Johnsonville Foods: An Organizational Case Analysis
I chose Johnsonville Foods for this analysis because I use their products. I thought it would be interesting to learn more about the organization and look at it as an actual profit-earning organization instead of simply a company that makes the bratwurst that are a common staple at family cookouts.
Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers
The model used by the members of the Johnsonville Foods organization seems to have been taken right out of Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers’ (1999) book A Simpler Way. Their book stresses the importance of human connection and relationships and it is clear that the members of Johnsonville Foods placed high value on these as well. Ralph Stayer’s idea to essentially take the company out of the hands of the higher ups and put it into the hands of the workers seemed to be the overarching idea that caused so much success for the company and was a move that increased the cohesiveness of the company as a team. Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1999) believe “who we become together will always be different than who we were alone. Our range of creative expression increases as we join with others. New relationships create new capacities” (p. 18). I believe another reason why the company was doing so poorly before the new changes were implemented was because they did not feel connected to the company or each other. Once they were forced to make human connections by working together to solve problems, their outlook changed and so did the work they were producing. Stayer’s idea was also rooted in communication and the sharing of information, which is also a big part of Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers’ (1999) philosophy. As part of connecting on a human level and getting the most out of an organization (and out of life) individuals must constantly communicate with each other and share resources. We need to work with each other instead of against each other. An organization cannot run effectively if all of the information lies with top management and does not make its way down to the workers that in most cases would benefit most from having the information. For example, the president of a company learns that it has exceeded the record number of sales in the company’s history. He immediately feels proud of himself and the work the company is doing. At the same time a line worker is becoming increasingly frustrated with her work situation, more specifically she and other workers are not getting recognition for their efforts. As a result, the line worker decides to rally other workers to walk out. This situation could have been avoided if the president would have taken the time to walk the floor and let the workers know of the accomplishment as well as congratulate them. Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers (1999) put it beautifully when they said, “… in healthy human systems people support one another with information and nurture one another with trust. Our wonderful abilities to self-organize are encouraged by openness. With access to our system, we like all life, can anticipate what is required of us, connect with those we need, and respond intelligently” (p. 39). This same principle can be applied to organizations when looking at the importance of sharing information, human connection, and team building.
Senge
I do not think there could have been a better example to illustrate Senge’s (2006) idea of a learning organization than the case of Johnsonville Foods. According to Senge (2006), “organizations learn only through individuals who learn. Individual learning does not guarantee organizational learning. But without it no organizational learning occurs” (p. 130). Personal mastery is necessary for an organization to become a successful learning organization. Personal mastery involves competence, skills, spiritual growth, and approaching situations with creativity to accomplish goals (Senge, 2006). I would say that the members of the Johnsonville Foods organization reached personal mastery. The members were very skilled at their jobs and were always looking for the answer to the next question. They were able to find good and effective solutions to problems such as hiring and training new employees.
This case is also a good example of Senge’s (2006) idea of shared vision. Shared vision is important because it provides the fuel needed for learning. Unlike most visions that are one person’s or one group’s, Johnsonville Foods’ vision was one that Senge (2006) says is ideal, which is a vision “that many people are totally committed to” (p. 192). There is no doubt that all of the members of Johnsonville Foods shared the same vision and were committed to upholding it. The energy they put into learning about all aspects of the company and being involved in almost every department showed that they wanted more for the company and themselves and that the company’s vision was meaningful to them. From the case example it seemed that every single person in the company cared about it genuinely and wanted it to be successful. From my experience in a fairly large company, I find it difficult to believe that everyone shared the company’s vision. However, I have never worked in a company where the opinion of people other than top management was valued. I think I would take more stock in a company if I actually felt like I was important. Stayer made sure everyone felt and knew that they were a part of the system and without their effort the company would not be successful. Getting all of the members together, sharing resources to complete tasks, and the constant exchange of information among the members to solve problems are all examples of team learning that Senge also says is essential in building a learning organization. A word that could be used in place of team learning is teamwork. If everyone in an organization is working together as a team, which includes learning as a team and providing support for each other instead of only looking out for the individual, positive things will happen within the organization.
Finally, in keeping with Senge’s (2006) theory about building a successful learning organization, he believes that mental models must be managed properly and Johnsonville Foods did just that. It started with Stayer having an idea that to change how the workers were performing, he had to change how they felt about their responsibility level regarding their performance. Because he was operating under this mental model, Stayer knew that change had to involve a way to get the workers to take responsibility for their work performance. To his credit and the company’s benefit, he was not working under a faulty mental model. If he had believed that no matter what he did his employees would never take responsibility, then he would never have given them additional responsibilities and would not have achieved the positive results that he did.
Bridges/Conner
I debated on whether to included Bridges’ (2003) theory in this paper, but then I decided it was inevitable. While the case example does not provide much information regarding the transition, it is obvious that a change was made. Johnsonville Foods became a successful company whose return on assets doubled in less than 10 years despite its previous suffering. Bridges’ (2003) theory of change involves three stages: ending/losing/letting go, the neutral zone, and the new beginning. While there was definitely a transition that took place, I do not think it played out in this case exactly as Bridges outlines it. To start, I think that Stayer and the other members of the team were all too happy to let go of the old ways. The old way of doing things was not working and everyone was unhappy. It is clear to me that a worker who would drive a forklift through a newly built wall or who would spray the sausage product with cleaning solution, is dealing with some dissatisfaction at work. Bridges (2003) suggests, “ending occurs more easily if people take a bit of the past with them” (p. 35). While I think this is important and could be a problem in some organizations, especially if the change involves people who helped build the organization, I do not think it is relevant in this case. I do believe members of this organization should hold on to the way things were in the past, but only as a reminder of where they do not want to be again. I think it could be used as a motivational source. For example, now that they have more stake in the company and their voices are being heard, they want to continue to do a good job and prove to management that they can do what is asked of them and not return to the old habits that were hurting the company. I think the methods that Stayer used to let go of the old ways were satisfactory, such as starting small by giving them new responsibilities that were not overwhelming and having meetings to increase the flow of information. I believe that if the workers were not so unhappy with the old ways, the transition may have been more difficult and he may have had to be more aggressive with his methods.
I could not tell from the case example if there was an actual neutral zone in this transition. It seemed to me that the company was continually moving forward to reach the ultimate vision of unity and team performance. It almost seems that the changes happened just as suddenly as the organization decided changes needed to be made. I do not know if this is the case or not, but if so then it appears that Stayer was doing a very effective job of motivating the members to implement all of the necessary changes. The members of this team seemed to be very organized, motivated, driven, and creative. Stayer started the process by getting them more involved with the product by tasting it and checking it for color and texture. From there the members continually had forward momentum and the upper management had the patience, understanding, and desire to listen to the members who had further ideas on changes that needed to be made. It has been my experience that members of organizations do not suggest changes, but those in management do. When that is turned around, such as in this case, team members become more motivated and the organization starts to build success. Conner’s (1992) theory of necessary roles for change could be applied here as well. The members of the team were the agents who were “responsible for making the change” and whose “success depends on the ability to diagnose potential problems, develop a plan to deal with these issues, and execute the change effectively” (Conner, 1992, p. 106). The members were also the targets, those who are the focus of the change. Conner (1992) says, “to increase the likelihood of success, they must be educated to understand the changes they are expected to accommodate, and they must be involved appropriately in the implementation process” (p. 106-107). The members of Johnsonville Foods were definitely well educated and involved in the change process as they also acted as agents. With the members essentially being agents and targets, miscommunication, power struggles, and other situations that occur in the traditional structure of the sponsor, agent, target relationship were minimized. The company also no longer needed the amount of management they had previously. Stayer was clearly the sponsor in this organization because he had “the power to sanction or legitimize change” (Conner, 1992, p. 106). The members produced good ideas about changes that needed to be made, but they could not be implemented without Stayer as their sponsor.
It is amazing what a good idea and good people on your team can produce. Stayer had a wonderful idea and executed it flawlessly, but if the workers had met it with opposition, the transition would not have gone so smoothly. The theories I have provided in this analysis are all good ones. At times they do overlap and that serves to strengthen the reliability of some of the ideas, such as increasing communication in organizations and building a strong team. Although there is some overlap, I do not think the theories should be used alone. I think if a person in a leadership position wants to make a change, they should be well read in the theories of Bridges, Senge, Wheatley and Kellner-Rogers, and others who have made it their life’s work to shed some light on the complexity of change, systems, and leadership. Only relying on one theorist in a time of change would be similar to a surgeon performing surgery having read only one medical journal or taken one class. I think good leaders, however, would have no problem with learning more about change and what can and will happen when trying to make changes if they are not properly thought through. Overall, Stayer and Johnsonville Foods provide an excellent example of how possessing knowledge in the area of systems, leadership, and change can make for a very successful organization.
References
Bridges, W. (2003). Managing transitions: Making the most of change (2nd ed.).
