Joe's Jottings
Jottings Number 62, Reply B, by Russell Johnson
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 96 07:23:27 -0700
In thinking about complacency at HP, and reading some of the responses to
Joe's Jottings about it, I'd like to add my comments to both the current
attempts at handling HP's financial challenges and on complacency, at HP
and in general.
My viewpoint is from a small division, where it's always financially tight.
I am often struck by the methods used to cut costs globally. The first
thing that gets cut is travel, without regard to a division's needs or use
of travel, or how much is actually spent. (Or even HP's needs - what did
management think was going to happen after all the consolidations?) Our
manufacturing sites are thousands of miles away. We are directly involved
in our product marketing efforts. We must travel more than we want. As a
result, we are lucky if we can send a single employee to any development
function that requires travel. Consequently, management usually chooses to
forego the expense. Such development, however, becomes completely
impossible under no-travel edicts. This seems self-defeating to me.
I guess my point is that each division should be able to decide where it
spends its resources. Each organization has submitted a business plan and
budget to HP. If a division, or a department, for that matter, decides to
travel, or buy equipment, then it does so under the financial performance
requirements it has agreed to with upper management. Upper management
should not decree these things - it doesn't work with governments, why do
they think it will work in corporations? And the rest of us shouldn't
worry about it either. We only need to be able to trust that HP is
holding our managers responsible for financial performance and business
planning.
Complacency, to me, has little to do with an unwillingness to spend less.
Many times, complacency leads to not spending enough - not investing in
people, tools, equipment, facilities, etc., in ways that increase
productivity and quality. No, complacency is when we stay too long
congratulating ourselves. We may even think we were the only ones
responsible for our success! So why should WE change? Not realizing the
true nature of an eternally-changing universe, we resist change in
ourselves, blame others, swallow statistical abstractions (if at all
flattering), and reject efforts by others to improve processes
systematically, rather than symptomatically. Which leads us to one more
time where we look for the "silver bullet" with the "most bang for the
buck" to solve our problem, violently.
The true antidote for complacency is not "a kick in the pants". I say
"true" because increasing one's sense of urgency, even artificially, is
indeed one way of getting things done. But it never seems to last, does
it? The avoidance of pain is insufficient motivation. We need to
understand that complacency will lead to more pain, but also that it's
infinitely more pleasurable to succeed in our newest opportunities.
All successful systems have excellent feedback structures. We have to be
aware of what we've done to fail and what we've done to succeed. What
were all the decisions and choices that were made that brought us
inevitably to this point today? Which actions do we normally repeat?
We have to ensure the "body" is healthy. Do we "feed" the whole
organization, or do we syphon off resources, and allow parts to "starve"?
The results are obvious - we "cut" the now diseased area. It seems that
many of the HP "reorganizations" have led to fatigue and low self-esteem.
Like Chinese acupuncture, HP reorganizations should be targetted to result
in releasing energy, not sapping it.
What we really need is to increase our general level of energy and recover
our delight in meeting challenges. We have to reward creativity and
passion, recognize people who desire contribution and involvement. We must
find ways to penalize those who "get along by going along" or who simply
"do their job", no matter how well. It's not enough. It's not an
investment in more time, or more money, but an attitude of expansiveness,
of growth, of being fully alive. It's being loud sometimes, moving fast
sometimes, trial and error, breathing deep, listening intently, caring.
Our complacency is based more on our self-indulgence than any real
self-satisfaction. Our society only reinforces this. We are unwilling to
think ecologically, to see ourselves as always-in-relationship. We believe
such pap as "we're number one", "I'm better than you", and whatever else
inflates us/deflates others. Once we realize that we are not alone, how
can we remain self-satisfied?
Tension between two creates energy in nature. The merging, or fusion, of
two into a new "one" (organization) creates more energy. Beyond that, as
William Blake describes, is Art, which is energy itself. Complacency is
the diving down back into the lower "one". A slap in the face with the
"other" - competitors, expense controls,down-sizing, does increase energy,
but it doesn't reinforce relationship, and so it is only a temporary gain.
We should look to ways to increase relationship, with each other, with our
customers, reach for a merging into a new form. And perhaps someday, even
awake the Artist that is in each of us. Or, we could eliminate a few more
jobs, lower profit-sharing percentages, close ranks. That's always good
for a few laughs.
Russell Johnson
DCD McMinnville
....................................................................... TO: PODOLSKY_JOE/HP-PaloAlto_om4@opnmail1