A631.2.5.RB_HallMike

As I think about the process that our team went through to create our learning charter, I can’t help but think that it was not a very complicated process that required a small amount of interaction.  The main behavior that help the team successfully (if successfully means submitted a document for review vice actually getting a good grade on it which is what I would deem successful) complete the charter was definitely motivation.  We were discussing the charter half way through the first week of the class and had a draft created by the first Sunday.  Sure we could have waited longer and still submitted a document, but the longer you wait to do something the less time you have to review it, which at times could mean trouble.  I wouldn’t say there were any real factors that inhibited decision making or problem solving as there were really no big issues.  If there would have been one that required a discussion, I would imagine that a big problem would have been getting the 4 of us together all at once to discuss the problem, develop solutions, and decide on the course of action.  All of us have varying schedules with some of us working in the morning and others working later in the night so this might end up being an inconvenience in the future.  There were a couple of minor issues regarding the format of how individual inputs would be reflected in the charter.  We worked around this by discussing the options on the discussion board.  Again, I think this is a suitable solution for small problems; however if a larger problem occurs on future projects, we might have to establish real-time communications to solve it.

As I discussed above, information was shared on our group discussion board via posting of thoughts and of the charter itself.  One person would provide their inputs into the charter, and then the next person would review, provide their inputs, and provide their feedback for what the other person provided.  This process repeated until we had our final document.  In the end, I think this was effective for the charter as all of us have similar opinions on how the group should or should not be run, but in the event that there are real problems that must be solved, I think real time comms will be required.  So far there hasn’t been any issues with authority or power within the group.  Obviously with most of us being type A personalities, there could be a potential for problems, but as long as we all stay cordial and professional, I see no problems.  One of the great things about being in the military is you learn how to be a follower very quickly regardless of your position as an officer or enlisted – I can lead if needed or I can follow if needed!

There was no discussion or information passed about other teams so collaboration was not existent.  I am a competitive person by nature but to be honest the competitive bug didn’t even cross my mind with this project, and I would imagine that it didn’t cross the other team member’s minds either base upon their posts in the group discussion page.  In future projects I might want to get a bit more competitive but not with the charter.  The last question of process interventions made me go back and read through the discussion posts we made – I don’t really think we did on ourselves however this assignment is pretty much a big process intervention on your part to help us understand how our group worked on this basic assignment, thus helping us get better as a team for better performance on more challenging assignments.  

A631.1.5.RB_HallMike

With so much of the business world switching to a team oriented environment for tackling big problems, it is not surprising that a company would take team building to the extreme.  Seagate’s team annual outdoor experimental laboratory training exercise known as EcoSeagate is a challenging 5 day course is the remote areas of New Zealand that pushes the selected employees to the limit of their capabilities.  I personally see great value in the process for a variety of reasons. 

This kind of program has got to be a huge attraction for members within the organization – who wouldn’t want to take a trip to the outback of New Zealand, hang out and learn from some of the best and brightest your company has to offer, and in the meantime better yourself both physically and mentally?  From the looks of it, the program really encompasses the saying, “That which does not kill you only makes you stronger.”  By pushing people to the limits both mentally and physically, you can truly see into a person’s true character and without doing it, I would argue that you are only scratching the surface at making deep rooted changes within a person.  I also would imagine that this program has got to be an incentive in attracting people to work for them and has got to be a huge morale and pride builder for employees.  With this being said, I do think that they have taken it to the extreme and could probably get similar results by doing something a little more scaled back and less costly, but again, it is a unique program within the business world.

So why would something like EcoSeagate be something that is necessary in a high-performing organization?  I think there are 3 reasons for it.  First, if you are not constantly learning and keeping ideas fresh, you fall behind in the business world.  One only has to take a quick look at companies that have gone bankrupt over the past several years to see what happens when you lose the creative edge within you sector - Kodak is the big one that comes to mind.  They failed to stay up with the trend in technology, fell behind in the race, and have gone from one of the most recognizable companies in the world to a mere shell of what they used to be.  Secondly, just as the CEO said, people don’t work hard (or die as he said) within an organization for money/God/country, they work hard for the people around them.  This team building has got to develop, if nothing else, a strong bond between people within the organization that have completed the course.  This bonding probably goes a long way in generating the strong feelings for your co-workers.  Thirdly and again as the CEO said, it is better to do something than do nothing (or in military terms, no decision is worse than the wrong decision) because nothing will happen if nothing is done.  As I just said above, at the very least, this builds espirit-du-corps within the company - this wouldn’t be there without EcoSeagate.

Could my organization benefit from a similar activity?  We already do and it is called deployments.  Deployments break you down both mentally and physically – you see a person’s real personality after a month of underway.  You also develop a bond knowing that other people around you are going through the same hardships that you are, and that they have your back in the event that something goes wrong.  I think that EcoSeagate is attempting to quickly create the conditions you might find on mission or deployed in order to build the person back up (also similar to initial military training – you can’t buy into the system until you have broken yourself down).

A630.9.4.RB_HallMike

Reading through the transcripts of Schmidt’s brief, I would have to take my typical stance on Google – it works for them because they have built their company from the ground up using this format.  Let me explain: they have always used this approach to hiring and personnel development.  As a result, they have an organization that is top to bottom in line with the way the company runs and is full of people that are committed to the organization.  I do not know if you can say that many other companies are full of completely committed people.  Due to this, it could take years of hiring and attrition to get the people needed in place in a company that didn't start this mentality in the beginning (if they wanted to switch to a Google approach).  This commitment is exactly what allows them to take the hands off approach to management that they do.  If they didn’t, you would need much more intrusive leadership to ensure the necessities where getting done.  Additionally, they have an outstanding reputation in the business world which allows them to have the pick of the litter, whereas many other companies do not. 

                This approach to their company would not work in my organization (the US Navy), due mainly to the fact that the mindset of the employees at Google is a little different from the mindset of the average sailor.  The typical junior sailor is around 19 years old, is fresh out of high school and their follow on Navy training, has never lived away from home, and in general knows little about the real world.  As a result, there is some necessary supervision that is required to ensure that the items that need to get done get done in the proper fashion.  If the Navy was full of 10 year Chiefs and First Class Petty Officers, I could probably say that the Google approach might work as most sailors at that rank understand what needs to get done so they get it done without having to get told to do so.  Google on the other hand is full of the best and brightest engineers/sciences people that have studied for several years and have degrees.  Don’t think that I am saying that just because you have a degree you are automatically better than anyone else without one, however in general there is a huge maturity difference between a kid fresh out of high school and a recent college grad who just spent the last 4 years of his/her life studying to make it through the program.  This only multiplies when you are talking about the best graduates from major universities.

                It certainly does take courage to take this approach.  Essentially, the management at Google is like a parent that is telling their kids to behave and “oh by the way I won’t be back to check on you anytime soon”.  If things don’t work out, the first statement out of anyone’s mouth is going to be, “well why did you leave them alone unsupervised?”  Google’s hands off approach is putting the course of the company in the hands of the workers.  Again, they can do this since they have only recruited the best of the best.

                Although Google’s setup wouldn’t work in the Navy, there are still things to be learned.  First off, the more you empower your employees, the more they will feel like their inputs really do matter, thus increasing job satisfaction.  I also liked the discussion on meetings.  Disagreement brings out alternative solutions which leads to better developed solutions to problems.  In the future, I definitely will attempt to create a discussion in the event that a meeting comes to an agreement without sufficient dialogue.