S. Harris Week 03 - Academic Article

“If employees are inspired, empowered, and free to act, they will stretch themselves to make exceptional efforts, demonstrate a high degree of commitment, and be willing to take risks. (Kets de Vries, 1998, 17).”

While working on our W.L. Gore and Associates (WLG) project this week, I’ve been fascinated by the entrepreneurial spirit and lattice structure that exists in their corporation. One of my group members mentioned that Richard Branson used a similar format and my mind wandered following that train of thought.  This current economy crash forces companies to make changes such as trimming their operating expenses – often by cutting employees leaving those remaining to pick up the difference in workload in addition to their regular job.  The rest of the workers feel taken advantage of, almost regretful, for being left with the pieces. There are a few companies out there who manage to stay ahead of the changes, partially because they welcome change.  They organize their companies in a different manner and encourage unlimited curiosity and new ideas, and empower their employees to take charge.

Employees at Gore experience empowerment, unlimited creativity, opportunities to forge their own path and control of their future.  This sounded like such a rare gem of a work environment, I was immediately curious to see if any other companies held even a close level of success to the company that invented Gore-Tex.  During my group conference call, a name came up that immediately peaked my interest – in fact I have his biography (unread) on my bookshelf.  The owner of the quote shared above, Richard Branson – the owner of the Virgin Group, and Percy Barnevik, the person behind the “world’s largest cross-border merger (Kets de Vries, 1998, 11).”

However, instead of reading a fluff piece biography, I yearned to see what similarities and difference could be drawn between W.L. Gore’s philosophies and these two charismatic gentlemen in “Charisma in Action: The Transformational Abilities Of Virgin’s Richard Branson and ABB’s Percy Barnevick” that appeared in the Winter, 1998 volume of Organizational Dynamics.

CARRYING ON GORE’S VISION

While not mentioned in the article as influences, one can’t help but notice the similarities between Gore’s company and the empires built by the two gentlemen. Considering the timing, with Gore leaving DuPont to start his own company in about 1969 (Townsend, 2000) and Richard Branson being kicked out of his school only to launch his companies in 1967, I wonder how much of this new philosophy illustrates the signs of the times – especially since they followed very different routes with their education.

FAMILY FIRST

Both Branson and Barnevick’s companies put the employees first, the consumers next and the shareholders last.  The companies they built also feel more family-like in size – despite being large companies with thousands of employees.  Both, like Gore, limit the number of employees at facilities – expanding into new buildings if they start to overflow their working space. 

OPEN COMMUNICATION

The fact that any employee is able to phone any employee, including the head-honcho, Branson, means that decisions are made quickly and efficiently than others who have to call meetings, talk to their supervisor, then move upward from there to budget meetings, marketing meetings and so on.

UNLIMITED POTENTIAL

While Barnevick did create a few levels of hierarchy for his companies – no more than five levels – Branson closely models the example of Gore with every employee having equal opportunity to present their ideas and develop them into products.  This unlimited creativity coupled with unleashed potential helps keep all of these companies constantly evolving and ahead of the trends.

BEYOND GORE’S VISION

As with any creative change expert, leave it to Branson and Barnevick to add their special touch to this lattice organizational structure.

SLAYING THE BEAST

Branson and Barnevick both put emphasis on constantly making the competitors very visible to employees in their companies. By identifying what brand specifically you are trying to beat I’m guessing it’s easier for Virgin to analyze what makes that brand so amazing then take it one step farther.  Also, ABB focuses on what your largest competitor is doing specifically, and then tries to beat them to the next punch to be the first to make the world a better place (Kets De Vries, 1998, 17).

SURPRISING THE CUSTOMER

Both men creatively take the consumer experience above and beyond providing unexpected treats and benefits for their consumers.  Virgin air includes in-flight spa services and ABB sells the global impact one can have by choosing their company (Kets De Vries, 1998, 18).

Considering the strength of the brands created by empowering the employees who then move forward through change faster and more confidently, I wonder why more companies aren’t adapting this structure at this time. I suppose that the change itself to keep up with change would be shocking to many.

Citations:

Kets De Vries, Manfred F. R. (1998, Winter) Charisma in Action: The Transformational

     Abilities Of Virgin’s Richard Branson And ABB’s Percy Barnevick. Organizational

     Dynamics, 7-21.

Townsend, D. R. & Harder, J. (2000). W.L. Gore & Associates [Case no. UVA-

     OB-0700]. Charlottesville: Darden Business Publishing.