Management must recognize people as resources that can add value to the production process. The creative challenge is to link people and technology in ways that optimize both the potential of the technology and the contributions of people. The search is for a balance between an emphasis on technology and an emphasis on people.

CHARACTERISTICS OF A HIGH-PERFORMANCE, HIGH-COMMITMENT WORK CULTURE

In its most developed form, a high-performance, high-commitment work culture has five defining characteristics: delegation, teamwork across boundaries, empowered people, people integrated with technology, and a shared sense of purpose. 1. Delegation entails giving responsibility for decisions and actions to the people who have the most relevant and timely information or the most appropriate skills. 2. Teamwork

across

boundaries

means involving the right people at the right time. Everyone in the organization must be integrated in the service of the product and the customer rather than focused mainly on their function or discipline. This includes the controller, purchasing, engineering, maintenance, manufacturing, materials control, quality assurance, R & D, personnel, and training. In conventional organizations, staff functions often keep themselves separate and insulated by departmental boundaries, thereby creating an inward-looking orientation. When staff members reach outward, their intent frequently is to control or audit the performance of others. 3. Providing opportunities and valuing contributions empowers people. Organizations need to empower all people and no longer limit the roles and contributions of women and members of minority groups. No jobs or levels are suitable only for “appropriate people.” Moreover, everyone is expected to accept and exercise the responsibility necessary to get their jobs done as well as to help others accomplish tasks. No one in the organization feels free to say, “I can’t do my job.” Limiting an employee’s responsibility to a specific task or area is also not acceptable. No one feels free to say, “It’s not my job” or “It’s not your job.” 4. To integrate people with technology, they must be able to exercise initiative and creativity on the production floor, in the office, or in the laboratory. They are in charge of the technology. With this understanding, the limits of productive capacity go beyond the simple limits of the technology to include contributions of resourceful and stimulated workers. As Japanese labor expert Haruo Shimada has said, only people can “give wisdom to machines. )I 5. A shared sense of purpose entails sharing a vision that is based on a clearly stated set of values describing both the organization’s mission (purpose) and the methods

for realizing it. An organization’s vision provides energy and direction. It is a beacon by which everyone aligns themselves toward a common purpose. It empowers individual employees and forms the basis of a planned culture. All practices, policies, and symbols of a high-performance, high-commitment organization are congruent and point in the same direction (toward the vision). Just like the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, an organization’s vision is a state and a process toward which people continuously strive. It is inspirational and offers a standard against which people measure how well they are doing. In workplaces with the above characteristics, there is energy, learning, and quality. The work itself is a source of enthusiasm. The customer receives value - high quality products (or services) within promised delivery schedules. Management gets reliable output with low absenteeism. Unions gain employment stability for their members. Employees find their work a source of expanded self-esteem. Vendors are viewed as essential parts of the work system, and they become collaborators in the service of the customer. These work systems are successful in the competitive marketplace because they are competent, committed, and flexible.

WHAT A HIGH-PERFORMANCE, HIGH-COMMITMENT WORK SYSTEM Is Nor

A high-performance, high-commitment work system is not based on management that is more “people-oriented,” that “listens more” to employees, or that is “nice to people.” It is not focused primarily on quality of worklife or on organizing people into teams. It is not the latest version of participative management or situational leadership. Moreover, a high-performance, highcommitment work system is not another attempt to copy contemporary Japanese prac-

9

tices. The Japanese have taken scientific management about as far as it can go. Although Japanese companies enjoy enormously high commitment from their permanent workforce, the contributions of workers are structurally limited by their narrowly defined jobs. Japanese workers may make a lot of modest suggestions, but as Andrew Weiss reported in his article “Simple Truths of Japanese Manufacturing” (Harvard Business Review, JulyAugust 1984), most suggestions yielded an average saving of about $40 per year. Highperformance, high-commitment work systems seek substantial contributions from resourceful people - contributions exceeding those usually made in quality circles. Furthermore, a high-performance, high-commitment work system is not just another “personnel program.” All managers know what eventually happens to personnel programs: They come and they go. In its most developed form, a high-performance, highcommitment work system is a workplace in which everyone is viewed as a resourceful and creative partner in the business. Employees in these workplaces continuously strive to find better ways and to seek quality in everything they do. They are always reaching. They believe they are special- because they are special people in a workplace that is both engaging and demanding.

A NEW WAY OF THINKING

10

To bring about this form of partnership, management must change its ways of thinking- principally, in three areas: its ways of viewing people, its ways of viewing work, and its ways of viewing the role of management. People. One notion that has to be abandoned is that there are two classes of people in the world of work: managers and workers (or nonexempt, blue-collar, or hourly paid personnel). Instead, management should

accept the idea that, provided the opportunity, most people want to do the best job they can most of the time. Most people do not go to work with the attitude, “I’m going to do a lousy job today!” People are resources that need to be developed and trusted; they are not just variable costs to be controlled. Management should therefore focus its attention on enlisting people’s heads (intelligence) and their hearts (caring) as integral parts of the work process and not just expect their hands to be extensions of the engineering technology. To manage a company inefficiently takes lots of supervisors and levels of hierarchy. When employees care and have the resources/skills they need to get their jobs done, a large part of the fixed overhead allocated to supervision is no longer required and the functions of management shift, as described below. Work. Management’s view of work must also change. Work is not simply a job or a collection of jobs but rather a system in which people come together with a technology, in which disciplines are integrated to produce a product, and in which work can be designed both to optimize the best of the technology and to elicit significant contributions from people. In an integrated work system, all design elements reinforce each other and send similar and consistent messages to employees. Orientation and initiation programs, job definitions, recognition and reward systems, performance appraisal methods, training opportunities, communication systems and the information they provide, organizational structure, work rules/ company policies and how they are made/enforced, management’s role and modeling by key executives- all of these elements of the system reinforce the notion that each employee is highly valued as an asset and that individual performance is central to the success of the business. This is what it means to create a work culture.

It is also important that similar and consistent messages are sent to all major constituencies - that is, customers, suppliers, staff departments at corporate headquarters, families, and the local community. Another misguided notion is that work is necessarily something people avoid. Most people avoid anything boring, repetitive, unchallenging, unworthy, and punishing. In contrast, most people are drawn to things they find energizing, that provide them opportunities to grow, and that allow them to produce quality outcomes. The challenge is clear: Instead of designing jobs with simplicity and efficiency as the guiding concepts, management must begin to think in terms of designing work cultures (systems) that are characterized by energy, learning, and quality. Obviously, neither creativity nor caring can be automated. However, managers no longer expect creativity or caring from most employees in most routine jobs. Consequently, they do not find it. When work is designed to engage the person, management should expect innovative thinking and a commitment to improve outcomes. The traditional approach to the design of work is to assign engineers this responsibility. Supervisors make sure that everyone “does it right,” while skilled maintenance personnel and engineers keep it operating. In planning a high-performance, highcommitment culture, management needs to ask, “To whom should we look as primary resources in the design of work?” The answer is straightforward: “Those who are themselves closest to the work-the people who are doing the work now and who will do it in the future.” Employees themselves should have larger roles in the design of their day-to-day worklife. In a planned culture, the process of work design is a collaboration between managers, engineers, and the workers whose jobs are being designed.

In a high-performance, high-commitment work system, the role of engineers shifts from designing work and solving technical problems to providing guidance and education. Engineers bring the concepts and procedures of science to the workplace and help workers design their own work and solve technical problems that arise day to day. The contribution of highly skilled engineers is to educate and empower others rather than to do it for them. They never cease to be engineers, but they become engineers in the service of the product and the people making it. Role of management. The role of management in high-performance, high-commitment work cultures changes in several substantial ways. Moreover, as an innovative work system develops and employees become more competent and accept more responsibility, managers need to be flexible enough to change to meet the evolving needs of the new work system. Managers must focus their attention outward rather than inward- that is, they must look outside the work process rather than attend to the inner demands of the work itself. The work itself is left to the people who do the work. Managers make sure (1) the input is appropriate to the needs of the work system, (2) the output meets the needs of the customer, and (3) the environment is managed in a way that employees get what they need to do their jobs with minimum interference from corporate policies, the hierarchy, and so forth. At some Procter & Gamble plants, for example, managers see themselves as ‘barrier busters”; the managers try to empower employees to take appropriate initiative to obtain what they need to do their jobs in spite of obstacles they face. When the principal attention of management is outward, managers give up control over internal methods and details. Workers themselves are asked to manage their own work. This is the essence of em-

11

12

ployee involvement. Workers are members of self-monitoring work teams, and the role of management shifts to support and service functions - one of supporting the work system in the service of the customer. When managers step inside the work system, they serve as teachers or facilitators to the work of others-encouraging learning, suggesting new ways of problem solving (including conflict resolution), and stimulating creativity. In addition to letting go of control, managers need to replace their orientation toward department, function, or specialty with membership on a multifunctional team. The first interest of this management team is the product or service to the customer and building/supporting a work culture to produce it. When the culture promotes performance and quality, the role of management shifts to supporting the culture rather than controlling the workforce. Consequently, the new work system often requires fewer levels of management. The reduction of management overhead, in turn, is one source of competitive advantage. Furthermore, when management transfers control over the means or methods by which work is done to the people who do the work on a day-to-day basis, quality almost always increases. The result is a more reliable product with less management control. More self-control by people who share a common vision leads to greater system control. This paradoxical outcome sometimes puzzles traditional managers, who fear that moving from management control to employee commitment really means shifting from management in control to abdication or being out of control. Nevertheless, a 20-year history of high performance and high commitment at Procter & Gamble’s soap plant in Lima, Ohio as well as at a number of its paper products plants shows that more self-control on the part of a committed workforce leads to high-

quality outcomes. Further evidence is provided by a high-commitment paper products plant in Mehoopany, Pennsylvania, where the product cost is as much as 35% less than that of its conventional-design sister plant in Green Bay, Wisconsin. The management-toworker ratios at the two plants are 1 to 15 and 1 to 7, respectively. Before the policyholder services unit was reorganized at Shenandoah Life in 1983, a form was passed through the hands of 32 people and across nine sections and three departments of the company, requiring 27 days to complete. With the introduction of self-managing clerical teams, supervision was reduced by 80% and the same work is done within one group of six people. They handle 13% more work and complete it more rapidly with fewer complaints and errors. Managers need to learn to trust the process of delegation and to provide the support and training necessary for delegation to succeed. Their sense of control under traditional work systems is at best illusory; it is a stalemate, with no one in control. For example, time cards are used in traditional work systems to control employees. However, employees simply wait in line until the appropriate time to leave the workplace, having stopped work earlier when they decided they had done “a fair day’s work.” The work culture always defines a fair day’s work. The definition grows out of assumptions about work and the people who do the work. After some period of adjustment, managers in more collaborative work systems often feel the need for fewer management prerogatives or symbols of status, such as separate and expensive dining facilities or reserved parking. They are less prone to use self-serving or arrogant language, such as “He or she works for me.” However, accountability does not change. Managers remain accountable, while the responsibilities of the employees they supervise expand. Workers

always make or break their bosses; this fact is true in either conventional or high-performance, high-commitment work systems.

THERULE

OF LEADERSHIP

To gain competitive advantage, something new and significantly different is needed. When ‘business as usual” has not generated a competitive edge in the contemporary marketplace, “working harder” usually delivers only marginal returns. Therefore, to lead to competitive advantage a change has to be substantial; it has to be visionary. An effective vision provides guidance and serves as a source of energy. Leaders ensure that a vision is created. They also clarify goals, establish priorities, and enlist others in their support. In high-performance, high-commitment work cultures, leaders have major responsibility for three things: They are the primary keepers of the vision, they manage the environment, and they anticipate and manage the future. Leaders themselves do not have to create the vision (mission and set of values describing how to reach the mission). However, they make sure the vision is formulated to provide the foundation for the planned culture. Leaders inspire the creation of a shared and compelling vision. Once a vision is established, leaders articulate the vision, keep it current, and enroll others in its vigorous support. Leaders themselves personify the (new) core values that are embodied in the vision and that form the basis for the planned culture. Work provides people with many things; two of the most obvious are money and meaning. Vision supplies meaning, or purpose. The founding manager of Digital Equipment Corporation’s plant in Enfield, Connecticut credits much of the plant’s success to the “power of our vision” to mobilize

people to work in new ways. An effective vision has the pull of a magnet, attracting the attention of everyone who works there and drawing them toward it. Leaders also manage the social environment surrounding the new work system. In most cases, the social environment includes demands and expectations from customers, suppliers, corporate staff groups and hierarchy, unions, government, community, competitors, trade associations, and so forth. Leaders have the political insight and skill necessary to enlist key people in building a coalition of understanding and support. By consulting with the relevant constituencies and major stakeholders whose backing is required for success, leaders mobilize the energy and commitment necessary to get any innovative work system implemented. Why do leaders need political awareness and skill? Introducing a work system designed to elicit commitment necessarily results in a redistribution of power. The organization’s hierarchy and functional staff specialists must be willing to pass influence to the people doing the work (and to accept influence from them). Since few people start out with a willingness to extend power to others, people with power need to be convinced that sharing power increases the likelihood of reaching the desired vision. Political leadership is essential to convince key people to share power and influence. The manager of Digital’s Enfield plant also reported that the new plant’s vision exposed him to challenges and criticism. Leaders persist in the face of such resistance and skepticism. Persistence is necessary because managers often view fewer hierarchical levels, reduced emphasis on symbols of status, and requirements that they consult with and develop work teams as losses of position and self-esteem. Many also believe these innovations simply will not work. Leaders must learn to persist in the

13

face of resistance at the workforce level, too. If workers are to accept more responsibility for their own work, for the shape of their workday, and for taking initiative to get what they need to do their jobs, they need training, support, patience, and clarity from the leadership. Most people are accustomed to being treated in authoritarian ways and as knownothings by their parents, school systems (including universities), military, churches, and employers. They therefore require some time and experience before they can trust and grow into full-fledged members of commitment-based work settings. One company learned that new employees require about 18 months before they become self-starting and full-fleged members of a high-commitment plant. During those months of socialization, the new worker often tries to pass responsibility back to management. Even more time may be needed when there has been an adversarial history between hourly workers and management. Basically, people become what they do. As they assume greater responsibility and take

more initiative, people become responsible and self-starting. The third responsibility of leadership in high-performance, high-commitment work systems is anticipating and managing the future. Focusing attention on the future provides the awareness necessary to keep up to date and remain sensitive and responsive to changes in market trends and demands. The importance of holding a vision was demonstrated by the Wright Brothers in their early attempts to fly. In their first 147 attempts to fly, they failed. Yet from each failure, the Wright Brothers presumably learned something more about what would not produce successful flight. On the other hand, to those with a different frame of reference (the prevailing wisdom of the day), each failure reinforced their own skeptical ideas that “if people were meant to fly, they would have wings. “ The Wright Brothers held a vision of what was possible, while others “knew” they were foolish to keep trying. Similarly, leaders continue as keepers of the vision through the difficult times of getting a new

“[L]eaders confinue as keepersof the vision through the difficult times of geffing a new work system in place. New methods seldom look successful when viewed from midstream. People becomedispirifed; supporfers become silenf; and crifics shouf for all to hear, 14 ‘We could have told you.“’

work system in place. New methods seldom look successful when viewed from midstream. People become dispirited; supporters become silent; and critics shout for all to hear, “We could have told you.” Since vision is such a central and critical part of contemporary high-performance, high-commitment work cultures, two examples of visions are reproduced in the boxes on pages 16-17. The first is from a manufacturing plant of a consumer products company. It was written by an eight-member plant leadership team and was based on broad input from more than 80% of the workforce through a series of visioning meetings. Involvement was also obtained from corporate-level employees, key customers, and suppliers. The second was written by a work system design team (nine hourly and six salaried members) for a new product using a new manufacturing technology in a unionized plant of a high-technology company. The two visions are uplifting and inspirational to read. They also were empowering and ennobling to develop. When a vision has been established in a collaborative fashion and when it becomes an integral part of the work culture, it serves as a source of energy as well as a constant standard against which to judge how well the organization is doing. In addition, the vision provides a common source of celebration when there are successes. At a food-processing plant in Chicago, for example, the last issue discussed at each meeting of the plant management team is the question, “Are the decisions we made in this meeting in keeping with our vision for this plant?” If not, either the decisions are changed or the vision is revised. The two vision statements mention continuous learning, pursuit of quality “in all that we do,” the supportive role of management, integration of people and functions around the product, and commitment to fu-

ture renewal and continuous improvement. Each of these components is important for building competitive advantage.

THE ROAD TO COMPETITIVE

ADVANTAGE

The logo of DOFASCO Steel in Hamilton, Ontario says, “Steel is our product, people are our strength.” Competitive advantage is gained from this dual orientation: satisfying the customer and developing people. 1. Satisfying the customer means providing high-quality goods or services within promised delivery schedules. To continue to satisfy customers, an organization must be continuously responsive to changes in market demand through a flexible work system. In a world of rapidly changing markets, flexibility is the key to effective organizational design. 2. An orientation toward developing people can provide the flexibility necessary to be continuously responsive to changes in the marketplace. It can also provide the ability to attract and retain a workforce that is competent (multiskilled), committed (caring), and learning (continuously increasing its capacity and flexibility). Such a workforce is, in fact, an expanding asset base that usually has low absenteeism and low turnover. For example, turnover at Zilog’s wafer fabrication plant in Nampa, Idaho has been as low as 2% to 6%, compared with averages of 50% to 55 % for workers producing integrated circuit chips in California’s Silicon Valley during the same time period. In addition, the quality yield at Nampa has been 90% to 95% since start-up in 1978, compared with an industry average yield of about 75%. Moreover, in high-commitment work systems, the potential exists in terms of skill, initiative, and caring for reducing unit costs. Although there is no guarantee, some highcommitment plants continue to reduce unit costs long after start-up. The Gains pet food

15

16

plant in Topeka, for instance, has an outstanding record. It has reduced the unit cost of its product almost every year for the 15 years since start-up. At Transtech’s new office facility for issuing stock certificates in Jacksonville, Florida, employees were able to reduce both costs and administrative processing time by 50% from previous levels under AT&T’s management. Westinghouse Canada’s redesigned manufacturing facility at Airdrie, Alberta reduced cycle time for made-to-order motorcontrol devices from more than 17 weeks to one week. Although the changes made under the redesign were wide-reaching in scope, one major solution for reducing the time required to make a product was to increase workers’ authority. Instead of waiting for approval from others, production employees now talk directly with customers and suppliers, and they work directly with engineers. At one Procter & Gamble soap plant, a third of the annual plantwide goals are stated as learning objectives. Management believes in investing in learning for competitive advantage. The plant has been an economic success and an example from which others in the corporation have been learning for years. Tektronix in Vancouver has a tollfree number for customers to call if they have questions or complaints, and the telephone rings on the manufacturing floor. A similar concern with quality and customer satisfaction is found at Digital Equipment’s high-commitment plant at Enfield, where they furnish a 100% guarantee through their customers’ own assembly process for the tape drive components they manufacture. Of course, this guarantee also provides them with an interest in their customers’ success. During the four years following the redesign of Honeywell’s circuit board plant in Chandler, Arizona, the quality yield went from 82% to 99.5%. At the same time, scrap decreased from 18% to 1..5%, unit cost was

Two Visions From a consumer

products

company:

We are the best at uniquely satisfying the needs of our customers, our community, our stakeholders, and ourselves. We have achieved competitive advantage by developing in ways not easily copied by competition. We cherish diversity of people and ideas. Our environment integrates people, technology, and strategy Our close partnerships with customers, suppliers, and resources provide high value-added products. We have not yet found the bounds of how much people can learn. Our environment of continuous learning leads to continuous improvement. The more we learn, the more potential we find. We have a culture that brings out the best in all people. We relentlessly pursue quality in all we do. Our operation is recognized as the world leader in cleanliness and safety. Living our principles unleashes our creativity. We continue to be challenged to create and understand our future each day. A spirit of discovery, opportunity, ownership, respect, and friendship prevails. We strive to make each team member’s unique contribution successful, appreciated, and rewarded. Our information flows freely, empowering people for action. We are unsurpassed in the creative use of technology and statistical methods assupportive tools in achieving quality and reliability. While strong and self-sufficient, we are productively linked to other parts of the company. We care for our environment and are valued for our contribution to the quality of life in the larger community. We feel terrific about our remarkable achievements!

reduced to 46% of its original level, and output increased by 280%. Today’s competitive markets demand

From u high-technology components company: Our mission is job security and job satisfaction for all employees, To accomplish this mission and create new jobs, we manufacture world-class products using the f&owing principles: Personal Responsibifity I. beryone is treatedwith treat&with fairness, respect, and dignity, regardless of position. 2. Ensure effect& and meaningful training for everyone. 3. Everyone takes responsibility and pride in maintaining a clean, safe environment. 4. Each individual accepts ownership for the outcomes of their work and assistsothers to ensure the successof the company. 5. Every individual’s principal goal iscustomer satisfaction. (Your first customer is the next person, to rec&ve the results of your efforts.) 6. Everyone measures their actions against this philosophy. MmwgemenfS Role 7. Provide the following: l welI-defined objectives. l Necessary resources. l Minimum interference. * Support self-management and organizational growth. 8. Support a work system in w&h: b Operating decisions are made as dose to the point of action as possible. * Creativity and innovation are encouraged. * Customer needs are met in a flexible and responsive manner. AU?#Wrzw 9. Each individual is responsible for communications (both listening and talking) in an honest, open, and understandable manner. shar10. High levels of commitment and individual responsibility are promoted through continuous sharing of information on all aspects of the business. II. Trust and performance are enhanced by constructive and continuous feedback throughout the organization. Common Objectives and Team Work 12. All levels of union and management work together effectively to achieve common objectives. 13. Al1 individuals and all functions that touch the product are committed to support the common objectives of this work system-forming a united team effort. In addition, each is committed to learning from the other. 14. Performance improvements are openly recognized and actively supported. 15. Rewards promote this philosophy. Folluw-Up 16. Thii iiving philosophy as well as the work design itself is continually measured, reviewed, and updated to ensure our success.

a high level of performance from everyone, not mere compliance to rules or obedience to supervisors. In every example of a high-com-

mitment work system of which I am aware, the quality of work and the quality of the product or service are high without excep-

17

tion. For me, the conclusion is clear: Most people want to do the best job they can. If people want to do quality work, then cultures should be designed to encourage high quality. The process outlined below was developed to create (or change) a work culture. Some people may argue that no one creates a culture, yet cultures do develop. They probably evolve from the views of founders, from assumptions that powerful managers make about work and about people, from reward and recognition systems, from critical precedents and examples, and so forth. However, the origins of most organizational cultures are largely unplanned and uncontrolled rather than designed. Indeed, most people live their lives in unplanned cultures. Usually, no one is responsible for managing values, beliefs, roles, expectations, symbols, and rituals. There is no vice-president of culture or director of values and beliefs. The approach to organizational design discussed here is optimistic; it explicitly includes a systematic attempt to create a work culture in which all design elements send similar and consistent messages to people and reinforce each other. If the culture can support and encourage desired outcomes such as an orientation toward the customer and quality goods/ services, then the active design and promotion of such an enabling culture is a central concern of management. An organization’s leadership becomes responsible for articulating and maintaining the organization’s culture.

ESTABLISHING A HIGH-PERFORMANCE, HIGH-COMMITMENT WORK SYSTEM

18

Although there is clearly no one path for establishing a high-performance, high-commitment work system, the conception, design, implementation, and day-to-day management of this kind of work system requires consis-

tent and continuous attention to five key elements: people (the social system/culture); technology (the means of production or delivery of services); political process (whereby major constituencies and key members of the organization are identified and mobilized into a coalition of understanding and support for the new work system); environment (both inside the plant/office/company and outside); and links between people, technology, political process, and environment (a systems perspective ensures appropriate links among the elements). A formal structure or procedure such as the one outlined in Exhibit 1 is not essential for the successful design of a high-performance, high-commitment work system. However, some kind of process is required to ensure that the five key elements identified above are considered systematically. At a minimum, four essential functions are necessary to design a high-performance, high-commitment work system: political and financial sponsorship (from a sponsor); a sanctioning, legitimizing, and supporting role (frequently provided by a steering team); the design and implementation activities themselves (often assigned to a design team); and educational input and challenges to the limits of the contemporary culture (usually offered by consultants). Various forms of the procedure have been used repeatedly and successfully in the design or redesign and implementation of innovative work systems at such organizations as Cummins Engine, General Electric, General Motors, Goodyear, Polaroid, Rohm & Haas, and Syncrude. This approach is a synthesis of various actual design experiences. Each organization and each design process is unique in important ways. No standard “cookbook” for organizational design has yet been discovered. 1. The sponsor is a high-level executive who is sometimes a member of the steering team and who provides (a) the politi-

Exhibit I A

MODEL

FOR INTRODUCING

CHANGE

INTO

WORK

ORGANIZATIONS

Sponsor

I

Interest

in Exploring

I

New

Commitment

Ways

of Getting

to Finding

the Job

New

Done

Ways

I

I

t

I

I

Educational

Steering

I I

Environmental

H

Analysis

I

Opportunities

1

Team’s

Charge

to Design

Prepare

t Charter

(Vision)

Technical

t System

Team

I

H

Analysis

* Recommendations

I

to Steering

Team

Implementation

I cal leadership required for any innovative work system to be implemented and to survive. In addition, the sponsor establishes (b) the budget for the design team and assists in

Redesign

Social

System

Analysis

1

I

I

I

(c) buffering the new work system and in (d) maintaining communications with the remainder of the organization. Since power will be redistributed in any truly innovative work

19

20

system, top management’s understanding and support are essential if the new work system is to withstand the inevitable resistance and sometimes sabotage from those who believe they will lose status, prestige, and/or power because of the change. The sponsor serves as a champion and provides the support to absorb some of the risks that accompany the start-up of an innovative work system. 2. The steering team is a multidisciplinary group of key managers (and union officers) that (a) represents stakeholders whose support is essential for the success of any innovative new work system. The steering team (b) authorizes the design team and appoints its members. It (c) has the necessary authority to approve or modify the recommendations made by the design team. The steering team also (d) serves as a buffer to the new work system once it is implemented; that is, it acts as an umbrella protecting the innovative parts of the new organization from pressures to conform to standard corporate policies. In addition, the steering team (e) maintains communications with the design team and with the remainder of the organization. Not all members of the organization are personally involved in the work design or redesign process, yet everyone’s understanding and support are needed during implementation of the new work system. Therefore, open and current communications must be maintained with as many members of the organization as possible. Since responsibility for communications is both extensive and difficult because of the demanding nature of the design process, all parties to the design process are usually given this responsibility. If employees are unionized, union leaders should be involved as early as possible. Unions have a legitimate role in establishing goals, not simply implementing management’s preferred outcomes. Union leaders should be involved in setting up the design

team and steering team and be full-fledged partners in the creation of a high-performance, high-commitment work system In most cases, however, and for many reasons, union leaders have not usually been full-fledged partners with management in such endeavors. One example was the successful redesign of the Rohm & Haas chemical plant in Louisville, Kentucky; the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union participated in that endeavor. Another was the partnership between the United Automobile Workers (UAW) Union and General Motors Corp. during the start-up of the Saturn car manufacturing project. The UAW also participated in the design of Buick’s Factory 81. At Weyerhaeuser Company’s paper products plant in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, union and management have jointly shifted an adversarial relationship slowly and cautiously into a genuinely collaborative one. Output has increased 33%, and profits have doubled. The plant was named vendor of the year by one important customer. Today, plant personnel claim with pride, “We don’t know our limits!” Bold and innovative steps cannot be successful without the active participation of unions. If management proceeds alone or if unions refuse to become involved, only marginal changes can be expected. On the other hand, should unions choose to participate and then fail to see their members share any gains, they can be expected to return to a tough bargaining posture. 3. The design team, a multidisciplinary, multilevel group, (a) recommends the design or redesign of the work system, including jobs, work flow, and support/management functions. The team (or teams) often includes the managers who will be responsible for the plant or office together with representatives of first-level supervisors, the people who will be doing the work, and at least one

member of the steering team. Most of the designers will also become the doers and will be responsible for putting their ideas into place. Since the design team is responsible (b) for eventual implementation of the final design, it must become a political force to help create the conditions necessary to put into place the recommended design. Within the process outlined here, the design team plays the key role in creating a culture for the new work system. The designers are the architects working within the framework provided by the sponsor and by the steering team. As part of the process to promote acceptance, the design team must also (c) maintain close communications with the steering team and with the remainder of the organization (d) to ensure acceptance of the new work system by key corporate managers and union officers and also by the workers who are essential for its success. In manufacturing organizations, engineers should be members of the design team. They provide educational and technical support during the study of work flow and technology. Furthermore, because engineers bring technical understanding and because they traditionally occupy positions of power and influence, the key engineer should probably be a member of the steering team. 4. A consultant to the design process can come from inside or outside the organization. In either case, to be of value the consultant must bring a fresh perspective and the willingness to challenge organizational assumptions as well as beliefs of powerful members of the organization. The consultant (a) suggests concepts and experiences to stimulate creative thinking; (b) recommends procedures within which the design team and steering team work; (c) challenges complacency, limits, and myths about how things are and must be; (d) develops internal resource people to

ensure effective implementation and periodicrenewal of the new work system; and (e) offers guidance to ensure that the methods used in the design process are congruent with the desired end state. The design, implementation, and start-up of a high-performance, high-commitment work system require much planning and usually involve considerable pain and struggle. The design process itself needs to be collaborative, systemic, and competent (see Exhibit 2 and box on pages 24-25). The most frequently observed practices or outcomes of this design process are listed below. The list was compiled by a design team at General Motors after visiting 12 innovative work systems in the United States. The order of items corresponds roughly to the frequency with which they were observed (in descending order): Formally stated organizational philosophy (vision) and mission. Sense of common purpose focused on the product (or service) among all disciplines, departments, and levels. Identification and control of problems (variances) within the technical process - that is, improvements in technology by the people who do the work. Strong sense of partnership between management and the workforce, including union leaders. Shared information on all aspects of the business (open information system), including future plans, market conditions, costs, and prices. Jobs with broad scope to include more decision making, planning, problem solving, responsibility for quality, and both operating and maintenance duties. First-level supervisors responsible for team development, facilitating team effectiveness, and linkages to other units (versus control, trouble shooting, oversight, parts chasing, and discipline). l

l

l

l

l

l

l

21

Exhibit WORK

To design a high-performing

l

l

l

l

l

TEAM

work system characterized

Knowledge of customers, competitors, and suppliers. Continual training and organizational improvement (growth). High individual sense of responsibility and ownership of both product and process (that is, “the way we work together”). Organizational structure based on team concepts. Flat, lean organization with few levels and few job classifications. Realistic job previews-that is, a selection system reflecting work values and expectations. All-salaried pay plans. Skill-based wage payments. Equalitarian climate with few management perquisites. Decisions about pay increases, selection of new team members, training requirements, l

DESIGN

2

by energy,

learning,

and quality.

job assignments, and so forth made by work teams. Employment stability (from competitive advantage). Representative governance or oversight groups. Few traditional prejudices (such as sexism or racism) that inhibit the full and effective use of all people. Active promotion of a planned organizational culture that supports and encourages these practices. l

l

l

l

l

l

THE

CHALLENGE

AHEAD

l

l

22

After returning from a trip to Japan, one executive noted that his company needed more effort from its people, more caring on their

part, and more teamwork from everyone. My experience suggests different lessons. Organizations do not become high-performance, high-commitment work systems by seeking more effort from their people, by providing inspirational leadership, or by establishing teams. The necessary changes come mainly from structural changes in the way work is defined, such as assigning an entire final assembly process to a work group, and from structural changes in the way people are organized, such as engineers’ desks located on the manufacturing floor (as is occurring at Tektronix and at General Motors). In addition, attitudinal changes are needed on the part of almost everyone. The structural changes need to come first; meaningful attitudinal changes (such as trusting people to control their own quality) follow from actual experience under new work systems. The challenge for organizational leaders is to ask themselves these questions: Is the creation of a high-performance, highcommitment work system a fundamental business decision we want to make? Are we willing to become systemic thinkers? Do we want to seek quality in everything we do? Are we ready to protect the new work system from inevitable pressures to conform to traditional policies and practices? If their answers are yes, then the organizational leaders need to understand that they are initiating a redistribution of power. Power is extended to the people who do the work. Thus the process of changing an existing organization becomes a political process and will be resisted by some influential members of the organization. General Motors and the United Auto Workers decided to use the approach described here with their new Saturn car, but they chose to do so by creating a new organization outside the traditional GM/UAW framework. Saturn stands outside the familiar structure because key people from both sides would otherwise have said, “It will never

work. “ They would have cited excuses such as “This is another management device to get more work from people, “ “We have to protect the skilled crafts,” “People cannot maintain their own equipment,” and so forth. The design of a new plant or office or division or the redesign of an existing work organization is both a challenge in terms of the creative aspects of design as well as a political process in gaining the support of key members of the organization who can either expedite or block a move from traditional arrangements. How else can management’s reluctance to embrace and implement these concepts and procedures be explained? For two decades, some innovative plants within one consumer products company have produced substantially superior returns on investment, while other parts of the same company have generated explanations about why it could only happen with a certain product, or technology, or geographical location. It has been more than 15 years since the Gaines pet food plant opened in Topeka, Kansas. Yet, most of the parent company’s other production facilities continue to be fairly conventional, as if the Topeka plant were an exception outside of the remainder of the business. In 1972, Walton published his classic study of “the Topeka system, rrin the Harvard Business Review, which is read by more than 100,000 managers. In addition, that particular article has been reprinted elsewhere many times. Management at the Topeka plant reports that unit costs have been reduced each year since the plant opened. Why hasn’t the “rational manager” pursued these ideas and procedures with energy and persistence? An apparent answer is that the changes call for a redistribution of power. These are not pie-in-the-sky ideas. This is not another human relations answer to tough management challenges to remain competitive in the marketplace. High-performance, high-commitment work systems are

23

A Model Design Process The following is a sample seriesof action stepsto create a planned work culture for high performance and hi commitment. This is not the only way, but it is one way within which an organization can make choices that fit its own unique interests and situation. 1. The sponsor appoints a steering team. 2. The steering team prepares input for the design team: a. Hopes and fears for the work of the design team. b. Constraints: Production constrains and timetables. Financial constraints. Staffing constraints. Other boundaries. c. Dates for periodic meetings between steering team and design team. 3. Select a design team (including nonexempt employees). 4, Decide on a timetable. 5. Design team arranges educational opportunities for itself (and others): a. Sociotecbnical systems concepts and procedures. b. Team building. c. Visits to innovative work settings. 6. Steering team’s charge to design team: a. Learn about innovative and high-performance, high-commitment work systems. b. Develop a charter or statement of philosophy (vision) specifying the principles that are to govem the new work system. c. Conduct an environmental analysis (what’s expected from the new work system and who expects it). d. Do a technical analysis of the proposed manufacturing system (focused on controlling unexpected problems at their source).

24

now in place and are productive at A. E. Staley, Digital Equipment, Exxon Chemical, General Motors, Goodyear, Honeywell, Procter & Gamble, Rohm & Haas, Shell, SherwinWilliams, Tektronix, Zilog, and others. Today, most conventional work organizations represent compromises between powerful staff departments. Each staff group wants to make a contribution to the product and in doing so overvalues its own input and undervalues integrative arrangements - and without doubt undervalues the people who do the work. The workers’ intelligence is undervalued, their potential for learning is underutilized, and their interest in caring is ignored. After 20 years of various attempts to

involve people more in their work, we know how to do it at the level of the shop floor. What is called for in the next decade is to apply these or similar concepts and procedures to middle management, professional, and staff employees. Although there is greater opportunity to introduce new ideas when a new plant or office or division is being planned, every year brings more examples of successful redesigns of conventional production and office arrangements. Three examples are Honeywell’s plant in Chandler, Arizona; Rohm & Haas’s facility in Louisville, Kentucky: and Tektronix’s plant in Portland, Oregon. An opportune time to consider redesigning a

7. 8. 9.

10. 11. 12.

e. Analvze the culture or social system in terms of (1) what is to be preserved, (2) what is to be &in&d or left b&id, and (3) what needs to be created to make the new work system truly one of high commitment and hii performance. f, Make specific recommendations to the steering tea.m on the design of the new work systr?nz:(1) the design of jobs, (2) the work flow, and (3) th!cwork brganization, including supply, suppart, and man&ement functions for the new pkuIt. -m g. Maintain communicatiuns with both the steering team and the remainder of the organ&atiun while working. All parties (sponsor, steering team, and design team) need to understand and clarify their communication responsibilities and develop communication strategies and specific plans. Design teammeets periodically with steering team (as well as with other key members of the org&zation). Design team prepares first draft of a design (6f above) for the new work system, which is reconciled against: a. Constraints and Iimitations provided by steering team. b, Charter or philosophy statement (vision) for the work system. c. Environmental analysis. d. Analysis of the technical system. e. Analysis of the social system. f. Sociotechnical systems principles of work design (and also, traditional principles) provided by readings and consultants. Second draft is prepared and presented to the steering team for approval or modification where appropriate. The design team oversees the implementation of the new work system. The self-renewing work system continues to be rwised with experience and with the input of new people.

I

conventional organization is at the time of new product, a new another new event-a technology, a new key manager, or a new union-management understanding. On the other hand, it is always more difficult to attempt to change an existing organization. It takes leadership with more political knowledge and requires more skill to build the necessary coalition of understanding and support. It takes more time and therefore more patience and persistence. There will always be cynics and skeptics who have different assumptions about work and about people, who have vested interests in present arrangements, who are afraid to take risks, or who are uninformed and manage to remain

uninformed in spite of evidence that is contrary to their views. Moreover, the skeptics and antagonists will always be able to point to evidence to support their views. They therefore must not be allowed to govern the critical choices. Finally, it is important for the key manager (sponsor) to examine his or her primary motives for interest in high-performance and high-commitment work systems. For example, treating people as adults and valuing them as resources to the business do not follow from cost-cutting motives. Delegation of responsibility, expanding employees’ roles, and sharing information about the business openly and widely do not follow

25

from cost-cutting motives. If, on the other hand, the sponsor is ready to accept people as genuine resources to the business and as collaborators to achieve competitive advantage, then taking the steps necessary to design a work system characterized by energy, leaming, and quality is an obvious choice that can be made with enthusiasm and conviction.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I would like to thank Nancy L. Brown and William A. Pasmore for their substantial contributions to my thinking and to this article. Several others have

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

made significant additions to this article: Bill Belgard, Donald B. Benson, Juanita Brown, Tom D. Christensen, Michael Doyle, Joseph E. Engel, Kim Fisher, Frank Friedlander, Mary V. Gelinas, also

Roger Harrison, Florence M. Hoylman, Tom Isgar, Donald C. King, Donald Land, Edwin A. Mayhew, Carolyn Miller, John J. Scherer, Theodore Scott, James B. Swartz, Marvin Weisbord, Joan Wellman, and Richard W. Woodman.

If you wish to make photocopies or obtain reprints of this OT other articles in ORGANIZATIONAL DYNAMICS, please refer to the special reprint service

work systemsare available: (I) an account of the Sherwin-Williams

There is a brief and well-written history of this approach to the design of work and the restructuring of organizations in Eric Trist’s, “The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems-A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program” (Ontario Ministry of Labour, Toronto, Canada, Occasional Paper No. 2,198l). William A. Pasmore and I have also edited a collection of articles, Sociotechnical Systems: A Sourcebook (University Associates, 1978). Pasmore’s new book, Using Sociotechnicaf Systems to Design Effective Organizations (Wiley, 1988), presents both theoretical foundations and applications of these ideas. A survey of various approaches to making changes on the people side of the enterprise is found in Edward E. Lawler’s High-Involvement Management

26

(Jossey-Bass,1986). In my view, the

best recent article on the need for management to change its role is Richard E. Walton’s “From Control to Commitment in the Workplace” (Harvard Business Review, March-April 1985). Several descriptions of successful introductions of high-performance, high-commitment

paint plant in Richmond,

Ken-

tucky by Ernest0 J. Poza and M. Lynne Markus, “Success Story: The Team Approach to Work Restructuring” (Organizational Dynamics, Winter 1980); (2) a description of the Gaines pet food plant in Topeka, Kansas by Richard Walton, “How to Counter Alienation in the Plant” (Harvard Business Review, November-December 1972); (3) the story of Shenandoah Life’s redesigned offices by John B. Myers, “Making Organizations Adaptive to Change: Eliminating Bureaucracy at Shenandoah Life” (National Productivity Review, Spring 1985); (4) the case study of job enrichment at Citibank in New York by Roy W. Walters, “The Citibank Project: Improving Productivity Through Work Redesign” (in The Innovative Organization, edited by R. Zager & M. I? Rosow, Pergamon Press, 1982); and (5) ‘The Development of General Motors’ Team-Based Plants” by Richard L. Cherry (also a chapter in The Innovative Organization). On the other side, difficulties in implementing and diffusing these concepts and procedures are found in Pasmore’s “Overcoming the Roadblocks in Work-Restructuring Efforts” (Orga-

nizational Dynamics, “The Diffusion of New ing Why Success Didn’t namics, Winter 1975).

Productivity Paradox” (Harvard Business Review, July-August 1986) suggests that managers need to look beyond engineering and technology for the essential productivity improvements they seek.

Spring 1982) and Walton’s Work Structures: ExplainTake” (Organizational DyWickham Skinner’s “The

Correction In Gib Akin’s article “Varieties of Managerial Learning” (Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1987), Exhibit 1 on page 44 was drawn incorrectly. Below is the correct version. Exhibit

I

INTERRELATIONSHIPSBETWEEN THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF LEARNING

Attend

course

27