 |
|
October
19, 2000 Issue 5
|
|
|||||||||||||||
 |
FROM
THE FIELD Culture Shock: The Failed Merger Between Mattel and The Learning Company |
|||||||||||||||
 |
SHOP
TALK How Can We Develop a Shared Model of Action for the Empowered Team? and Reader Response to Emotional Intelligence--Fad or Fundamental Skillset? |
|||||||||||||||
 |
LEARNING
LINKS Taking the Teeth Out of Team Traps |
|||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
|
FROM
THE FIELD Culture Shock: The Failed Merger Between Mattel and The Learning Company It seemed like a match made in Wall Street heaven. But when Mattel announced in September that it was selling the Learning Company (TLC)-- leading educational software firm acquired in December 1998--or "future consideration," it became apparent that the merger had come to a hellish end. Analysts place much of the blame on Mattel's failure to understand the educational software industry. But a contributing factor might have been irreconcilable cultural differences between the old-line manufacturing firm and the new-economy startup. Reliant on sales of its venerable Barbie and Hot Wheels brands, Mattel was slow to move in the face of change and to make decisions. Former executives refer to the culture of "learned powerlessness" that pervaded the toy giant's operations. In contrast, employees at TLC exhibited a sense of urgency, camaraderie, and entrepreneurial zeal. The conflict between these styles peaked over the company's Internet strategy. TLC employees were eager to launch online operations, while Mattel executives dragged their heels, fearing that Web sales would alienate retailers. The failure to reconcile these differences resulted in massive financial losses--and serves as a cautionary tale for any business seeking to forge alliances. The key is not necessarily to look for a partner with the same culture, but rather for one willing to engage in a productive exchange of ideas and expertise. This approach will let you capitalize on the strengths of each organization and increase the likelihood of success. Source: "Two Worlds Collide" by Matthew Brelis, The Boston Globe, October 1, 2000. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
SHOP
TALK We often tell people they are empowered, but empowerment cannot be imposed, and teams who have been told they are empowered do not always act autonomously. What tools can we use to develop a shared model of action for the empowered team? --Submitted by Malcolm Jones Please take a minute to share your thoughts about this issue at the Leverage Points Discussion forum, part of our new online Community Bulletin Board. Selected comments will be shared in a future issue of LEVERAGE POINTS. From Issue #4: Is Emotional Intelligence--as defined by Daniel Goleman and others--a fad or a fundamental skillset? Emotional Intelligence is a term coined by Peter Salovey and made popular by Daniel Goleman's book, wherein he condenses the essentials of several hundred people's research on emotions and intelligence between 1975 and 1994. Goleman's Emotional Intelligence implies that, to be successful, we need to be aware of our own emotions in order to manage them and to motivate ourselves. We also need to be aware of and take into account other people's emotions in order to interact with them. So the buzzword "Emotional Intelligence" is probably a fad. But people in business who have to deal with others--colleagues, subordinates, customers, or even suppliers--can always practice emotional awareness, emotional management, self-motivation, recognition of others' emotions, and the art of human relations. --Brendan Flanagan Dealing with emotions and feelings is from all ages and all human beings. So in fact Daniel Goleman's book on EQ and related articles only describe--in a partly new vocabulary--what is already experienced, done, and known by man for centuries. The book is based on the paradigm that EQ is a consequence of thinking, which is misleading. But Goleman is not to blame; he too is the result of an educational system that puts brain-intelligence on the first place. It is thanks to Descartes, Newton, and the like that feelings have been reduced to secondhand thoughts. To them, emotions were annoying aspects of the human soul that disturbed the path to so-called objective science. And what has it brought us? As a result of their efforts, we can fly to the moon but we have difficulties crossing the street to meet our neighbors. In my perception, it is the other way around: Thoughts are second-degree feelings. In other words, clear thinking is an attempt to objectify feelings into crystal-clear conclusions and focused actions. On the other hand, the necessity of a book like Goleman's is obvious. Goleman understands that feelings and emotions have to be reintegrated in organizational life. It is a brave attempt to find a language of how human beings function. --Winfried Deijmann I just reread some of Denham Grey's material last night on decision making and how it must include both technical processes and social processes in order to be successful. I think this is an important step forward. Not having read the EQ book, I'm a bit at a loss to comment on it. I do worry that it may allow people to think about emotions on an intellectual level and not move to the deeper level that Winfried mentions. OTOH, if it gets people moving in a useful direction, they may continue. --Bill Harris Readers who wish to view the complete responses to this question or to continue this discussion are invited to go to the Community Bulletin Board and Forums area of our Web site. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
LEARNING LINKS Taking the Teeth Out of Team Traps by Alan Slobodnik and Kristina Wile Have you ever worked as part of a team that was truly stuck, unable to move forward on a project? Have you seen negative team dynamics actually destroy a team's potential? The majority of us have experienced one or more "Team Traps"; that is, vicious cycles of unproductive behavior that undermine group performance. Most proposed solutions to dysfunctional team behavior offer little insight into the underlying structure of relationships that drives complex human interactions. But because teams are complex systems, any attempt to "fix" them without understanding the structural causes of their problems runs the risk of becoming a "Fix That Fails." Because Team Traps involve both task and relationship issues, we have found that a combination of approaches from the fields of systems thinking and human systems can be a potent force for altering these common structures. Useful tools for tackling sticky team problems such as False Consensus, Weak Leadership, and Unresolved Overt Conflict include causal loop diagrams and the Four Team Roles and System Types defined by family systems therapist David Kantor. Creating a causal loop diagram and using insights from human systems can lead to a new understanding of both the problem behavior and the structural solution. Read the complete article on our Web site or see THE SYSTEMS THINKER V10N9, November 1999. Readers who wish to discuss this topic are invited to go to the Leverage Points Discussions section of the new Community Bulletin Board and Forums area of our Web site. |
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
| Copyright 2000 Pegasus Communications. LEVERAGE POINTS can be freely distributed in its entirety, or reproduced or excerpted for another publication with written permission from Pegasus Communications. | ||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||
