Individual learning is a necessary but insufficient condition for organizational learning.
Change masters are - literally - the right people in the right place at the right time. The right people are the ones with the ideas that move beyond the organization's established practice, ideas they can form into visions. The right places are the integrative environments that support innovation, encourage the building of coalitions and teams to support and implement visions. The right times are those moments in the flow of organizational history when it is possible to reconstruct reality on the basis on accumulated innovations to shape a more productive and successful future.
I'm the ultimate organizer! My major at Stanford was "Organizational Behavior" so I love to multi-task and stay extra busy.
High personal standards aren't enough for organizational excellence. You've got to be intolerant of low standards in others. . . . If you accommodate questionable practices in others who touch your organization, you risk soiling its reputation. Anybody whose hands aren't clean can get the place dirty.
In companies whose wealth is intellectual capital, networks, rather than hierarchies, are the right organizational design.
I don't think that the leadership of Montgomery was prepared to capitalize, let's put it, on the projection that had come out of the Montgomery situation. Certainly, they had not reached the point of developing an organizational format for the expansion of it. So discussions emanated, to a large extent, from up this way.
You have to, in your own life, get people to want to work with you and want to help you. The organizational chart, in my opinion, means very little. I need my bosses' goodwill, but I need the goodwill of my subordinates even more.
There are many structural changes, both in organizational practice and social policy, that must also change to enable men and women to have the freedom and support to pursue the lives they want to lead. Fortunately, many more people are today engaged in these efforts than when started working on this issue decades ago.
You frequently hear the phrase "culture eats strategy for lunch!" This is something that they don't teach you in school and few leaders appreciate. Cultural influences come at you from two different directions. There is the organizational culture that you must understand if you are to impact significant strategic initiatives. If the "people" are on board, you can achieve anything. Vice versa if they are not - you will not achieve anything.
Yes I can list all sorts of organizational forms and cultural issues that can get in the way of our accessing our inner creativity and bringing it out in our world. And we can use all kinds of approaches that can transform the organization. But unless we have developed a sense of our Self (who we are at core, at our highest) and our Work (the purpose of our existence, the gift that we have to give to the world) and use that to deal with the inner obstacle, we can't sustain creativity in the face of the chaos of the world.
Someone once said that innovation is a done idea. I agree. I believe that creativity is the individual development and conceptualization and that innovation in an organizational sense is implementing ideas and intentions that come from that creativity. So in a sense, creativity is more a leadership function and innovation is more a managerial function.
The good things at the U.S. health care system are that we have a well-trained labor force, particularly physicians; I don't think any nation trains doctors better. We have the latest technology, simply because we throw so much money at it. We are really technology-hungry in this country. That's a good thing. Our system more treats patients like customers, which is a good thing; that it's very customer-friendly. And it's very innovative, both in the products we use, in the techniques we use and the organizational structures we use. Those are all very good things, highly competitive.
Sometimes you lose - perhaps because you play against the very best, or because surprises happen - but if there is organizational confidence, you bounce back from losses and convert them to successes.
[A] process was going on in which people were transformed into things, into pieces of reality which pure science can calculate and technical science can control. … [T]he safety which is guaranteed by well-functioning mechanisms for the technical control of nature, by the refined psychological control of the person, by the rapidly increasing organizational control of society – this safety is bought at a high price: man, for whom all this was invented as a means, becomes a means himself in the service of means.
The organizational architecture is really that a centipede walks on hundred legs and one or two don't count. So if I lose one or two legs, the process will go on, the organization will go on, the growth will go on.
Sports is a perfect activity in which to see streaks and cycles, organizational and otherwise, in action - and to watch confidence build or erode. There are repeated episodes of performance with similar rules and clear winners or losers. I added team sports to my studies of business because there are excellent parallels to work groups in the performance of sports teams and also excellent parallels to larger, more complex businesses or organizations in the strategy, structure, and culture surrounding any particular team.
I have participated as a leader in many organizations where the leadership culture was just mean - ugly, where competitiveness, and destructive relationships stymied progress. There should be healthy tension and candid debate, but leadership teams need to practice communication, relationship building, emotional intelligence, and be aligned around common purpose to achieve organizational success. Senior leaders, chief executive officers, others need to ensure they are fostering the right environment for leadership otherwise all of that ugliness will trickle through the organization.
Success demands a high level of logistical and organizational competence.
The complete novelist would come into the world with a catalog of qualities like this. He would own the concentration of a Trappist monk, the organizational ability of a Prussian field marshal, the insight into human relations of a Viennese psychologist, the discipline of a man who prints the Lord's Prayer on the head of a pin, the exquisite sense of timing of an Olympic gymnast, and by the way, a natural instinct and flair for exceptional use of language.
The timing & characteristics of state intervention affect not only organizational tactics and strategies, but the content and definition of interest itself... Some scholars have directly stressed that state interventions create corporatist forms... the formation, let alone the political capabilities, of such purely socioeconomic phenomena as interest groups and classes depends in significant measure on the structures and activities of the very states the social actors, in turn, seek to influence.
Talking about improving the culture, I prefer to say "develop" or "evolve" rather than "change". If I walk into a room and say: "we are here to change the organization," it sends shock waves through the group. If I say: "your success to date has come from who you are, to be successful in the future, we need to get to X, let's talk about how we evolve the organization to that point," that is a very different statement. Successful organizational "change" must come from the people. So, recruit them with common purpose, recognize that it will take time, and plow forward.
Companies tend not to recognize that the way global projects have to be organized and run is fundamentally different from how co-located projects are managed. Everything is different in global projects from the need for organizational stability, a shared strategic context driving the project, the building of a competence in dispersed working, greater focus on planning the project to the need for trust between sites. Yet, most firms merely transfer their co-located best practice to a global arena. This will inevitably result in problems, delays and cost overruns.
The locus of corporate innovations has been product development. But in times of rapid and unpredictable change, the creation of individual products becomes less important than the creation of a general organizational aptitude for innovation.
To paraphrase the late management thinker and writer, Peter Drucker, thinking is hard work, which is why so few people (including actually senior managers) do it. Once there is some "conventional," seemingly-reasonable story, people just accept it and don't ask, "is this actually true? Is it consistent with the data?" And this extends to the highest reaches of organizational life.
Focusing on strengths is the surest way to greater job satisfaction, team performance and organizational excellence.
Follow AzQuotes on Facebook, Twitter and Google+. Every day we present the best quotes! Improve yourself, find your inspiration, share with friends
or simply: