Job Specialization and the Division of Labour

Job Specialization and the Division of Labour Introduction Car production has changed dramatically over the years as managers have applied different views or philosophies of management to organize and control work activities. Prior to 1900, workers worked in small groups, cooperating to hand-build cars with parts that often had to be altered and modified to fit together. This system, a type of small-batch production, was very expensive; assembling just one car took, moving conveyor belts bring the car to the workers. Each individual worker performs a single assigned task along a production line, and the speed of the conveyor belt is the primary means of controlling their activities. Ford experimented to discover the most efficient way for each individual worker to perform an assigned task. The result was that each worker performed one siderable time and effort; and workers could produce only a few cars in a day. To reduce costs and sell more cars, managers of early car companies needed better techniques to increase efficiency. Henry Ford revolutionized the car industry. In 1913, Ford opened the Highland Park car plant in Detroit to produce the Model T. Ford and his team of manufacturing managers pioneered the development of mass-production manufacturing, a system that made the small-batch system almost obsolete overnight. In 1913, Henry Ford revolutionized the production process of a car by pioneering mass-production manufacturing, a production system in which a conveyor belt brings each car photo, taken in 1904 inside Daimler Motor Co., is an example of the use of small-batch production, a production system in which small groups of people work together and perform all the tasks needed to assemble a product. to the workers, and each individual worker performs a single task along the production line. Even today, cars are built using this system, as shown in this photo of workers along a computerized automobile assembly line, specialized task, such as bolting on the door or attaching the door handle, and jobs in the Ford car plant became very repetitive. Fords management approach increased efficiency and reduced costs so much that by 1920 he was able to reduce the price of a car by two-thirds and sell over two million cars a year.2 Ford Motor Company (www.ford.com) became the leading car company in the world, and many competitors rushed to adopt the new mass-production techniques. Two of these companies, General Motors (GM) and Chrysler, eventually emerged as Fords major competitors. The CEOs of GM and Chrysler-Alfred Sloan and Walter Chrysler-went beyond simple imitation of the Ford approach by adopting a new strategy: offering customers a wide variety of cars to choose from. To keep costs low, Henry Ford had offered customers only one car-the Model T. The new strategy of offering a wide range of models was so popular that Ford was eventually forced to close his factory for seven months in order to reorganize his manufacturing system to widen his product range. Due to his limited vision of the changing car market, his company lost its competitive advantage. During the early 1930s, GM became the market leader. The next revolution in car production took place not in the United States but in Japan. A change in management thinking occurred there when Ohno Taiichi, a Toyota production engineer, pioneered the development of lean manufacturing in the 1960s after touring the US plants of the Big Three car companies. The management philosophy behind lean manufacturing is to continuously find methods to improve the efficiency of the production process in order to reduce costs, increase quality, and reduce car assembly time. In lean manufacturing, workers work on a moving production line, but they are organized into small teams, each of which is responsible for a particular phase of car assembly, such as installing the cars transmission or electrical wiring system. Each team member is expected to learn all the tasks of all members of his or her team, and each work group is charged with the responsibility not only to assemble cars but also to continuously find ways to increase quality and reduce costs. By 1970, Japanese managers had applied the new lean production system so efficiently that they were producing higher-quality cars at lower prices than their US counterparts, and by 1980 Japanese companies were dominating the global car market. To compete with the Japanese, managers at the Big Three car makers visited Japan to learn lean production methods. In recent years, Chrysler Canada has been the North American model for speed in automobile production. Chryslers Windsor, Ontario assembly plant opened in 1928, and over 54 years built its first five million vehicles. Less than 11 years later, in 1994, the plant reached the eight million mark. Chryslers Windsor facility has made a reputation for itself as the biggest single experiment with flexible manufacturing methods at one site. In the last 20 years, the plant has been so successful that Ken Lewenza, President of Local 444 of the expected to meet peak demand for the firms most popular products. On July 24, 2000, the plant reopened its doors after being shut down for just two weeks to retool for the newest generation of DaimlerChrysler AG minivans, due in dealers showrooms a month later. That was by far Windsors quickest turnover, but flexible manufacturing procedures introduced in 1983 have enabled the plant to display North Americas speediest production turnovers. In 1982-83, the plant shut down for 16 weeks to retool from making sedans to the first models of the Chrysler minivan, and then in 1995, it closed for 12 weeks for retooling to produce the next generation of minivans. While the Windsor facility has been a model for quick turnarounds, Canadas auto industry in general has fared well with the advancements in lean production methods. One analyst suggested that Canada is in the golden era of the auto sector in Canada, with a chance to outpace Michigan as early as 2001. As this sketch of the evolution of global car manufacturing suggests, changes in management practices occur as managers, theorists, researchers, and consultants seek new ways to increase organizational efficiency and effectiveness. The driving force behind the evolution of management theory is the search for better ways to utilize organizational resources. Advances in management theory typically occur as managers and researchers find better ways to perform the principal management tasks: planning, organizing, leading, and controlling human and other organizational resources. Scientific Management Theory: The evolution of modern management began in the closing decades of the nineteenth century, after the industrial revolution had swept through Europe, Canada, and the United States. In the new economic climate, managers of all types of organizations-political, educational, and economic-were increasingly trying to find better ways to satisfy customers needs. Many major economic, technical, and cultural changes were taking place at this time. The introduction of steam power and the development of sophisticated machinery and equipment changed the way in which goods were produced, particularly in the weaving and clothing industries. Small workshops run by skilled workers who produced hand-manufactured products (a system called crafts production) were being replaced by large factories in which sophisticated machines controlled by hundreds or even thousands of unskilled or semiskilled workers made products. Owners and managers of the new factories found themselves unprepared for the challenges accompanying the change from small-scale crafts production to large-scale mechanized manufacturing. Many of the managers and supervisors had only a technical orientation, and were unprepared for the social problems that occur when people work together in large groups (as in a factory or shop system). Managers began to search for new techniques to manage their organizations resources, and soon they began to focus on ways to increase the efficiency of the worker-task mix. Job Specialization and the Division of Labour: Manufacturing methods. The first was similar to crafts-style production, in which each worker was responsible for all of the 18 tasks involved in producing a pin. The other had each worker performing only 1 or a few of the 18 tasks that go into making a completed pin. Smith found that factories in which workers specialized in only 1 or a few tasks had greater performance than factories in which each worker performed all 18 pin-making tasks. In fact, Smith found that workers specializing in a particular task could, between them, make 48,000 pins a day, whereas those workers who performed all the tasks could make only a few thousand at most. Smith reasoned that this difference in performance was due to the fact that the workers who specialized became much more skilled at their specific tasks, and, as a group, were thus able to produce a product faster than the group of workers who each had to job specialization The process by which a division of labour occurs as perform many tasks. Smith concluded that increasing the level of job specialization-the process by which a division of labour occurs as different workers specialize in different tasks over time-increases efficiency and leads to higher Based on Adam Smiths observations, early management pract itioners and theorists focused on how managers should organize and control the work process to maximize the advantages of job specialization and the division of labour. To discover the most efficient method of performing specific tasks, Taylor studied in great detail and measured the ways different workers went about performing their tasks. Principle 1: One of the main tools he used was a time-and-motion study, which involves the careful timing and recording of the actions taken to perform a particular task. Once Taylor understood the existing method of performing a task, he tried different methods of dividing and coordinating the various tasks necessary to produce a finished product. Usually this meant simplifying jobs and having each worker perform fewer, more routine tasks, as at the pin factory or on Fords car assembly line. Taylor also sought ways to improve each workers ability to perform a particular task-for example, by reducing the number of motions workers made to complete the task, by changing the layout of the work area or the type of tool workers used, or by experimenting with tools of different sizes. Principle 2: Codify the new methods of performing tasks into written rules and standard operating procedures. Once the best method of performing a particular task was determined, Taylor specified that it should be recorded so that the procedures could be taught to all workers performing the same task. These rules could be used to standardize and simplify jobs further-essentially, to make jobs even more routine. In this way, efficiency could be increased throughout an organization. Principle 3: Carefully select workers so that they possess skills and abilities that match the needs of the task, and train them to perform the task according to the established rules and procedures. To increase specialization, Taylor believed workers had to understand the tasks that were required and be thoroughly trained in order to perform the tasks at the required level. Workers who could not be trained to this level were to be transferred to a job where they were able to reach the minimum required level of proficiency. Principle 4: Establish a fair or acceptable level of performance for a task, and then develop a pay system that provides a reward for performance above the acceptable level. To encourage workers to perform at a high level of efficiency, and to provide them with an incentive to reveal the most efficient techniques for performing a task, Taylor advocated that workers should benefit from any gains in performance. They should be paid a bonus and receive some percentage of the performance gains achieved through the more efficient work process. This decision ultimately resulted in problems. For example, some managers using scientific management obtained increases in performance, but rather than sharing performance gains with workers through bonuses as Taylor had advocated, they simply increased the amount of work that each worker was expected to do. Many workers experiencing the reorganized work system found that as their performance increased, managers required them to do more work for the same pay. Workers also learned that increases in performance often meant fewer jobs and a greater threat of layoffs, because fewer workers were needed. In addition, the specialized, simplified jobs were often monotonous and repetitive, and many workers became dissatisfied with their jobs. Scientific management brought many workers more hardship than gain, and left them with a distrust of managers who did not seem to care about their wellbeing. These dissatisfied workers resisted attempts to use the new scientific methods unable to inspire workers to accept the new scientific management techniques for performing tasks, some organizations increased the mechanization of the work process. For example, one reason for Henry Fords introduction of moving conveyor belts in his factory was the realization that when a conveyor belt controls the pace of work (instead of workers setting their own pace), workers can be pushed to perform at higher levels-levels that they may have thought were beyond their reach. Charlie Chaplin captured this aspect of mass production in one of the opening scenes of his famous movie, Modern Times (1936). In the film, Chaplin caricatured a new factory employee fighting to work at the machine imposed pace but losing the battle to the machine. Henry For d also used the principles of scientific management to identify the tasks that each worker should perform on the production line and thus to determine the most effective way to create a division of labour to suit the needs of a mechanized production system. From a performance perspective, the combination of the two management practices (1) achieving the right mix of worker-task specialization and (2) linking people and tasks by the speed of the production line-makes sense. It produces the huge savings in cost and huge increases in output that occur in large, organized work settings. For example, in 1908, managers at the Franklin Motor Company redesigned the work process using scientific management principles, and the output of cars increased from 100 cars a month to 45 cars a day; workers wages increased by only 90 percent, however. From other perspectives, though, scientific management practices raise many concerns. Ethics in Action: From 1908 to 1914, through trial and error, Henry Fords talented team of production managers pioneered the development of the moving conveyor belt and thus changed manufacturing practices forever. Although the technical aspects of the move to mass production were a dramatic financial success for Ford and for the millions of Americans who could now afford cars, for the workers who actually produced the cars, many human and social problems resulted. With simplification of the work process, workers grew to hate the monotony of the moving conveyor belt. By 1914, Fords car plants were experiencing huge employee turnover-often reaching levels as high as 300 or 400 percent per year as workers left because they could not handle the work-induced stress. Henry Ford recognized these problems and made an announcement: From that point on, to motivate his workforce, he would reduce the length of the workday from nine hours to eight hours, and the company would double the basic wage from US$2.50 to US$5.00 per day. This was a dramatic increase, similar to an announcement today of an overnight doubling of the minimum wage. Ford became an internationally famous figure, and the word Fordism was coined for his new approach. Fords apparent generosity was matched, however, by an intense effort to control the resources-both human and material-with which his empire was built. He employed hundreds of inspectors to check up on employees, both inside and outside his factories. In the factory, supervision was close and confining. Employees were not allowed to leave their places at the production line, and they were not permitted to talk to one another. Their job was to concentrate fully on the task at hand. Few employees could adapt to this system, and they developed ways of talking out of the sides of their mouths, like ventriloquists, and invented a form of speech that became known as the Ford Lisp. Fords obsession with control brought him into greater and greater conflict with managers, who were often fired when they disagreed with him. As a result, many talented people left Ford to join his growing rivals. Outside the workplace, Ford went so far as to establish what he called the Sociological Department to check up on how his employees lived and the ways in which they spent their time. Inspectors from this department visited the homes of employees and investigated their habits and problems. Employees who exhibited behaviours contrary to Fords standards (for instance, if they drank too much or were always in debt) were likely to be fired. Clearly, Fords effort to control his employees led him and his managers to behave in ways that today would be considered unacceptable and unethical, and in the long run would impair an organizations ability to prosper. Two prominent followers of Taylor were Frank Gilbreth (1868-1924) and Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972), who refined Taylors analysis of work movements and made many contributions to time-and-motion study. The Gilbreths often filmed a worker performing a particular task and then separated the task actions, frame by frame, into their component movements. Their goal was to maximize the efficiency with which each individual task was performed so that gains across tasks would add up to enormous savings of time and effort. Their attempts to develop improved management principles were captured-at times quite humorously-in the movie Cheaper by the Dozen, which depicts how the Gilbreths (with their 12 children) tried to live their own lives according to these efficiency principles and apply them to daily actions such as shaving, cooking, and even raising a family. Eventually, the Gilbreths became increasingly interested in the study of fatigue. They studied how the physical characteristics of the workplace contribute to job stress that often leads to fatigue and thus poor performance. They isolated factors- such as lighting, heating, the colour of walls, and the design of tools and machines-th at result in worker fatigue. Their pioneering studies paved the way for new advances in management theory. In workshops and factories, the work of the Gilbreths, Taylor, and many others had a major effect on the practice of management. In comparison with the old crafts system, jobs in the new system were more repetitive, boring, and monotonous as a result of the application of scientific management principles, and workers became increasingly dissatisfied. Frequently, the management of work settings became a game between workers and managers: Managers tried to initiate work practices to increase performance, and workers tried to hide the true potential efficiency of the work setting in order to protect their own well-being. Administrative Management Theory: Side by side with scientific managers studying the person-task mix to increase efficiency administrative management. Organizational structure is the system of task and authority relationships. It leads that how employees use resources to achieve the organizations goals. Two to high efficiency and of the most influential views regarding the creation of efficient systems of organization effectiveness. administration were developed in Europe. Max Weber, a German professor of sociology, developed one theory. Henri Fayol, the French manager also developed a model of management in the form of certain principles, which are given as under: Fayols Principles of Management Working at the same time as Weber but independently of him, Henri Fayol (1841-1925), the CEO of Comambault Mining, identified 14 principles that he believed to be essential to increasing the efficiency of the management process. Some of the principles that Fayol outlined have faded from contemporary management practices, but most have endured. Division of Labour Job specialization and the division of labour should increase efficiency, especially if managers take steps to lessen workers boredom. Authority and Responsibility Managers have the right to give orders and the power to exhort subordinates for obedience. Unity of Command An employee should receive orders from only one superior. Line of Authority The length of the chain of command that extends from the top to the bottom of an organization should be limited. Centralization Authority should not be concentrated at the top of the chain of command. Unity of Direction The organization should have a single plan of action to guide managers and workers. Equity All organizational members are entitled to be treated with justice and respect. Order The arrangement of organizational positions should maximize organizational efficiency and provide employees with satisfying career opportunities. Initiative Managers should allow employees to be innovative and creative. Discipline Managers need to create a workforce that strives to achieve organizational goals. Remuneration of Personnel The system that managers use to reward employees should be equitable for both employees and the organization. Stability of Tenure of Personnel Long-term employees develop skills that can improve organizational efficiency. Subordination of Individual Interests to the Common Interest Employees should understand how their performance affects the performance of the whole organization. Esprit de Corps Managers should encourage the development of shared feelings of comradeship, enthusiasm, or devotion to a common cause. The principles that Fayol and Weber set forth still provide a clear and appropriate set of guidelines that managers can use to create a work setting that makes efficient and effective use of organizational resources. These principles remain the bedrock of modern management theory; recent researchers have refined or developed them to suit modern conditions. For example, Webers and Fayols concerns for equity and for establishing appropriate links between performance and reward are central themes in contemporary theories of motivation and leadership. Behavioural Management Theory: The study of how managers should behave in order to motivate employees and encourage them to perform at high levels and be committed to the achievement of organization. The behavioural management theorists writing in the first half of the twentieth century all espoused a theme that focused on how managers should personally behave in order to motivate employees and encourage them to perform at high levels and be committed to the achievement of organizational goals. The Management Insight indicates how employees can become demoralized when managers do not treat their employees properly. The Hawthorne Studies and Human Relations might be increased through improving various characteristics of the work setting, such as job specialization or the kinds of tools workers used. One series of studies was conducted from 1924 to 1932 at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company. This research, now known as the Hawthorne studies, began as an attempt to investigate how characteristics of the work setting-specifically the level of lighting or illumination-affect worker fatigue and performance. The researchers conducted an experiment in which they systematically measured worker productivity at various levels of illumination. The experiment produced some unexpected results. The researchers found that regardless of whether they raised or lowered the level of illumination, productivity increased. In fact, productivity began to fall only when the level of illumination dropped to the level of moonlight, a level at which presumably workers could no longer see well enough to do their work efficiently. The researchers found these results puzzling and invited a noted Harvard psychologist, Elton Mayo, to help them. Subsequently, it was found that many other factors also influence worker behaviour, and it was not clear what was actually influencing the Hawthorne workers behaviour. However, this particular effective group, had deliberately adopted a norm of output restriction to protect their jobs. Workers who violated this informal production norm were subjected to sanctions by other group members. Those who violated group performance norms and performed above the norm were called ratebusters; those who performed below the norm were called chiselers. One of the main implications of the Hawthorne studies was that the behaviour of managers and workers in the work setting is as important in explaining the level of performance as the technical aspects of the task. Managers must understand the informal organization The system of behavioural rules and norms that workings of the informal organization, the system of behavioural rules and norms that emerge in a group, when they try to manage or change behaviour in organizations. Many studies have found that, as time passes, groups often develop emerge in a group. elaborate procedures and norms that bond members together, allowing unified action either to cooperate with management in order to raise performance or to restrict output and thwart the attainment of organizational goals. The Hawthorne studies demonstrated the importance of understanding how the feelings, thoughts, and behaviour of work-group members and managers affect performance. It was becoming increasingly clear to researche rs that understanding behaviour in organizations is a complex process that is critical to increasing performance. Indeed, organizational behaviour The study of the factors that have an the increasing interest in the area of management known as organizational behaviour, the study of the factors that have an impact on how individuals and groups respond to and act in organizations, dates from these early studies.

General Electric: From Jack Welch To Jeffrey Immelt

S w 908M09 GENERAL ELECTRIC: FROM JACK WELCH TO JEFFREY IMMELT Ken Mark wrote this case under the supervision of Professor Stewart Thornhill solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other identifying information to protect confidentiality. Ivey Management Services prohibits any form of reproduction, storage or transmittal without its written permission. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights organization.To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Management Services, c/o Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada, N6A 3K7; phone (519) 661-3208; fax (519) 661-3882; e-mail [email  protected] uwo. ca. Copyright  © 2008, Ivey Management Services Version: (A) 2008-04-18 INTR ODUCTION General Electric (GE) was a U. S. conglomerate with businesses in a wide range of industries, including aerospace, power systems, health care, commercial finance and consumer finance. In 2007, GE earned US$22. billion in net profit from US$170 billion in sales. In 2008, GE expected to generate US$30 billion in cash from operations. Driving GE’s growth was what many commentators considered to be the â€Å"deepest bench of executive talent in U. S. business,†1 the result of two decades of investment in its management training programs by its former chief executive officer (CEO), John F. (Jack) Welch, Jr. The current CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, took over from Jack Welch four days before September 11, 2001, and had spent the last few years preparing the firm for its next stage of growth. GENERAL ELECTRICGE’s roots could be traced back to a Menlo Park, New Jersey laboratory where Thomas Alva Edison invented the incandescent electric lamp. GE was founded when Thomso n-Houston Electric and Edison General Electric merged in 1892. Its first few products included light bulbs, motors, elevators, and toasters. Growing organically and through acquisitions, GE’s revenues reached $27 billion in 1981. By 2007, its businesses sold a wide variety of products such as lighting, industrial equipment and vehicles, materials, and services such as the generation and transmission of electricity, and asset finance.Its divisions included GE Industrial, GE Infrastructure, GE Healthcare, GE Commercial Finance, GE Consumer Finance, and NBC Universal. 2 1 Diane Brady, â€Å"Jack Welch: Management Evangelist,† Business Week, October 25, 2004. Available http://www. businessweek. com/magazine/content/04_43/b3905032_mz072. htm, accessed November 12, 2007. 2 http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/General_Electric, accessed November 12, 2007. at Page 2 9B08M009 For more than 125 years, GE was a leader in management practices, â€Å"establishing its strength with the d isciplined oversight of some of the world’s most effective business people. 3 When he became chairman and CEO in 1972, Reginald Jones was the seventh man to lead General Electric since Edison. Jones focused on shifting the company’s attention to growth areas such as services, transportation, materials and natural resources, and away from electrical equipment and appliances. He implemented the concept of strategic planning at GE, creating 43 strategic business units to oversee strategic planning for its groups, divisions and departments. By 1977, in order to manage the information generated by 43 strategic plans, Jones added another management layer, sectors, on top of the strategic business units.Sectors represented high level groupings of businesses: consumer products, power systems, and technical products. 4 In the 1970s, Jones was voted CEO of the Year three times by his peers, with one leading business journal dubbing him CEO of the Decade in 1979. When he retired in 1981, the Wall Street Journal proclaimed Jones a â€Å"management legend. † Under Jones’s administration, the company’s sales more than doubled ($10 billion to $27 billion) and earnings grew even faster ($572 million to $1. 7 billion). 5 Jack Welch Becomes CEO In terms of his early working life, Welch had:Worked for GE not much more than a year when in 1961 he abruptly quit his $10,500 job as a junior engineer in Pittsfield, Mass. He felt stifled by the company’s bureaucracy, underappreciated by his boss, and offended by the civil service-style $1,000 raise he was given. Welch wanted out, and to get out he had accepted a job offer from International Minerals & Chemicals in Skokie, Ill. But Reuben Gutoff, then a young executive a layer up from Welch, had other ideas. He had been impressed by the young upstart and was shocked to hear of his impending departure and farewell party just two days away.Desperate to keep him, Gutoff coaxed Welch and his wife, Carolyn, out to dinner that night. For four straight hours at the Yellow Aster in Pittsfield, he made his pitch: Gutoff swore he would prevent Welch from being entangled in GE red tape and vowed to create for him a small-company environment with big-company resources. These were themes that would later dominate Welch's own thinking as CEO. 6 In his memoirs, Welch noted that the CEO’s job was â€Å"close to 75 per cent about people and 25 per cent about other stuff. †7But Welch knew that his path to become CEO of GE was anything but smooth. As he recalled: 3 General Electric, â€Å"Our History: Our Company. † Available at http://www. ge. com/company/history/index. html, accessed June 4, 2007. 4 Christopher A. Bartlett and Meg Wozny, â€Å"GE’s Two-Decade Transformation: Jack Welch’s Leadership,† Harvard Business School Case, May 3, 2005, pp. 1–2. 5 Christopher A. Bartlett and Meg Wozny, â€Å"GE’s Two-Decade Transformation: Jac k Welch’s Leadership,† Harvard Business School Case, May 3, 2005, p. 2. 6 John A.Byrne, â€Å"How Jack Welch Runs GE,† Business Week, June 8, 1998. Available at http://www. businessweek. com/1998/23/b3581001. htm, accessed June 4, 2007. 7 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. xii. Page 3 9B08M009 The odds were against me. Many of my peers regarded me as the round peg in a square hole, too different for GE. I was brutally honest and outspoken. I was impatient and, to many, abrasive. My behavior wasn’t the norm, especially the frequent parties at local bars to celebrate business victories, large or small. 8For Welch, there was a seven-person â€Å"horse race† to become CEO that was, in his words, â€Å"brutal, complicated by heavy politics and big egos, my own included. It was awful. †9 In the end, however, Welch prevailed, becoming CEO in April 1981. Later, he learned that he had been left off the short list of ca ndidates until late into the process. Welch recalled: I didn’t know that when the list was narrowed to ten names by 1975, I still wasn’t on it. . . . One official HR [human resources] view of me stated at the time: â€Å"Not on best candidate list despite past operating success.Emerging issue is overwhelming results focus. Intimidating subordinate relationships. Seeds of company stewardship concerns. Present business adversity will severely test. Watching closely. †10 1981 to 1987: Number One or Number Two and Delayering Welch wanted the company to do away with its formal reporting structure and unnecessary bureaucracy. He wanted to recreate the firm along the lines of the nimble plastics organization he had come from. He stated: I knew the benefits of staying small, even as GE was getting bigger. The good businesses had to be sorted out from the bad ones. . . We had to act faster and get the damn bureaucracy out of the way. 11 Welch developed this strategy base d on work by Peter Drucker, a management thinker, who asked: â€Å"If you weren’t already in the business, would you enter it today? And if the answer is no, what are you going to do about it? †12 Welch communicated his restructuring efforts by insisting that any GE business be the number one or number two business in its industry, or be fixed, sold or closed. He illustrated this concept with the use of a three-circle tool.The businesses inside the three circles — services, high technology, and core — could attain (or had attained) top positions in their industries. The selected few included many service businesses, such as financial and information systems. Outside of the three circles were organizations in manufacturing-heavy sectors facing a high degree of competition from lower cost rivals, such as central air conditioning, housewares, small appliances and semiconductors. Employment at GE fell from 404,000 in 1980 to 330,000 by 1984 and 292,000 by 198 9.The changes prompted strong reactions from former employees and community leaders. Welch was the target of further criticism when he invested nearly $75 million into a major upgrade of Crotonville, GE’s management development center. 13 Welch saw leadership training as key to GE’s growth. 8 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. xii. Ibid, p. xiii. 10 Ibid, p. 77. 11 Ibid, p. 92. 12 Ibid, p. 108. 13 Ibid, p. 121. 9 Page 4 9B08M009 In addition, Welch undertook a streamlining exercise.By his estimate, GE in 1980 had too many layers of management, in some cases as many as 12 levels between the factory floor and the CEO’s office. The sector level was removed, and a massive downsizing effort put into place. Compared with the traditional norm of five to eight direct reports per manager, GE senior managers had 15 or more direct reports. Successful senior managers shrugged off their workload, indicating that Welch liberated them to behave like entrepreneurs. They argued that the extra pressure forced them to set strict priorities on how they spent their time, and to abandon many past procedures.Observers believed GE was running two main risks: having inadequate internal communication between senior managers and people who now reported to each of them; and the overwork, stress, demotivation and inefficiency on the part of managers down the line who had extra work assigned by their hard-pressed superiors. In 1989, an article in the Harvard Business Review reported â€Å"much bitter internal frustration and ill-feeling among the troops at GE. †14 During this period, Welch earned his â€Å"Neutron Jack† moniker, a reference to a type of bomb that would kill people while leaving buildings intact.On the other hand, Welch could see that changes had to be made to make GE more competitive. He recalled: Truth was, we were the first big healthy and profitable company in the mainstream that took actions to get more competitive. . . . There was no stage set for us. We looked too good, too strong, too profitable, to be restructuring. . . . However, we were facing our own reality. In 1980, the U. S. economy was in a recession. Inflation was rampant. Oil sold for $30 a barrel, and some predicted it would go to $100 if we could even get it.And the Japanese, benefiting from a weak yen and good technology, were increasing their exports into many of our mainstream businesses from cars to consumer electronics. 15 But Welch’s strategy was not simply a cost-reduction effort: from 1981 to 1987, while 200 businesses were sold, 370 were acquired, for a net spend of $10 billion. The turmoil that these changes caused earned Welch the title of â€Å"toughest boss in America,† in a Fortune magazine survey of the 10 most hard-nosed senior executives. In tallying the votes, Welch received twice as many nominations as the runners-up. Managers at GE used to hide out-of-favor employees from Welch†™s gun sights so they could keep their jobs,† Fortune said. â€Å"According to former employees, Welch conducts meetings so aggressively that people tremble. †16 But Welch’s credibility was bolstered by GE’s stock performance: After years of being stuck, GE stock and the market began to take off, reinforcing the idea that we were on the right track. For many years, stock options weren’t worth all that much. In 1981, when I became chairman, options gains for everyone at GE totaled only $6 million.The next year, they jumped to $38 million, and then $52 million in 1985. For the first time, people at GE were starting to feel good times in their pocketbooks. The buy-in had begun. 17 14 â€Å"General Electric Learns the Corporate and Human Costs of Delayering,† Financial Times, September 25, 1989, p. 44. Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, pp. 125–126. 16 â€Å"Fortune Survey Lists Nation’s Toughest Bos ses,† The Washington Post, July 19, 1984, p. B3. 17 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. 173. 15 Page 5 9B08M009Late 1980s: Work-Out, Boundaryless and Best Practices Welch used GE’s Crotonville facility to upgrade the level of management skills and to instill a common corporate culture. After reading comments from participants, Welch realized that many of them were frustrated when they returned to their offices because many of their superiors had discounted the Crotonville experience and worked actively to maintain the status quo. Welch wondered: Why can’t we get the Crotonville openness everywhere? . . . We have to re-create the Crotonville Pit [a circular, tiered lecture hall at Crotonville] all over the company. . . The Crotonville Pit was working because people felt free to speak. While I was technically their â€Å"boss,† I had little or no impact on their personal careers — especially in the lowerlevel classes. . . . Work-Out was patterned after the traditional New England town meetings. Groups of 40 to 100 employees were invested to share their views on the business and the bureaucracy that got in their way, particularly approvals, reports, meetings and measurements. Work-Out meant just what the words implied: taking unnecessary work out of the system. 8 Work-Out sessions were held over two to three days. The team’s manager would start the session with a presentation, after which the manager would leave the facility. Without their superior present, the remaining employees, with the help of a neutral facilitator, would list problems and develop solutions for many of the challenges in the business. Then the manager returned, listening to employees present their many ideas for change. Managers were expected to make an immediate yes-or-no decision on 75 per cent of the ideas presented.Welch was pleased with Work-Out: Work-Out had become a huge success. . . . Ideas were flowing faster al l over the company. I was groping for a way to describe this, something that might capture the whole organization — and take idea sharing to the next level. . . . I kept talking about all the boundaries that Work-Out was breaking down. Suddenly, the word boundaryless popped into my head. . . . The boundaryless company . . . would remove all the barriers among the functions: engineering, manufacturing, marketing and the rest.It would recognize no distinction between â€Å"domestic† and â€Å"foreign† operations. . . . Boundaryless would also open us up to the best ideas and practices from other companies. 19 Welch’s relentless pursuit of ideas to increase productivity — from both inside and outside of the company — resulted in the birth of a related movement called Best Practices. In the summer of 1988, Welch gave Michael Frazier of GE’s Business Development department a simple challenge: How can we learn from other companies that are achieving higher productivity growth than GE?Frazier selected for study nine companies with different best practices, including Ford, Hewlett-Packard, Xerox and Toshiba. In addition to specific tools and practices, Frazier’s team also identified several characteristics common to the successful companies: they focused more on developing effective processes than on controlling individual activities; they used customer satisfaction as their main gauge of performance; they treated their suppliers as partners and they emphasized the need for a constant stream of high-quality new products designed for efficient manufacturing.On reviewing Frazier’s report, Welch became an instant convert and committed to a major new training program to introduce Best Practices thinking throughout the organization, integrating it into the ongoing agenda of Work-Out teams. 20 18 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. 182. Ibid, pp. 185–187. 20 Christopher A. Bartlett and Meg Wozny, â€Å"GE’s Two-Decade Transformation: Jack Welch’s Leadership,† Harvard Business School Case, May 3 2005, p. 5. 19 Page 6 9B08M009 To encourage employees to put extra effort into reaching their goals, Welch instituted the idea of â€Å"stretch. He was frustrated with the compromise that was occurring as work teams tried to lower targets and top management tried to raise targets. With stretch, teams were asked to develop two plans: the first reflecting what they expected to do; and the second that reflected the toughest targets they thought they had a chance of reaching. Welch explained: The team knows they’re going to be measured against the prior year and relative performance against competitors — not against a highly negotiated internal number. Their stretch target keeps them reaching. . . Sometimes we found cases where managers at lower levels took stretch numbers and called them budgets, punishing those who missed. I do n’t think it happens much anymore, but I wouldn’t bet on it. 21 1990s: Six Sigma and the Vitality Curve One well-known program popularized by GE was process improvement, or Six Sigma. As a result of GE’s Best Practices program, Welch learned from Lawrence Bossidy, a former GE executive, how AlliedSignal’s Six Sigma quality program was improving quality, lowering costs and increasing productivity. Welch asked Gary Reiner, a vice-president, to lead a quality initiative for GE.On the basis of Reiner’s findings, Welch announced a goal of reaching Six Sigma quality levels company-wide by the year 2000, describing the program as â€Å"the biggest opportunity for growth, increased profitability, and individual employee satisfaction in the history of our company. †22 Subsequently, every GE employee underwent at least minimal training in Six Sigma, whose terms and tools became part of the global language of GE. For example, expressions like â€Å"CT Q,† were used to refer to customer requirements that were â€Å"critical to quality† in new products or services. 3 Whereas Six Sigma was focused on process improvement, to develop GE’s talent pool, Welch looked to differentiate his people. He remarked: â€Å"In manufacturing, we try to stamp out variance. With people, variance is everything. † Welch knew that identifying and ranking people in a large organization was not a simple task. GE began using what became known as 360-degree evaluations, in which managers and supervisors were evaluated by their subordinates and their peers as well as by their bosses. One exception was Welch. He did not get evaluated by his subordinates. I’ve peaked out,† he said. Nor did he evaluate the top executives immediately below him. 24 Next, Welch put in place an assessment based on a â€Å"vitality curve,† roughly shaped like a bell curve. He asked his managers to rank all their staff into the â€Å"to p 20,† â€Å"the Vital 70† and the â€Å"bottom 10,† with the intent to force executives to differentiate their employees. The â€Å"top 20† were groomed for larger assignments, and the â€Å"bottom 10† were coached out of the organization. In addition, Welch advocated categorizing employees as â€Å"A, B or C† players.He explained that how both assessment tools worked together: The vitality curve is the dynamic way we sort out As, Bs, and Cs. . . . Ranking employees on a 20-70-10 grid forces managers to make tough decisions. The vitality curve doesn’t perfectly translate to my A-B-C evaluation of talent. It’s possible — even likely — for A 21 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. 386. Christopher A. Bartlett and Meg Wozny, â€Å"GE’s Two-Decade Transformation: Jack Welch’s Leadership,† Harvard Business School Case, May 3, 2005, p. 12. 23Matt Murray, â€Å"Can GE Find Another Conductor Like Jack Welch? † The Wall Street Journal Europe, April 13, 2000. 24 Frank Swoboda, â€Å"Up Against the Walls,† The Washington Post, February 27, 1994, p. H01. 22 Page 7 9B08M009 players to be in the vital 70. That’s because not every A player has the ambition to go further in the organization. Yet, they still want to be the best at what they do. Managers who can’t differentiate soon find themselves in the C category. 25 Welch reinforced the importance of the ranking system by matching it with an appropriate compensation structure.The A players received raises that were two to three times the increases given to Bs, and the As also received a significant portion of the stock option grants. C players received no raises or options. Welch admitted: Dealing with the bottom 10 is tougher. . . . Some think it’s cruel or brutal to remove the bottom 10 per cent of our people. It isn’t. It’s just the opposite. What I thi nk is brutal and â€Å"false kindness† is keeping people around who aren’t going to grow and prosper. There’s no cruelty like waiting and telling people late in their careers that they don’t belong. 6 In GE’s people review process, known as â€Å"Session C,† managers were expected to discuss and defend their choices and rankings. During these sessions, Welch was known to challenge his managers’ talent decisions aggressively, expecting them to defend their choices with passion. Welch was prone to making quick judgment calls on talent, and these snap decisions could be perceived both positively and negatively. An observer commented: Welch is impetuous, inclined to make lightning strikes and wage blitzkrieg.His decisions on people, assets, and strategies can be made in a heartbeat; one bad review with Jack may be the end of a long career. And the record shows that many of Welch’s snap decisions have turned out to be stupendous blu nders. 27 One example was Welch’s purchase of Kidder Peabody, then one of Wall Street’s most prominent investment banks. Although his board of directors was opposed to the idea, Welch’s persuasive arguments carried the day. But merging the two cultures proved more difficult than he imagined. Welch stated that at Kidder Peabody, â€Å"the concept of idea sharing and team play was completely foreign.If you were in investment banking or trading and your group had a good year, it didn’t matter what happened to the firm overall. †28 In addition, Kidder Peabody was hit by two public scandals: insider trading and fictitious trades that led to a $350 million writedown. Another example was NBC’s partnership with Vince McMahon in January 2001 to launch the XFL, an alternative football league to the NFL. After losing $35 million on the venture in four months, and accompanied by falling viewership, the league shut down in May 2001. 29 Some managers were worn down by the constantly evolving programs.A chemist who once worked for GE Power Systems stated: It’s management by buzzword. People chant Jack’s slogans without thinking intelligently about what they’re doing. I’ve been stretched so much I feel like Gumby. All Welch understands is increasing profits. That, and getting rid of people, is what he considers a vision. Good people, tremendous people, have been let go, and it is hurting our business. 25 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. 160. Ibid, 2001, pp. 160–162. 27 Thomas F. Boyle, At Any Cost, Vintage Books, New York, 1998, pp. 1–12. 28 Jack Welch, Straight from the Gut, Warner Books, New York, 2001, p. 222. 29 Eric Boehlert, â€Å"Why the XFL Tanked. † Available at http://archive. salon. com/ent/feature/2001/05/11/xfl_demise/index. html, accessed January 11, 2008. 26 Page 8 9B08M009 I’m trying to meet the competition, but his policies aren ’t helping me. It’s crazy, and the craziness has got to stop. 30 Welch believed otherwise: â€Å"No one at GE loses a job because of a missed quarter, a missed year, or a mistake. That’s nonsense and everyone knows it. . . . People get second chances. 31 Over his tenure as CEO, Welch had grown GE’s market capitalization by 27 times, from $18 billion to $500 billion. The company was trading 28 times forward earnings versus about 24 for the Standard & Poor’s 500. 32 See Exhibit 1 for selected GE information over 25 years. After two decades as GE’s CEO, Welch retired, nominating Jeffrey Immelt as his successor. Immelt was one of three candidates short-listed for the job. Observers noted that Immelt was â€Å"starting his tenure at the end of an unprecedented bull market and in the midst of a global economic slowdown. 33 Despite GE’s consistent earnings growth even during the economic downturn, GE’s stock had fallen 33 per cent f rom its high of about $60 per share in August 2000. Many attributed this steady drop to the anticipation surrounding Welch’s departure. 34 Immelt’s first day on the job was September 7, 2001, four days before the terrorist attacks in the United States. The Transition from Welch to Jeffrey Immelt Immelt joined GE in 1982 and held several global leadership positions in GE’s Plastics, Appliance and Medical businesses. 5 At GE Medical, his last assignment before becoming CEO, Immelt became a star by: persuading a growing number of cash-strapped hospitals to trade in their old-fashioned equipment for digital machines that were capable of generating more dynamic images much faster. He inked lucrative, long-term deals with such hospital giants as HCA and Premier, and bought a number of smaller companies to round out his product line, all the while growing GE’s market share from 25 per cent to 34 per cent and moving the company into services such as data mining. 36Only the ninth man to lead GE since 1896, Immelt followed in the footsteps of his predecessors by abandoning the leadership approach favored by Welch. In contrast with Welch’s need to control and cajole his management, Immelt was â€Å"less a commander than a commanding presence. †37 â€Å"If you, say, missed your numbers, you wouldn’t leave a meeting with him feeling beat up but more like you let your dad down,† said Peter Foss, a longtime friend and colleague of Immelt’s and president of GE Polymerland, part of GE’s plastics business. 38 Immelt believed that leaders exhibited three traits: 30 Thomas F.Boyle, At Any Cost: Jack Welch, General Electric, and the Pursuit of Profit, Vintage Books, New York, 1998, p. 223. 31 Ibid, p. 274. 32 William Hanley, â€Å"An Eye on GE as Jack Bows Out,† National Post, August 23, 2001, p. D01. 33 Daniel Eisenberg and Julie Rawe, â€Å"Jack Who? † Time, September 10, 2001, p. 42. 34 Ibid. 35 â€Å"Jeff Immelt, CEO. † Available at http://www. ge. com/company/leadership/ceo. html, accessed January 6, 2008. 36 Daniel Eisenberg and Julie Rawe, â€Å"Jack Who? † Time, September 10, 2001, p. 42. 37 Jerry Useem, â€Å"Another Boss Another Revolution,† Fortune, April 5, 2004, p. 112. 38Daniel Eisenberg and Julie Rawe, â€Å"Jack Who? † Time, September 10, 2001, p. 42. Page 9 9B08M009 It’s curiosity. It’s being good with people. And it’s having perseverance, hard work, thick skin. Those are the three traits that every successful person I’ve ever known has in common. 39 Immelt aimed to continue GE’s transition â€Å"from a low-margin manufacturer to a more lucrative services company. †40 During Welch’s tenure, although revenues from services had grown from 15 per cent of revenues to 70 per cent, the majority of the revenues came from GE Capital (renamed GE Consumer Finance and GE Commercial Finance).In 2001, Immelt believed there was still room to grow services in many of its divisions, such as aircraft maintenance and monitoring contracts, and medical software and billing services. 41 There were differences in strategic approach as well. Whereas Welch had courted Wall Street by setting — and hitting — pinpoint earnings targets, Immelt gave the Street’s short-term demands a back seat to long-term strategy. Whereas Welch rapidly rotated managers through different divisions to develop generalists, Immelt wanted to keep them in place longer to develop specialists.Immelt explained: I absolutely loathe the notion of professional management. Which is not an endorsement of unprofessional management but a statement that, for instance, the best jet engines are built by jet-engine people, not by appliance people. Rotate managers too fast, moreover, and they won’t experience the fallout from their mistakes — nor will they invest in innovations that don†™t have an immediate payoff. 42 By 2007, Immelt had divested GE units representing 40 per cent of revenues.To grow $20 billion a year and more, new investments were made in areas where sizeable players had an advantage. Infrastructure and infrastructure technology, according to Immelt, was â€Å"a $70 billion business that will grow 15 per cent a year for the next five years. That’s a business where small people need not apply. †43 In addition, Immelt was focused on growing revenues in emerging markets such as China, India, Turkey, Eastern Europe, Russia, and Latin America. Immelt believed that the international arena was where GE’s future growth would come:In 2007, for the first time in the history of GE, we’ll have more revenue outside the United States that we’ll have inside the United States. Our business outside the United States will grow between 15 per cent and 20 per cent next year. We’re a $172 billion company. In 2008, with the U . S. economy growing at 1. 5 per cent, we’ll grow revenue by 15 per cent because we’re in the right places with the right products at the right time. 44 39 David Lieberman, â€Å"GE Chief Sees Growth Opportunities in 2008,† USA Today, December 14, 2007, p. B1.Daniel Eisenberg and Julie Rawe, â€Å"Jack Who? † Time, September 10, 2001, p. 42. 41 Ibid. 42 Jerry Useem, â€Å"Another Boss Another Revolution,† Fortune, April 5, 2004, p. 112. 43 David Lieberman, â€Å"GE Chief Sees Growth Opportunities in 2008,† USA Today, December 14, 2007, p. B1. 44 Ibid. 40 Page 10 9B08M009 EXHIBIT 1 GE: Selected Information from 1981 to 2008 ($ billions) Revenues Net Profit 1981 27. 2 1. 7 1986 36. 7 2. 5 1991 52. 3 2. 6 1996 79. 2 7. 3 2001 125. 9 14. 1 GE Stock Price 1975-2008 (Logarithmic, Adjusted for Dividends and Splits) 000 W elch announces retirement in 2001 Stock: $9. 31 Jack Welch becomes CEO Stock: $0. 65 Jeffrey Immelt becomes CEO Stock: $32. 58 $ 100 Best Practices Delayering, Six Sigma Bought 370 businesses Sold 200 businesses 10 e-business Stretch 1 Work-Out! Boundarylessness #1 or #2 Source: Case writers. Stock information from finance. yahoo. com, accessed January 5, 2008. 1/2/2007 1/2/2005 1/2/2003 1/2/2001 1/2/1999 1/2/1997 1/2/1995 1/2/1993 1/2/1991 1/2/1989 1/2/1987 1/2/1985 1/2/1983 1/2/1981 1/2/1979 1/2/1977 1/2/1975 0. 1 2006 163. 4 20. 7 General Electric: From Jack Welch to Jeffrey Immelt The need for Jeffrey Immelt to develop into a level 5 leader is imperative for GE to continue to grow and prosper in the current economic conditions of global expansion and constant change. Immelt can also benefit GE by becoming a level 5 leader by focusing on developing and empowering employee values and intrinsic motivations rather than facilitating initiatives to carry out his own vision. By Immelt developing into a level 5 leader and creating an open and trusting environment, he will empower employees to rebuild GE’s infrastructure that can hold strong and prosper through the new and demanding global expansion.Jack Welch led the way that was authentic to him and what economic conditions valued at the time. He was successful by giving the company of GE a clear vision and opening up opportunities for employees to efficiently carry out his objectives. He gave stability to shareholders at a time of economic worry and more than doubled GE’s market cap. Although his prac tices deemed profitable he did not build internal company infrastructure that would carry GE into the future. Instead he weakened internal relationships and did not empower employees to use their talents to embark on new and innovative projects.Immelt is faced with the challenge of getting the GE employees to develop a trusting and open relationship that can grow GE into new markets and hold stable in a time of constant change. His humility and professional will create a new environment for GE that will be profitable from long-term investments, social responsibility, and employee empowerment. Immelt is already leading in his own authentic way by being people-oriented and concentrating on effectiveness rather than efficiency.If he can continue to stay true to his authentic values while developing them further into a level 5 leader, GE will manage to stay competitive in the new economic market. Although authentic in his actions, Jack Welch had uprooted the GE internal infrastructure t o become a number generating, cash focused conglomerate that did not serve the intrinsic needs of GE’s talented employees. GE seemed to be thriving under Welch’s reign with stock prices continually rising and it’s market cap growing from $18 million to $500 billion. However there are more factors to a company that tell about its â€Å"success† than its cash generating enterprises.Many of the employees at GE felt worn down and stretched too far with their expectations being forced to drive success from extrinsic motivators and short-term returns. After thorough evaluation of the movement of CEOS from Jack Welch to Jeffrey Immelt, lays the fundamental management problem of a change of company values led by a previous level 4 leader, Welch, to a level 5 leader, Immelt. The GE company needs to recognize and be led to the different values that Jeffrey Immelt believes in order to drive success under a new environment.Immelt is focused more on long term strategi c investments that will require invested energy and cooperation from his employees to finally reach the high numbers and stock price returns that come along with the change to a strong infrastructure. While Welch was CEO he inspired the GE company by providing them with the vision that GE was meant for big returns, rapid expansion, and continually expanding market caps. He proved he was a level 4 leader by being focused on efficiency, and committing to a clear vision that â€Å"stimulated higher performance standards†.Everyone was aware of Welch’s vision: to act fast, push bureaucracy out of the way, and to generate numbers and cash. People who did not meet the results-delivered mindset were let go and ideas that did not deliver immediate results were abandoned. This level 4 leadership did not allow for the employees of GE to develop and grow the intrinsic values of the company and themselves because they were too nervous and focused on delivering results from small-ri sk projects. Welch did not focus on developing people; instead he focused on developing numbers.For example, his â€Å"vitality curve program† cut the â€Å"bottom 10% of employees† and rewarded the â€Å"top 20%†. The Vitality Curve organized people into three categories based on their past performance and deliverables. Although Welch implemented a number of â€Å"leadership development† programs, they ironically did not focus on molding leaders but molding opportunities for profit-centered growth. The underlying problem was that the employees of GE were expected to carry out Welch’s vision and return high profits to stockholders.It wasn’t that Welch wasn’t clear on his objectives or ways to complete objectives; it was the fact that employees were focused on completing work to produce Welch’s vision instead of using their own talents and ideas to grow the company’s infrastructure that could endure future economic condit ions. By Welch being a level 4 leader he facilitated employees to meet expectations in an efficient and demanding manner, which crushed innovation and employee self- fulfillment. According to Fortune Magazine â€Å"Welch conducts meetings so aggressively that people tremble.†Although this type of tough leadership produced high profits, it left employee satisfaction and infrastructure stability wounded. Welch was constantly implementing new projects and workshops that supported his vision and gave employees clearer objectives of his vision that produced results. Each time he implemented a new project GE stock prices rose; but this was at a time where the environment GE was competing in was domestic and results driven, which didn’t demand long term company infrastructure but rather thrived on short term high profits.Welch led the way the economy demanded, which led him to success and high numbers. Welch’s methodology was based upon cost cutting, efficiency, and de al making which would deliver high, reliable profits. Welch led at a time of an economic recession with high unemployment, high interest rates, and domestic competition. The idea of developing society and GE employees was put aside to develop high profits, which gave stockholders a sense of dependability and stability in a time of unknown and economic turmoil.This focus worked at the time, but would not continue to work in the current economy that holds new values and expectations. It is crucial that Immelt become a level 5 leader that invests in long term, strong infrastructure to continue to be able grow, expand, and stay profitable. For Immelt to become a level 5 leader he must discard the idea that â€Å"leaders must be the ones providing the direction or vision† and instead enable the implementation of additional drivers, such as employees or opportunities, that will take GE from good to great.Immelt is leading at a time of economic global slowdown and increased global c ompetition, which demands an infrastructure that can endure a change of markets and compete at a global level. Immelt’s responsibility isn’t to have one vision that the entire company follows, but to inspire GE employees to evaluate their own visions that correspond to their intrinsic values and allow them to act upon them with trust and resources. To enable and inspire employees to re-create the GE infrastructure Immelt needs to pave the way for employees to re-build their trust with GE and himself by increasing their motivation through a more open environment.Immelt can act upon becoming a level 5 leader and making GE into a growth engine for the future by investing in leadership programs that focus on developing employees as leaders and allowing them to create their own vision through their own intrinsic values. Welch’s leadership development programs focused on trimming the company’s edges instead of developing them to pave the way for number growing opportunities and profit based endeavors. Immelt can have leadership programs that ask employees to evaluate what values they have for their work and what are areas that can be improved to help them reach their goals.Immelt can also share his inspiration to facilitate external growth by moving markets into developing countries through risk taking, sophisticated marketing, and innovation. He can prove to employees that he wants them to embark on meaningful, long-term projects by notifying them that rotations will be removed to allow for specialists that are the most knowledgeable in their field, and therefore have the ability to produce the most effective long-term projects and returns.Immelt can teach the employees of GE of his values and leadership practices through company wide meetings, emails, or letters. He then needs to be mindful to follow through with his values to foster an open and trusting environment. Jeffery Immelt is leading as CEO in a time of worldwide growth and exp ansion that demands a different type of leadership style than the efficiency based style of Jack Welch in order for GE to stay profitable, and continue to be a leader in the business market.In addition to changing leadership styles in order to keep GE growing profits, Immelt has the opportunity to make GE employee’s jobs more meaningful and fulfilling by creating an open and trusting environment that will enable them to use their talents to carry out visions of their own that resonate with their intrinsic values. It is imperative that Immelt become a level 5 leader that will force GE to move from being a cash generator to a growth engine that will thrive in the current global expansion. General Electric: From Jack Welch to Jeffrey Immelt The need for Jeffrey Immelt to develop into a level 5 leader is imperative for GE to continue to grow and prosper in the current economic conditions of global expansion and constant change. Immelt can also benefit GE by becoming a level 5 leader by focusing on developing and empowering employee values and intrinsic motivations rather than facilitating initiatives to carry out his own vision. By Immelt developing into a level 5 leader and creating an open and trusting environment, he will empower employees to rebuild GE’s infrastructure that can hold strong and prosper through the new and demanding global expansion.Jack Welch led the way that was authentic to him and what economic conditions valued at the time. He was successful by giving the company of GE a clear vision and opening up opportunities for employees to efficiently carry out his objectives. He gave stability to shareholders at a time of economic worry and more than doubled GE’s market cap. Although his prac tices deemed profitable he did not build internal company infrastructure that would carry GE into the future. Instead he weakened internal relationships and did not empower employees to use their talents to embark on new and innovative projects.Immelt is faced with the challenge of getting the GE employees to develop a trusting and open relationship that can grow GE into new markets and hold stable in a time of constant change. His humility and professional will create a new environment for GE that will be profitable from long-term investments, social responsibility, and employee empowerment. Immelt is already leading in his own authentic way by being people-oriented and concentrating on effectiveness rather than efficiency.If he can continue to stay true to his authentic values while developing them further into a level 5 leader, GE will manage to stay competitive in the new economic market. Although authentic in his actions, Jack Welch had uprooted the GE internal infrastructure t o become a number generating, cash focused conglomerate that did not serve the intrinsic needs of GE’s talented employees. GE seemed to be thriving under Welch’s reign with stock prices continually rising and it’s market cap growing from $18 million to $500 billion. However there are more factors to a company that tell about its â€Å"success† than its cash generating enterprises.Many of the employees at GE felt worn down and stretched too far with their expectations being forced to drive success from extrinsic motivators and short-term returns. After thorough evaluation of the movement of CEOS from Jack Welch to Jeffrey Immelt, lays the fundamental management problem of a change of company values led by a previous level 4 leader, Welch, to a level 5 leader, Immelt. The GE company needs to recognize and be led to the different values that Jeffrey Immelt believes in order to drive success under a new environment.Immelt is focused more on long term strategi c investments that will require invested energy and cooperation from his employees to finally reach the high numbers and stock price returns that come along with the change to a strong infrastructure. While Welch was CEO he inspired the GE company by providing them with the vision that GE was meant for big returns, rapid expansion, and continually expanding market caps. He proved he was a level 4 leader by being focused on efficiency, and committing to a clear vision that â€Å"stimulated higher performance standards†.Everyone was aware of Welch’s vision: to act fast, push bureaucracy out of the way, and to generate numbers and cash. People who did not meet the results-delivered mindset were let go and ideas that did not deliver immediate results were abandoned. This level 4 leadership did not allow for the employees of GE to develop and grow the intrinsic values of the company and themselves because they were too nervous and focused on delivering results from small-ri sk projects. Welch did not focus on developing people; instead he focused on developing numbers.For example, his â€Å"vitality curve program† cut the â€Å"bottom 10% of employees† and rewarded the â€Å"top 20%†. The Vitality Curve organized people into three categories based on their past performance and deliverables. Although Welch implemented a number of â€Å"leadership development† programs, they ironically did not focus on molding leaders but molding opportunities for profit-centered growth. The underlying problem was that the employees of GE were expected to carry out Welch’s vision and return high profits to stockholders.It wasn’t that Welch wasn’t clear on his objectives or ways to complete objectives; it was the fact that employees were focused on completing work to produce Welch’s vision instead of using their own talents and ideas to grow the company’s infrastructure that could endure future economic condit ions. By Welch being a level 4 leader he facilitated employees to meet expectations in an efficient and demanding manner, which crushed innovation and employee self- fulfillment. According to Fortune Magazine â€Å"Welch conducts meetings so aggressively that people tremble.†Although this type of tough leadership produced high profits, it left employee satisfaction and infrastructure stability wounded. Welch was constantly implementing new projects and workshops that supported his vision and gave employees clearer objectives of his vision that produced results. Each time he implemented a new project GE stock prices rose; but this was at a time where the environment GE was competing in was domestic and results driven, which didn’t demand long term company infrastructure but rather thrived on short term high profits.Welch led the way the economy demanded, which led him to success and high numbers. Welch’s methodology was based upon cost cutting, efficiency, and de al making which would deliver high, reliable profits. Welch led at a time of an economic recession with high unemployment, high interest rates, and domestic competition. The idea of developing society and GE employees was put aside to develop high profits, which gave stockholders a sense of dependability and stability in a time of unknown and economic turmoil.This focus worked at the time, but would not continue to work in the current economy that holds new values and expectations. It is crucial that Immelt become a level 5 leader that invests in long term, strong infrastructure to continue to be able grow, expand, and stay profitable. For Immelt to become a level 5 leader he must discard the idea that â€Å"leaders must be the ones providing the direction or vision† and instead enable the implementation of additional drivers, such as employees or opportunities, that will take GE from good to great.Immelt is leading at a time of economic global slowdown and increased global c ompetition, which demands an infrastructure that can endure a change of markets and compete at a global level. Immelt’s responsibility isn’t to have one vision that the entire company follows, but to inspire GE employees to evaluate their own visions that correspond to their intrinsic values and allow them to act upon them with trust and resources. To enable and inspire employees to re-create the GE infrastructure Immelt needs to pave the way for employees to re-build their trust with GE and himself by increasing their motivation through a more open environment.Immelt can act upon becoming a level 5 leader and making GE into a growth engine for the future by investing in leadership programs that focus on developing employees as leaders and allowing them to create their own vision through their own intrinsic values. Welch’s leadership development programs focused on trimming the company’s edges instead of developing them to pave the way for number growing opportunities and profit based endeavors. Immelt can have leadership programs that ask employees to evaluate what values they have for their work and what are areas that can be improved to help them reach their goals.Immelt can also share his inspiration to facilitate external growth by moving markets into developing countries through risk taking, sophisticated marketing, and innovation. He can prove to employees that he wants them to embark on meaningful, long-term projects by notifying them that rotations will be removed to allow for specialists that are the most knowledgeable in their field, and therefore have the ability to produce the most effective long-term projects and returns.Immelt can teach the employees of GE of his values and leadership practices through company wide meetings, emails, or letters. He then needs to be mindful to follow through with his values to foster an open and trusting environment. Jeffery Immelt is leading as CEO in a time of worldwide growth and exp ansion that demands a different type of leadership style than the efficiency based style of Jack Welch in order for GE to stay profitable, and continue to be a leader in the business market.In addition to changing leadership styles in order to keep GE growing profits, Immelt has the opportunity to make GE employee’s jobs more meaningful and fulfilling by creating an open and trusting environment that will enable them to use their talents to carry out visions of their own that resonate with their intrinsic values. It is imperative that Immelt become a level 5 leader that will force GE to move from being a cash generator to a growth engine that will thrive in the current global expansion.

Bogus Rules of Writing Never Begin a Sentence With...

Any fool can make a ruleAnd every fool will mind it.(Henry David Thoreau) At the start of every semester, I invite my first-year students to recall any rules of writing they learned in school. What they most often remember are proscriptions, many of which involve words that should never be used to begin a sentence. And every one of those so-called rules is bogus. Here, according to my students, are the top five words that should never assume first place in a sentence. Each is accompanied by examples and observations that disprove the rule. And . . . Rin Tin Tin grew from being one dog to being a sort of franchise. And as his fame grew, Rin Tin Tin became, in a way, less particular—less specifically this one single dog—and more conceptual, the archetypal dog hero.  (Susan Orlean, Rin Tin Tin: The Life and the Legend, 2011)Turning to The New Fowlers Modern English Usage (1996), we find that the prohibition against and at the start of a sentence has been cheerfully ignored by standard authors from Anglo-Saxon times onwards. An initial And is a useful aid to writers as the narrative continues. Back in 1938, Charles Allen Lloyd wrote, One cannot help wondering whether those who teach such a monstrous doctrine ever read any English themselves (We Who Speak English). But . . . But breathing, too, is not necessarily easy. It is one of those physical acts on the edge of thought; it can be conscious or unconscious.  (John Updike, Self-Consciousness: Memoirs, 1989)​William Zinsser acknowledges that many students have been taught that no sentence should begin with but. But if thats what you learned, he says, unlearn it—theres no stronger word at the start (On Writing Well, 2006). According to Merriam-Websters Dictionary of English Usage, Everyone who mentions this question agrees with Zinsser. The only generally expressed warning is not to follow the but with a comma. Because . . . Because he was so small, Stuart was often hard to find around the house.  (E.B. White, Stuart Little, 1945)In Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (2010), Joseph M. Williams notes that the superstition regarding initial because appears in no handbook that he knows of, but the belief seems to have a popular currency among many students. This old-school rule, says Stephen R. Covey, was and remains a bad rule. You may begin a sentence with because as long as the dependent clause it introduces is followed by an independent clause or complete thought (Style Guide: For Business and Technical Communication, 2010) However . . . There is also the brutal insistence in some Muslim countries that women cover themselves to demonstrate submission to religious, and male, authority. However, I am curious to know what grassroots Arab women think about the scarf, assuming as I do that most items of clothing have a use before religion claims one for them.  (Alice Walker, Overcoming Speechlessness, 2010)Linguistics professor Pam Peters insists that there is no basis for suggesting that contrastive however should not appear at the beginning of a sentence (The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, 2004). In fact, says The American Heritage Guide to Contemporary Usage (2005), placing however at the start of a sentence can emphasize the starkness of a contrast. Therefore . . . There is really no reason why a human being should do more than eat, drink, sleep, breathe, and procreate; everything else could be done for him by machinery. Therefore the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle.  (George Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier, 1937)The authors of Writers at Work: The Essay (2008) remind us that because and therefore are especially useful transitions for explanatory essays. . . . Therefore comes at the beginning of a new sentence.So is the start of a sentence always the best place to locate one of these words when you want to signal a transition? No, not at all. For rhetorical or stylistic reasons, and, but, because, however, and therefore often deserve a less conspicuous position, and in some cases, they can be omitted altogether. But theres no grammatical rule that prevents any of them from moving into first place. Language Myths and Bogus Rules of Writing Top Five Phony Rules of WritingIs It Wrong to End a Sentence With a Preposition?What Is a Split Infinitive and Whats Wrong With It?

The Sexual Orientation Of Parents Essay - 1707 Words

Article 1: Stacey, J., Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) does the sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 66(2), 159-183. The goal of this study was to dispute the negative â€Å"heterosexism† perceptions attached to the development of children with parents who identify as gay and lesbian. The authors focused on the analysis of previous research findings, comparing the outcomes of the children from heterosexual single-mothers and homosexual parents, particularly lesbian mothers. These studies explored the relationship between homophobia, the sexual orientation of the parents and the outcome of the child; in addition to the influence on sexual preferences and well-being of the children. A critical finding from this study, was the belief that the discrimination surrounding homophobia is the core reason as to why the concern behind sexual orientation of parents exists at all. This article found a stronger correlation between the children, specifically daughters raised by lesbian mothers, and the absence of typical gender identities associated with their behaviour, chosen activities and aspirations for the future. These results suggest children of lesbian parenting are not forced to restrict themselves to certain gender associated roles. When examining the sexual preferences and behaviour of the children from both households, they found the children of lesbian mothers were more open to considering a same-sex relationship in their future. AlthoughShow MoreRelatedThe Sexual Orientation Of Parents993 Words   |  4 Pages The sexual orientation of parents, once having a child, does not negatively affect the development of their children. In order to first be a parent, one must obtain a child. However, in Florida, gay foster parents were not allowed to adopt the children they fostered due to the Gay Adoption Ban (Goldberg). Homosexuals were not legally able to adopt a child at all until the forty year old ban was lifted July, 2015 by Governor Rick Scott (Associated Press). â€Å"Prior to the lifting of the gay adoptionRead More Nurture and Nature - Influence of Parents on Childrens Sexual Orientation754 Words   |  4 PagesInfluence of Parents on Childrens Sexual Orientation      Ã‚  Ã‚   Do parents influence their childrens sexuality?   The answer may surprise you: no they do not.   It has been found that about 90% of sons of gay fathers are heterosexual (Bailey 124).   It was also found that 90% of daughters of lesbian women are also heterosexual (Golombok 4).   According to a poll taken by Northwestern University almost 95% of people expect children of homosexual parents to be homosexual themselves (BaileyRead MoreHow Parents Sexual Orientation Can Have An Impact On Their Children s Lives980 Words   |  4 Pagesresourced. The purpose of this study was to investigate how parents’ sexual orientation can have an impact on their children’s lives. However, Goldberg Kashy Smith (2012) suggested that future studies should not only control parental characteristics, but also cautiously examine the children in each group of families. They concluded that investigators should be aware of the results before concluding what influence parental sexual orientation had on children’s gender development, due to the lack ofRead MoreHomosexuality1131 Words   |  5 Pagesï » ¿Kiuana Ingram Ms. Lemons English IV Period 6 18 November 2013 Homosexuality Homosexuality is the sexual orientation toward people of the same sex. Female homosexuals are referred to as Lesbians. Years ago, the term gay has been applied to both homosexual women and men. The potential for homosexual behavior appears to be a basic part of human sexuality, since many people experience homosexual interest, curiosity, or activity at some point in their lives. Homosexual behavior has also beenRead MoreParents : The Single Biggest Impact On A Child s Development1736 Words   |  7 PagesParents: maybe the single biggest impact on a child’s development. The influence parents have on their children is tremendous. They can quite easily help or hinder their child’s development by their parenting style and opportunities they afford for their children. The nuclear family has a mom and a dad, which is the societal norm. With the passing of gay marriage this year, the questions and prejudice of same-sex parents have been brought to light and revived. Concern s about whether or not same-sexRead MoreThe Impact Of The On A Child s Development1737 Words   |  7 PagesParents: maybe the one of the biggest impacts on a child’s development. The influence parents have on their children is tremendous. They can quite easily help or hinder their child’s development by their parenting style and the opportunities they afford for their children. The nuclear family has a mom and a dad, which is the societal norm. With the passing of gay marriage this year, the questions and prejudice of same-sex parents have been brought to light and revived. Concerns about whether or notRead MoreSexual Orientation1220 Words   |  5 PagesOver the years sexual orientation has been an issue in our society. Many people are against homosexuality and bisexuality. Sexual orientation is generally one of three main categories, heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. Heterosexual is someone who is attracted to members of the opposite sex. A homosexual is some one that is attracted to members of the same sex. And, a bisexual person is one that is attracted to members of both sexes. There are other categories of sexual orientation. Some peopleRead MoreThe Effects Of Prenatal Hormones On The Developing Fetus1510 Words   |  7 Pagesstudy stated that there is a 50 percent chance that if one identical twin is homosexual or bisexual, the other twin is too. Similar findings lead that some researchers estimate that sexual orientation is 30 to 70 percent genetic (Mustanski, Chivers, Bailey, 2002). Another research suggests that sexual orientation is impacted by a gene or genes found on the X chromosome. Though genetic tendencies for homosexuality may be passed from mothers to their children (Rahman Wilson, 2003). During humanRead More Social and Legal Obstacles of Gay and Lesbian Parenting Essay1677 Words   |  7 Pagesresearchers have estimated that the number of children living with one gay or lesbian parent is six to fourteen million. Some have described this current period as a lesbian and gay â€Å"baby boom†. However, lesbian and gay parents face many social and legal obstacles (Lambda Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 1997). In the past, most gay and lesbian parents lived secretive and protective lives. Not only did gay parents have to face his or her coming out issues and separation from spouse, but also faceRead MoreIs It A Victim Of Persecution?1553 Words   |  7 Pagesintolerance in society these days, the gay community is facing persecution. Verbal abuse, physical violence and hate crimes are some effects of persecution against gay people. The verbal abuse is often a way to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. Verbal abuse has a big impact on the victim’s life. The victim may feel unsure and isolated. Also, bullying and bashing are very common ways to persecute against a person who is gay. Gay bashing and bullying include negative attitudes that