The workplace, whether it be an office or industrial setting, is a microcosm of our society. We know that racism and discrimination based on gender, age, and religion exist in our society. The question is, how do we deal with these practices in the workplace?

Both management and leadership are essential to a successful organization. So, we decided to merge the two into what we call “The Golden Rule of Management,” a rule by which people are treated with faith, trust, and respect.

In our last blog post, we made the case for why optimism is so important in creating a healthy culture. In this post, we will make the case for a second underlying principle of a healthy culture: appreciation.

What optimism does is raise the human potential by unleashing human energy and organizational performance while treating workers with faith, trust, and respect.

There has been a major disconnect between management and labor in our country for over 80 years. That disconnect first became apparent at the end of the sit-down strike that took place at a General Motors plant in Flint, Michigan, in December 1936.

The layoff of workers from their jobs has been a common practice since the early days of industry in the United States.  It is one of the strategies used by employers who want to cut expenses when their company’s revenues are threatened. 

Job security is one of the most sought-after benefits that job seekers search for. There are many definitions of job security, but a reasonable one that we propose is the assurance that if an individual meets the performance standards set by management, he or she will keep his or her job without the risk of becoming unemployed.

Employee engagement has become a major initiative in organizations attempting to improve their performance. It makes sense: Engaged employees are committed and more likely to volunteer their energy toward organizational goals. How to create this energy is not as clear. We believe the key to engagement is to create a culture that will unleash energy toward organizational goals and improved performance. 

This blog, is authored by Dr. Gustavo Grodnitzky, a leading proponent of culture as the key to organizational effectiveness.  It was recently published on his website, www.drgustavo.com.   In it, Dr. Gustavo reinforces the message presented in our book, Unleashing Human Energy through Culture Change.   We couldn’t agree more. 

Leading a culture change is a courageous undertaking.  It is fraught with challenges and resistance by those who believe they will lose something they value.  In this blog, we will summarize some of the essential initiatives and obstacles a change agent faces in creating culture change.

There are two major conditions necessary to create an organizational culture change: first, there must be a compelling reason to change and, second, there needs to be a leader who will engage organizational members in change.  In their recent book, Unleashing Human Energy through Culture Change Don Rust and Alan Weinstein tell the story of how a major manufacturing plant of General Motors, two weeks from closure, not only changed its culture but set a world record in production. 

Human energy is not easily measured.   Even within the discipline of industrial engineering, we do not currently have any valid way to measure it in units.  Yet, it can be inferred that once released, human energy can make something happen.  We all possess a certain amount of energy that can be called upon when we have a task to perform, and, depending on the magnitude of the task, we can probably complete it and then go on to another task.  Whether we are willing to limit our energy output or expend it beyond what is normally called for is an open question that every organization must deal with.  Clearly, whichever of these paths is taken will make a difference in productivity and performance.

Our story begins with one of the most powerful and successful companies in the world self-destructing and ultimately declaring bankruptcy. The seeds of destruction were apparent even during its most successful years, when it reported strong sales and financial results. In 1965, General Motors owned 60 percent of the U.S. automobile market and was making inroads into markets in other countries. The company’s biggest fear at the time was that the government would file an antitrust suit against it and divide it into smaller units. Those fears were short-lived, as market share plummeted, and a long, gradual decline of the company ensued. GM’s most recent market share in the U.S. is under 20 percent.