Introduction
This week’s blog focuses
on the video Mastering the Art of Corporate
Reinvention. The video features two of the most prominent CEOs of their time
(circa 2000) Gordon Bethune and Michael Bonsignore and their views on corporate
management and change. My blog will be focused primarily on Michael during his
time as CEO of Honeywell and will provide analysis on what he did right and
what he could have use some help on as it relates to implementing change in a merger setting.
Additionally, connections to the Snowden Cynefin framework and Nick Oblensky’s
work will be connected to Michael’s efforts to lead Honeywell into the 21st
century.
“Rewards and Punishment” Predictably Unsuccessful
There are many clues
throughout the nearly one hour video that Michael might be the poster child for hierarchical styled leadership gone wild where decisions are made in autocratic
ways. None are as laid at the base of our feet more closely than his
description how Honeywell plans to create a new culture after acquiring Allied
Signal. “Honeywell will compensate and reward people that look for best
practices from both companies in creating a new corporate culture and punish those who do not.” (Films on
Demand, n.d.). In 20th Century America this behavior probably wouldn’t
have raised too many eyebrows. Is it possible that Michael’s merger attempt
with Allied Signal (discussed in this video), and then later General Electric (discussed
in Deogun, Lublin & Murray, 2001), should be case studies in how we have
possibly reached a burification point where mega mergers are just too complex
in a hierarchical system to be considered? Perhaps this will be a future blog
topic.
Not to get side-track,
let us return to the word’s Michael used to describe how a new culture would be
created “…and punish those who do not”.
Punish? Really? Wonder how that went over with his executive team and front-line employees? Michael seems like a nice enough man, but early on in this video it
is appears he does not recognize he is no longer in the military (former Navy
officer) and that using that type of language shows one of two things: #1. He
is out of touch with how to treat the people of a multi-billion dollar
corporation #2. There is a divisive rift that threatens the merger between the
two companies. Perhaps it’s a little of both. In the complex world of corporate
mergers and change at such grand levels, the autocratic and political
atmosphere is likely to have a larger footprint on the demise or unraveling of
a merger.
Mergers are a tricky
business. I went through one when America West Airlines purchased US Airways.
Our CEO, Doug Parker, was a young and charismatic leader and at least one thing
he did right was prior to the merger, he shared his vision of what the new
airline would look like. There was resistance to the merger, but Parker never
had to threaten anyone (at least publicly) with “punishment”. In contrast,
Michael didn’t appear able to offer a clear vision of why the merger was needed
and what the company would look like in the future in the video. Due to his
abrupt replacement as CEO of Honeywell from a major antagonist (Mr. Boddidy,
former CEO of Allied Signal) in July of 2001, I think it’s safe to say that Michael style and
lack of vision was not winning over the common employees. (Deogun, Lublin & Murray, 2001). Perhaps
more importantly, it gave his antagonists the opening they needed to depose him.
Honeywell has survived and
is thriving since Michael’s departure and appears to be positioned well in the
marketplace today. My company and other major aircraft manufacturers currently
uses the Honeywell Avionics platform as the main systems interface on aircraft
on the assembly line today.
Other Barriers to
Change
Not once during the
nearly hour long video was language used that would exhibit an awareness of the
basic principles of Organization Development as described in Brown (2011) and
the five stages of organization development. (p. 15). Also absent was any
mention of how the different organizational sociotechnical system components
affect each other and that a change in one is likely to affect other
components. This potential lack of awareness for the need to have a very
deliberate and planned development of the organization coupled with the complex
nature of merger acquisitions and an autocratic style is a terrific mix for an
explosive cocktail. It’s by no accident that Michael was removed. (Deogun,
Lublin & Murray, 2001).
How Honeywell can
be More Successful in Implementing Change?
Recognize that the world
is a much more complex today than it was 10, 20 and 30 years ago and that the
pace of change continues to pick up speed. Michael even admitted as much in the
video “I never ceased to be amazed at which the speed of things are moving”
(Films on Demand, n.d.). Too bad Michael did not ‘zoom’ out enough to see that
his way of implementing organizational change was indeed an old tired dinosaur,
the same one that when asked by the moderator if ever felt like one that he
replied in a roundabout way…”yes I do”. (Films on Demand, n.d.). Michael didn’t
see it coming and the dinosaur was retired.
In short, my
recommendation would be to put in place, a thoughtful and deliberate organization
development process that includes monitoring and renewal (Brown, 2011, pp.
15-17) to maximize the potential to maintain health organizational system
health and create vibrant cohesive systems that enhance abilities. To aid in
this new culture taking hold, hire a team of Organization Developers and
provide some coaching to the executive team on organization development.
Additionally, I believe
it would be beneficial to have an understanding of the Cynefin Framework developed by David
Snowden and the difference between simple, complicated, complex and the chaotic
before making a decision on change. Understanding the difference between simple,
complex, complicated and chaotic could mean the difference between extreme
success and the unemployment line. Finally Oblensksy’s (2014), Complex Adaptive Leadership:
Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty, is an excellent source to round out a good
understanding of the complexities brought on by technology advances that has
forced everyone to adapt to a new world. Would be useful if everyone not only
recognized why the world is changing, but understood some of the theories about
the nuts and bolts that make up the why. It would likely lead to a better more cohesive
world to live in.
Summary
Michael was a good man.
He was also a great leader in his time, but his time did not include the final
years at Honeywell (he was replaced in 2001, shortly after the Films on Demand video
was recorded). His final chapter at Honeywell provides rich case study material
that CEOs of a major corporations and leaders from all walks of life could
learn from. Today’s hyperturbulent complex environment is likely too only get
more turbulent and more complex and the need for change management knowledge
will only increase. So pick you up a copy of Brown (2011), print out a copy of
David Snowden’s Cynefin Framework, and pick up a copy of
Obolensky (2014). Become part of a community that understands how complexity
and organization development are intertwined and should not be separated in
order to enhance an environment where change can be successful.
References:
Deogun,
N., Lubline, S., & Murray, M. (2001, July). How Boddidy’s doubts cast cloud
over Honeywell CEO Bonsignore: Deals and deal makers. Wall Street Journal, Online
Edition. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB995393895382391176.
Films
on Demand. (n.d.). Mastering the art of corporate reinvention.
[Video file]. Retrieved from http://digital.films.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/play/BB94P2.
Obolensky,
N. (2014). Complex adaptive leadership:
Embracing paradox and uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing
Company.
Snowden,
D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, Retrieved from http://aacu-secure.nisgroup.com/meetings/ild/documents/Symonette.MakeAssessmentWork.ALeadersFramework.pdf.
