A633.4.3.RB - Changing Dynamics of Leadership

Why do you think there is a shift in leadership thinking and do you think this is indicative of what is happening in your organization.  It is well known that there is a massive shift in the global business community.  Businesses of all sizes are being challenged to adapt to both internal and external factors; and their leadership is being challenged to manage these changes and still remain successful.   As we discovered in module one, there are various ways to define organizations. We now use new descriptive terms like polyarchy and complex adaptive systems (CAS) to define an organization.  To add to these factors, we are facing multiple terms of demographics in the workforce.  Today’s leaders now have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations and that each employee comes with their own collective backgrounds and value systems. What worked (leadership styles) decades ago, may not work today.  The ability of leadership to adapt to these pressures is increasingly crucial to an organization’s survival.  I will admit that my original perception of leadership styles was very traditional; however, I have learned that I must change if I plan on being successful as a deciding factor for any organization I represent. 

In my current organization, the leadership style has not changed much from the traditional form of hierarchy.  The government is a not for profit organization so the complex adaptive system and polyarchy are not ideal.  Some of the concepts of the less traditional forms of organizational styles can and should be implemented; however, the entire concept cannot. 

As far as the opening exercise goes, I believe that less than 20 percent of the solutions suggested come from executive leadership; while the majority of all solutions are derived from a mixture between middle management and bottom level supervision.  I am not sure if I agree with other perspectives on the statement that top managers/executives know very little about the day-to-day processes/procedures performed within the organization.  I agree that they may not understand the details of daily operations, and there is a shift that senior leadership depends more on the middle and the bottom to education then details of daily operations. 

List three reasons to support or refute this position.
1. Improvements in Global Wide Technology - Technology has made the world a smaller place; one in which business cultures are more interconnected and interrelated when it comes to business operations.  Think about the daily activities of today’s leader versus twenty years ago.  Leaders at every level must now be attached to some type of computer device; which includes checking emails, surfing the web, or attending a virtual meeting. 

2. Information - Information is more abundant today than it has ever been in history.  Twenty years ago no one really understood the true value of what a computer server, but now it is one of the more important styles of retrieving and storing information.  There are not many large organizations that could sustain its oracle of information while maintaining itself.  To complicate things, social media is now one of the leading sources of information.   

3. Generational Differences- As I stated earlier, leaders have to understand that today’s workforce is a diverse mix of generations that each come with their own collective background and value systems.  Organizational cultures and employee values continue to evolve and reform toward a more independent and diversity-driven society. Leaders must not only understand this shift, they must embrace it is they are to manage it successfully.

If so, how would leadership dynamics have to be altered to accommodate and promotes these types of changes?  In order for leadership dynamics to accommodate and promotes these types of changes, organizational cultures must be willing to accept change and the factors that come with them.  Traditional leadership structures must be able to empower lower levels of management and subordinates.  Communications within the company must flow from all directions.  The decision making process must involve more than just the few at the top of the organizational pyramid. 
 
What are the implications of this strategy? The most important implications of this strategy are survival.  In order for an organization to survive, its leaders must share their goals and visions with all level of employees.  By making sure that everyone has an understanding of the goals of the company, they can all work toward achieving success.  This helps everyone to feel empowered.  Leaders that do not understand that there is a massive shift in the global business community are doomed.  Implementing and accepting change is never easy and never will be; leaders and organizations must be aware of this.  Change must be initiated and supported by all levels within an organization. 

  

A633.3.3.RB - Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS)

Find a company which reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS) and reflect in your blog what the implications are for you and your present organization (or any organization you are familiar with). Identify what you believe are appropriate actions to move your organization forward.

Module three of this course focused on the movement of the traditional corporate hierarchy.  It started with an understanding of the past (functional silos), to the present model.  We now have a cross-functional matrix, to what Nick Obolensky, author of “Complex Adaptive Leadership: Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty” refers to as what future innovative companies will call a Complex Adaptive System (2010). In the CAS system, traditional management levels have been removed, flattening the organization’s hierarchy.  Employees, at all levels, now have increased responsibility and greater control over how they perform their job.  For this task, I was asked to find a company that reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  St. Luke is a small British company that has adapted an aggressive CAS strategy.  Some very prominent business critics have described this company as experiencing a monumental growth spurt.  This little company has the determination of “the little engine that could” when it comes to its goal to reach the global market.

My first thought process was to look at Zappos, a shoe company developed by CEO, Tony Hsieh.  His company has gained the reputation of a work environment that is about people who believe in shoes and the importance of customer service , not about profit; thus blowing away the shoe industry by breaking the mold.  If you research the company and its organizational core values you will see something different; the ten organizational core values never mention profit. 

However, I soon discovered there was a company that more closely reflects Morning Star and St Luke’s image of a Complex Adaptive System (CAS).  The company I am referring to is Valve Corp., a videogame maker in Bellevue, Washington.  The company was founded in 1996 by former Microsoft software developers Gabe Newell and Mike Harrington.  Like St Luke’s, the most astonishing aspect of life at Valve Corp is that there are no bosses. In this successful organization, there is no explicit hierarchy.  Employees, at every level, are involved in hiring and firings which can be initiated by something as simple as a conversation between employees.  Here bonuses are based on peer reviews (not management or leadership) and can be as large as 10 times an employee’s base pay.  Now as great as this may sound, it is important to understand that such based spontaneous enterprises rely to a large extent on individuals who actually believe in the social norms that govern their existence. 

This system will not work for my current organization, the federal government for numerous reasons.  Having such a system requires taking a lot of risk.  The federal government is not a profit based organization and cannot operate like a normal everyday business.  Yes, success is measured by achieving set objectives; however, often times the objectives are not tangible.  I do however believe the federal government can learn from the CAS process.  The government could start the process by learning about and implementing better ways to understand all internal and external stakeholders.  Like Zappos, they can learn how to developing a plan to achieve specific financial and budgetary goals (Glassman, 2013).  Last but not least, I feel it is important that the federal government learn that the company culture is something that many corporations take for granted, not realizing how important it actually is to employee morale, work quality, and overall success.

 

Obolensky, N (2010). Complex adaptive leadership: embracing paradox and uncertainty. Surrey, England: Gower Publishing Unlimited.

Glassman, B (2013).  What Zappos Taught Us About Creating The Ultimate Client Experience. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2013/05/13/what-zappos-taught-us-about-creating-the-ultimate-client-experience/

Wagreich, S. (2013). A Billion Dollar Company With No Bosses? Yes, It Exists.  Retrieved from  http://www.inc.com/samuel-wagreich/the-4-billion-company-with-no-bosses.html

A633.2.3.RB - Butterfly Effect

Based on this week's reading, reflect on complexity science and theory in organizations and the butterfly effect (p.66).

Although I was not intellectually drawn in by this week’s reading assignment, I still found the weeks readings somewhat interesting and challenging at the same time.  In the course textbook, Obolensky (2010) it discusses how complex organizations contain common features: Self organization, Inter-relatedness, Adaptive nature, and Emergence.  History has shown that some organizations can become complex beyond their capability, while others fail to embrace such complexity and want to keep the environment as simple as possible.  In my opinion both situations have realistic pros and cons.  One positive attribute of complexity science is an organization understanding the importance of adaptability, when and where they need to adapt to be successful.

The one thing that did stand out to me was when Obolensky (2010) discussed the butterfly effect of which I have always been a fan.  Now, I am not referring to the often overused quote, “If a butterfly flaps its wings on one side of the world, does that cause a hurricane on the other side of the world?”  I think that is a bit of an exaggeration.  I also think that saying or phrase is often misused.  Obolensky (2010) defines the butterfly effect in a very simple way; “small changes” resulting in “large results.”  In order to apply these small changes that the butterfly effect refers to, leaders need to fully understand that any environment can have dynamics that are complex and chaotic.  Obolensky proves several excellent business related examples on page 67and page 68, which painted a very descriptive picture of how it works in the business community. 

 

Identify 2 examples where “small changes yield large results” in your organization

Example one – I have seen and have used the butterfly effect on numerous successful occasions.  Upon retiring from the military, I took a management position in the retail industry.  I learned, in my short time in the retail industry, that sometimes you have to go over and beyond to satisfy some customers, even giving a larger discount on certain items and losing a little money on the transaction.  I once had a customer that seemed a bit overwhelmed.  She needed to purchase an item immediately for her child’s birthday party.  The customer did not realize the cost of the item and did not have the total amount to purchase the item at the time.  I gave her a discount on the item so she could purchase it.  About a month later, she came back and made several large purchases and also told several of her friends about how the store manager assisted her.  This led her friends to come to the store and also make large purchases. 

Example two – While serving as a professor for a university in North Texas, I noticed that the students were very confused about what was requirement for the assigned writing assignments.  So I requested a meeting with the dean and asked her to consider implementing a policy change. It required that all writing assignments provide the student with an example of what the writing objectives are for each writing assignment.  Less than two months later, the overall final grades of the students and the quality of their work increased by a full letter grade. 

 

What are the implication of complexity theory for you and your organization and how can you use this to drive improvements.

 

As simple as it may seem, the implications of complexity theory and impact of the butterfly effect is not an easy to always recognize.  Sometimes, it is even more difficult to identify the overall impact.  The reality is, in some cases the results of the butterfly effect can be great and very positive, but as I demonstrated in my weekly discussion forum input, it can also have a negative effect in organizations. 

 

Reference: Obolensky, N. (2010). Complex Adaptive Leadership. Embracing Paradox and Uncertainty. Burlington, VT: Gower Publishing Company.

 

 

 

A633.1.2.RB - Leadership Gap

Chapter 1 of the Obolensky text begins with a reflective exercise. Create a reflection blog that responds to the questions asked in this exercise.  Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices, why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap?

1.) Has your own attitude to leaders changed in your life, and if so how?  Without question, the answer is yes.  As children, we really don’t have an understanding of what leadership encompasses.  Sure, we may have been the captain of some school group, Boy Scout troop, or sports team, but that doesn’t even touch the surface level of the type of leadership we experience when we become adults.  Children and young adults see leadership in certain individuals that are close to them such as teachers, parents or even coaches; people that are tangible to us.  However, as we mature and become more educated and experience leadership for ourselves, our perspectives change.  My perspective on leadership has changed in various ways.  Now, I see a deeper more in-depth endeavor when it comes to leadership.  As young adult, I never realized some of the most evil men in history could have been considered leaders (although their morals and ethics may have been undesirable).  Today, I have a better understanding of the qualities and characteristics a true leader possesses.  I can now recognize various styles of leadership.  Some are good, and some are average while some are outright bad and leave me in amazement for one reason or the other.  However to be honest, I do not have the answer to what makes the quintessential leader, but through this program I am learning more and more.  I can say that I have a much better understanding of how I can be a more effective leader.

2.) If we take as a starting point the attitude to those in authority/leaders as held by your grandparents, and then look at those attitudes held by your parents, and then by you, and then by the younger generation, is there a changing trend? If so, what is it?  I would have to say yes.  How society views leadership has changed with each generation.  We now live in a work society where there are four main generations and they all have different viewpoints; Matures (Born before 1945), Baby Boomers (1945-1964), Gen Xers (1964-1980), and Millennials (After 1980).  And all these groups view leadership differently.  Matures recognize leadership with seniority often gained through hard work and determination.  Baby Boomers view leadership through individuals who influenced their generation, i.e., MLK, Nelson Mandela or John F. Kennedy.  They seem to want to stand for something. Generation Xers view leadership through people they know, people who have proven themselves to them such as parents, grandparents, teachers, past bosses, and coaches. Last but not least is the Millennial group, this group has not yet identified what leadership is to them.  .

3.) Why do you think that this has occurred?  The world is changing as we speak.  We now have individuals who want to be individual thinkers that are influenced by someone else.  They are willing to go against the institutional rules and policies of the past.  To them, employee happiness is more important than profit margins.  There are many reasons why we now have a shift in how society views leadership; expansion of educational opportunities, technological advancements, less formality in some workplaces, and the power and influence of social media.  What worked in the past for leaders may now not have the same effect on today’s society.  American scholars, organizational consultants, and authors are widely regarded as pioneers of the contemporary field of leadership studies.  Warren Bennis probably, summed up a definition that encompasses every leadership perspective in our society, “Leadership is the capacity to translate vision into reality.”  With that, we must understand that reality will always change and must so the vision to fit it. 

4.) Additionally, while we live in a world with more information about leadership and leadership practices why is it that we have an apparent gap in the quality of our leaders and how do you think we can close this gap? My opinion on this question is based on the definition of the term, leadership.  There are so many definitions of the terms of leadership that I think we have lost the concept of what it means to be a leader or what it means to be in a leadership position.  Being a leader in today’s business world does not have the same job satisfaction that it had 50 years ago.  Society doesn’t invest in its leaders like it once did and there is now a gap or disconnect between the past and the present.  In the book Complex Adaptive Leadership, author Nick Obolensky (2010), states that "only those leaders who understand polyarchy will survive".  To me, this means that society must now outline the complexities of leadership in an effort to define the gap between the old and the new leadership styles.  Leadership is not about making a difference in the organization’s culture; it’s now about profit, profit, and more profit.  It does not matter how the organization achieves its profits so long as it reaches its goal.  That’s how a leader is now defined.  Furthermore, leaders in today’s organizations have forgotten the importance of vision communication.  They have to communicate with their subordinates as workers and as people. In order to close the gap, they must convey their organizational visions in a manner that encompasses the benefits for the company and its employees in a manner that is understood by all.

 

A630.9.4.RB - Hiring and Recruiting

Does Schmidt's description of the Google Culture make sense to you?  Mr. Eric Schmidt’s discussion on the culture of Google was very enlightening.  Although, I would agree that Schmidt's description does make sense to me I have a hard time picturing it in full application.  Eric admitted that Google is virtually a self-managed company because of their unique hiring practices.  The Hiring and Recruiting presentation by Eric Schmidt was a model that I think many companies could copy.  I appreciate that Mr. Schmidt and Google seek driven, self-motivated employees, which if correctly empowered, can manage themselves and produce.  From a personal perspective, I wish more companies, including the government, would actively discriminate (not by race, sex, religion, etc…) but by personal values, drive, motivation, competence, by our internal values that would make employees an asset and not a liability and not by whom you know.  I guess Mr. Schmidt is correct in the fact that Google employees are not really managed because they are very self-motivated and invested in their role at Google.

Is this a reasonable way to view the work that most people are doing in your workplace?  No I don’t think so.  This may be what everyone would like to see in the way a company should work, but to be honest it is not reality.  Sure, work gives us money as well as other things as Mr. Eric Schmidt mentioned.  I often hear people say I don’t work for the money; I work because I love my job.  However, ask them to take a pay cut or even work for free for a day and they will not be very happy.  It is unreasonable to compare Google to the federal government; it is like comparing apples to oranges.  There is a similarity between both entities in the fact that both organizations want people who are competent and empowered.  The main degree of separation is that Google practices what they preach while the government’s hiring practices are based on whom you know and whom you are related too.  Google prides itself on hiring talent and letting these people take on their own direction, with management taking the sideline.  The federal government, on the other hand, is very rigid and does not allow the creative freedom that Google does. 

As a leader, does it take courage to have and to implement this point of view?  I do not think that to implement a culture such as Google’s takes courage as a leader.  It’s not about courage, it’s about organizational culture.  Now, the leader may need courage to try to instill such organizational change because there is going to be resistance.  In this course, we have studied numerous cases in which a leader wanted to instill change but ran into numerous obstacles.  I think any business leader knows that it is the people of the organization that make it succeed or fail, not the name on the sign; however, they also know the most unpredictable aspect of any business is the people.  That being said, Eric Schmidt’s business approach on hiring may not fit all companies.  Finding the balance of people skills and personalities is critical to the culture envisioned for the organization, but having the right skill set and attitude may carry more emphasis.

Could this approach backfire?  Nothing is 100% guaranteed in today’s business environment and as I stated earlier the employee is the most unpredictable aspect of any business culture.  We all want to hire the right types of people, but it is not as easy as it seems.  Even Eric Schmidt admitted that sometimes the person may not have the right personality or even be the picture-perfect team player, but they may have an exotic skill set that is needed.  So I would say yes, it is possible for even the best-laid plans to backfire; but Google has been very successful with what they are doing for a long time.  I think one of the keys to the success of Google is their willingness to adapt to an ever changing environment.  Another aspect that may have been downplayed is the importance of middle management’s role in the hiring process.  If the managers involved in the recruitment process are not hiring individuals that match the values of the organization and these same managers are not being held to the Google standard, then failure is a high possibility.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career? I cannot really say that I learned any new information from this exercise.  However, Mr. Schmidt did give me a new perspective on how to view some things when it comes to the hiring process.  He reinforced to me that not every organization will hire and retain the same types of employees.  Google has had success with their hiring processes and I as well as other organizations can learn from them when it comes to hiring, leading, and retaining employees. 

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.  After learning about Googles hiring process, I would love to have a case study where they compared Google to other giants in the technology industry such as Yahoo, Amazon and even EBay.  The case study was very good, but it is also creating a rather glamorized picture of the company itself and the information it shares.  Surely, Goggle has had some tough times.  How many top executives have they lost in the last 10 years and what is their history of retention like with the various levels of the organization  No company can get it right every time.  Has Google ever hired someone and later found they could not handle all that creative freedom and lack of structure in the work environment?

 

 

A630.8.4.RB - Build a Tower, Build a Team

Do you agree with Tom Wujec's analysis of why kindergarteners perform better on the Spaghetti Challenge than MBA students?  After reviewing the video of Tom Wujec's analysis, I do agree that the analysis of why kindergarteners perform better than MBA students on the spaghetti challenge is accurate.  As adults, we make things more complicated than they need to be; we ask the question why instead of doing the task and we look to find some self-glorification when the task is done.  All of this takes away from the task objective itself.  All of these principles apply to the average MBA student because we are taught to be competitive, more direct, and more opinionated than an average child.  Even in the MSLD program, the first class and those that follow deal with critical thinking, which is ironic for this assignment because nowhere in critical thing does it say make it as simple as possible. 

Can you think of any other reasons why kids might perform better?  As leaders and managers, we are often told to think outside the box, but rarely do we practice it for various reasons: fear of failure, fear of rocking the boat, or fear of going against the norm.  Without a doubt, there are many more reasons, but these are just a few.  In general, young children do a very good job of thinking outside of the box, along with using their imagination and creativity. Initially, they are not concerned with failing and taking chances (such as the Marshmallow Challenge) or even going against the norm (because to them there is no norm).  As adults we look for options and different ways to do things until we find that one correct way to complete a task; however, kids are not trained to find that single right plan, they love trial and error.   While adults are losing time thinking about theory, kids are busy learning from application.  The last reason I think kids perform better is they have smaller egos.  Yes, they compete but not the point of causing stress upon themselves.  These factors allow kindergarteners to perform better because there are few things that interfere with their collaboration skills.  They love to share ideas and working together as a team while at the same time they are having fun.

In your view, why do CEOs with an executive assistant perform better than a group of CEOs alone?  I don’t find it strange that that CEO’s struggle without an executive assistant. There is a reason why many executive assistants are considered to be the right hand of the CEO.  It is these individuals who are time oriented.  They also have an in-depth understanding of the collaboration process; maintaining schedules, timelines, meeting and various office functions for the organization to function from an upper management perspective.  They are usually the ones that do all of the work.  If you could be a fly on the wall when the CEO’s were presented this challenge, I would think you would see individuals that came up with different plans that worked in theory, but failed in the building and time management phases of the challenge until the assistant was added to the team.  Basically the lower ranking person was the person who filled the role of maintenance functions for the team; ironic isn’t it.

 

If you were asked to facilitate a process intervention workshop, how could you relate the video to process intervention skills?  First and foremost, a person has to understand the role of a facilitator.  A facilitator helps groups to organize and structure their decision-making process, while remaining impartial and neutral in the process.  The facilitator helps ensure that all voices are heard and all ideas are considered, that meetings are productive and constructive, issues are clarified, and provide control of the group process, not the content.  A facilitator would remind the group to look at how the kindergarten children kept this simple and did not over complicate the Marshmallow Challenge.  My advice would be this; start with the goal…look at the tools you have, make sure everyone on the team has a voice, and utilize everyone’s individual level of expertise and strength.  Additionally, I would remind participants how this challenge will help everyone understand how to work together as a team not as a group of individuals.

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?  These exercises remind me that I must keep myself grounded in simplicity when it comes to certain situations.  Remember KISS, no matter how it is used; "keep it short and simple" and "keep it simple and straightforward" or "keep it simple stupid" as if you were a child.  Processes perform best when they have simple designs rather than complex ones.  Time management is also vital to success; while the adults were looking for that perfect solution, the kids were learning through effort and practice.  The video provided lessons on the importance of trying many different options while maintaining openness to creative solutions.  The next thing is the importance of collaboration.  Too often, we get caught up in trying to prove how smart we are or how to display our leadership skills; often forgetting we are part of a team. 

Once you have reflected upon these questions, list any other questions or insights that have come to you as a result of this exercise.  I don’t think I have any other insight or questions; the answers I provided pretty much addressed all my concerns.  The problem is we live in an adult world where fun is not important only successful task completion.  The business world, as we know, is very competitive and we teach those who follow in our footprints the same principles.  We all wish we could go back to the days when we could work and think like kindergarten kids, but the sad reality is very few organizations operate in this manner. 

A630.7.4.RB - Mastering the Art of Corporate Reinvention

For this study, there are two Chief Executives Officers (CEO), who have to revive their perspective corporations; Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell and Gordon Bethune CEO of Continental Airlines.  The emphasis of the seminar with these corporate CEOs was to analyze their perspective of how they address things such as keeping the companies employees happy; which leads to better customer satisfaction.  Both CEOs have different personality styles, even though they are both quite successful.  Mr. Bonsignore has a very open philosophy of meeting with and working with employees; being accessible to them.  Even though Mr. Bonsignore tends to be a bit stricter in his methodology of managing employees, he stills sees the value of employee appreciation.  Mr. Bethune has somewhat of a different outlook on customers.

What barriers do you see based on what you observed in the video?  The main barriers I see will be changing the corporate culture because not everyone is open to change.  Considering the age of the video, both CEOs will have to deal with new technology and a new group of younger employees with different perspectives and expectations of the work environment.  From a managerial and leadership perspective, I think there will be challenges for both Bonsignore and Bethune.  What must be kept in perspective is how cultural acceptance changes with environmental changes.  Although Mr. Bethune seems very sincere when address his employees and organization; I got mixed signals from Bonsignore who is a lot stricter in his approaches to organizational change.  The video paints a picture that Bethune has successfully grasped technological strategies in theory and application, whereas Bonsignore does not seem to be concerned with such theories, his focus is on the bottom line.  He places more importance on profits.  The fact is the success of both company CEOs will be based on acceptance from the employees.  The last barrier I see in the future is an identity crisis facing the company now that they have merged.  They now have to devise a system that establishes goals, policies, and values that portray what they are now and not what they were in the past.  At the same time, the organizational change needs to articulate a clear vision/mission statement that everyone can understand, comprehend, and accept as they progress toward future success.

What critical success factors should Honeywell consider as it crafts its organizational strategies around a new culture?  Michael Bonsignore, CEO of Honeywell needs to consider a fully integrated approach to change management.  He must not overlook the fact that behavioral, structural, and technological (change) factors must be considered in relation to the new organization as he leads his team strategies in creating a new culture.  The biggest factors for success will be the human factor.  The communication of the vision is paramount to getting the organization in line as well.  If employees can see the same vision that Michael sees, then it is all the more likely to find success.  He also needs to understand employees will portray a different attitude when he is around compared to when he is not. He must not seem as if he is forcing a new culture upon his organization.  Last but not least, I would inform him to consider the impact of culture shock; trying to implement too much of a culture change at one time.   

What can you take away from this exercise to immediately use in your career?  This video showed several key factors to leadership and organizational change.  First and foremost, there is no one perfect style of leadership when it comes to addressing major change in an organization.  Both CEOs; Bethune and Bonsignore, admitted that they have made mistakes and the best thing to do is to own up to it, learn from it, and move forward.  Another lesson from this video is to continue to invest in human capital which is important to anyone in a leadership position. Bethune reemphasizes the importance of this by stating the often repeated statement of what differentiates leadership and management; leaders do the right thing and management do things right. Last but not least, I think the strongest factor to remember is organizational change is not an individual endeavor.  It takes positive leadership that seeks to retain the best elements from the individual companies to succeed.  Motivating employees toward success is an integral part of achieving organizational success now and in the future.  With all that being said, I will try to remember the importance of human capital within in my own organization as my fellow instructors and I implement new training technology and materials.