Organizational Confusion, Inefficiency and Struggle - Part 2 (2007)

So you might ask, what has changed since 2005. Here are some of the things that changed:

• I am still struggling to hold my world together, but for different reasons. I am in the process of a divorce, and those never make life simple.
• I am two months from graduation (MBA)
• I was so wrong about the premiere service offering -- it has helped my career, not harmed it
• I am the chairperson for a global committee at my company
• Our Cincinnati facility was outsourced and very few people remain
• I am now a manager, instead of a grunt
  
  
  

So what has not changed?

• Management still does not invest substantially in the development of its employees as a general rule
• Advancement still comes very slowly, and in my case, barely seems to be a crawl
• Because people are not able to move on and take on new challenges, inefficiencies still exist, resulting in sub-par performance and, in the case of Cincinnati, outsourcing of the functions in that office

So what new observations do I have?



My original post in 2005 was a disgruntled, semi-ignorant view of the world as I knew it. It was as much a gripe session as it was thought provoking. However, I think some observations hold true. First, I am true maverick when it comes to the work I do and manage, but I am not a maverick when it comes time to fight for my own cause (pay, title, advancement) with my management structure. At those times, I am a good little citizen who accepts whatever comes my way. This must change.



Managers most definitely like to maintain status quo -- it is easier, even if it is not the best route. This means they will, as a general rule, not promote unless they have to, not move people within the organization unless they have to, and will avoid change because of the cost associated with it, even if it is just the time cost of sitting down and investing. Status quo, by the way, is often the fastest way to sub-par performance and eventual IRIF/VRIF situations.



The stagnation and struggling of XGS, Inc. did not last several years. Two years later, XGS, Inc. is no more, and has been fairly well absorbed into the Xerox mothership. The reorganizations come approximately every 6-12 months still, though that is certainly a Xerox phenomenon anyway. Many inefficiencies remain, but they are often masked by reorganization and shifting of labor from one region to another. XGS, Inc. did do itself in, though some of us still remain. Xerox, however, is a stronger organization with the potential to really get things together if we can all attain global alignment.



What can I say at this point? Xerox, like many other large organizations (or frankly all large organizations), is not perfect, and has its challenges, strengths, and weaknesses. As a whole, I feel that Xerox is a very strong organization with the opportunity to be a real competitor. My division's weakness is the seeming unwillingness to cooperate and drive efficiency and process improvement, despite the fact that we are a Lean Six Sigma house. My challenge, then, is to become a voice for the change and improvement, and help drive it home. So far, I feel I have done an exceptional job at that. Now it is time for some formal recognition, which of course means I need to do it a few more times. How my future turns out is highly dependent upon my perspective today, my goals, my vision, and my ability to deliver. Pizza anyone?

powered by performancing firefox