Think Inc.
A forum for Hawaii's
business community to discuss
current events and issues.
Think Inc.
A forum for Hawaii's
business community to discuss
current events and issues.
Change not enough | Schools & brain drain | Big box rebuttal
|
When change
is not enoughBy Jerry Glover and Gordon Jones
Every leader in the world is facing the need to cope with change. But not all leaders are creating changes that enable their corporations, governments, or communities to adapt in a successful and sustained way. Unless those leaders are able to develop new abilities that enable them to lead adaptively in complex and rapidly changing situations, our corporations, governments and communities will be unable to effectively meet the challenges of our contemporary world.
DAVID SWANN / DSWANN@STARBULLETIN.COM With the myriad challenges faced today, everyone seems to be looking for answers. Many leaders attempt to implement one-size-fits-all leadership programs or "off the shelf" change initiatives to meet these challenges. Experience and research show that failure usually follows. Even if a leader is able to get his or her organization from point A to point B, the environment often shifts during change initiatives so that D or some other ending place becomes a more appropriate choice by the time the change has been implemented. Consequently, the adaptability of any change process, and those leading it, becomes a crucial consideration.
It is important to understand the difference between mere change in an organization and change that is adaptive. Change involves any new allocation of time, resources, or priorities. But change alone is no guarantee of successful adaptation. Adaptation always involves creative problem solving, leading to a successful and sustainable alteration in the nature of the relationship between an organization and its environment.
When change does not involve adaptation, the result may be only additional activity layered on top of an organization's existing culture, often creating a situation worse than the starting place. A few years ago, an admiral told us a story of frustration concerning his efforts to bring about a continuous improvement initiative among sailors in his command. "I don't know why nothing seems to be changing! We trained all 2,200 sailors in statistical process methods. Every person in my command completed a three-day course during the past year," he said.
When the admiral was asked what else he had done to create cultural change, he looked somewhat befuddled and responded, "Nothing except for the training." In actual fact, what he had done was train 2,200 sailors to statistically chart their dissatisfaction with their workplace. He had confused merely training the sailors in statistics with actually implementing any adaptive redesign of his organization that might have created an environment of continuous improvement.
Despite the admiral's well-intended attempts at creating a useful improvement in his organization, the culture of his naval command had not changed for the better. Even though the 2,200 sailors knew how to use statistical process methods, they were unable to apply what they had learned in the workplace. Systemic blocks, arising from the old ways of doing things, were still at work. For example, those sailors who wanted to apply what they had learned to solve problems in their workplace were seldom given the time to do so. Instead, they were told to focus on their "real jobs." Furthermore, many of the non-commissioned officers were threatened by the new awareness of workplace problems and actually became more resistant to any effective change.
This failed attempt to produce a worthwhile change resulted, as unsuccessful change efforts often do, in cynicism, frustration, loss of trust and deterioration in morale among organizational members. In many cases, organizations are far worse off after a failed change attempt than they were in the first place. In this regard, suffering with an inadequate status quo may often be better than introducing further problems with a maladaptive change effort.
In future weeks, we will discuss ways leaders can become more adaptable by being open to and acutely aware of the changes going on around us, making effective decisions in harmony with these pervasive changes, and then taking appropriate action that leads to sustainable futures.
Jerry Glover is a professor of organizational change at Hawaii Pacific University and Gordon Jones is a professor of management information systems at HPU. They can be reached at JerryGlover@compuserve.com and gjones@hpu.edu. BACK TO TOP
|
[BRAIN DRAIN]
I've tried to follow Michelle Alarcon's academic view of our brain drain and it's resulting effect on Hawaii's labor force. (Think Inc., April 7) It seems to me that the professor skipped a vital part of the formula. Talent loss equation
skips school variablesBy Ronald E. Jones
She cites Japan's example of total quality management and reengineering, which focuses on individual performance to propel quality forward (for this reply let's completely ignore banking and economics).
She hasn't taken into account that schools and universities in Japan are so far superior that they provide the employer a base to work from.
Here at home we see graduates coming to business from high school and college who can't dress properly, who can't spell or compose a coherent paragraph.
These students are TV based organisms who have no sense of history, no knowledge of geography, and in most cases don't understand the basic difference between city, state, or federal orientations.
A work ethic is a character thing and must be instilled first by parents or parent surrogates, and then reinforced by the educational system.
We need to ask the basic questions, such as, where do private school students seek employment?
The answer is not here. In 18 years we've never seen one. Where do public school students seek employment? Local business of course. Give the business employer a base to build on.
We are held back by the quality of the people that public educators put into the market place. Please don't lay this problem solely on the business community.
Give us educated students with a work ethic, we'll hire them, pay them well and fight like hell to keep them.
Ronald E. Jones is president of Sonitrol of Hawaii Inc. BACK TO TOP
|
Among other things, Hawaii Pacific University professor Eric Abrams defends Home Depot by telling us it may be considered local, as "much" of the revenue generated stays in the state. (Think Inc., April 14) [IS IT ALWAYS BAD TO BUY
FROM A MAINLAND CHAIN?]Big-box stores will do
whatever it takes
to control marketBy Allen S. James
"Much." How's that for a precise economics term of measurement?! It means great or large.
"Understanding the economy?" I don't think so.
He further shows his grasp of economics by saying less construction is always bad for Hawaii's economy. (Intuitively implying his understanding that the more construction that takes place here in Hawaii, the more we chase away tourists that wanted to see "Hawaii.")
Here's a little more of background that is fairly common knowledge about these big-box stores: Many smaller lots and buildings are illegally and fraudulently labeled blighted, taken away from the property and business owners. A big-box store is erected. An ugly one. There is no other kind.
They move into a neighborhood, sometimes within just a few miles from each other.
Few meaning about 10 miles apart. (Yes; two Home Depot stores in the same area.) When the competition is decimated -- in layperson's terms this means when all the small and large "mom and pop" stores die -- the big box generating the lesser profit is then closed down.
What remains is a big UUUGGGAAALEEEE building that no one wants, no one needs, and city hall can't do a darn thing about it.
Even though in most instances, city hall gave millions in tax breaks, subsidies and even paid for street improvements to lure the big-box to town. In many cases, the street improvements and tax breaks are many times over the estimated yearly tax revenue generated by a big-box.
You may be sitting there with a look of dismay, exclaiming; but they wouldn't do that, would they?!
They would, they can and they do. This is part and parcel of the corporate big-box structure game plan. I have a friend on the mainland who works for Home Depot. He tells me, on a decent day, at his location, the big-box generates $2.6 million. That's $2,600,000.00. In one day. By one store!
Now tell me they can't afford to erect, open, and close a store after they get rid of the competition!
They can't afford NOT to employ these tactics!
Conversely, it is unfortunate that "economists" support this kind of thing, especially when they and their politician/developer/lawyer chums hear any figure close to two-point-six million per day!
But, hey! They can and always will justify it one way or another, semantically or legally; the concept that our islands ARE for sale!
The introduction of a characterless, monolithic corporate presence just for the sake of higher tax dollars is myopic at best and a diseased doctrine of false economics leading to the slow but sure death of a city at worst.
It is the epitome of the thoughtless, and heartless approach to economics.
It is a major factor in the destruction of individual cities with individual character. This mentality that supports this "pernicious homogenization of American life" is the beginning of the end.
We hear so many talk of creating a "sense of place" here in Hawaii and, within the same breath, proclaim "we must have another 'world class shopping center'" to complete with all the same stores you can find in any other city in the mainland.
Further, Abrams seems to imply this kind of shopping and the accompanying construction is the savior of our economy.
It WILL have to be, if we continue the "Californication" of the island.
Through my decade of selling Polynesian goods to countless customers around the world, I have been hearing all too often the equivalent of: "I don't go to Hawaii anymore. It looks like Las Vegas.
"Waikiki has become another Wilshire. I can get that crap anywhere else in the world. Hawaii has become just another overbuilt haole state."
It's the same old story: Developers, economic advisers, consultants, lawyers, politicians, all afflicted with the redevelopmentality and revitalize virus, produce a disease of the mind causing shortsightedness and a dissolution of the heart, boiling everything down to just numbers.
Gotta make the almighty buck. And now!
"Understanding the Economy???" I don't think so!
How can someone be a proponent of this denigration of our island lifestyle? How can one support this lowering of our quality of life?
Just because big-box stores exist, just because they are seemingly everywhere does not mean we must accept them.
Hey, Abrams: How much construction do you think our finite land mass can take?!
Forget it. I don't want to hear your answer. I think I understand YOUR economics.
Allen St. James is a resident of Honolulu.
To participate in the Think Inc. discussion, e-mail your comments to business@starbulletin.com; fax them to 529-4750; or mail them to Think Inc., Honolulu Star-Bulletin, 7 Waterfront Plaza, Suite 210, 500 Ala Moana, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. Anonymous submissions will be discarded.
