My Favorite Maverick

I just finished reading Mavericks at Work, by Fast Company veterans William C. Taylor and Polly LaBarre. It is a great book, filled with stories and ideas, and somehow conveys the excitement of Fast Company when it was in its prime without the excessive breathless hype (of course, that wasn’t just at Fast Company, such hysteria was everywhere during the boom). They make fantastic use of mavericks from Howard Stern to HBO to Cirque du Soleil, and cover everything from strategy, to open source approaches to innovation, to managing people, to leadership. I love the book, and I guess my only complaint is that – as much as I believe that mavericks, deviants, rebels, revolutionaries, or whatever you want to call people who go against grain –- are essential to innovation, I think that Taylor and LaBarre should have talked a bit more about the risks and downsides of challenging the status quo.

It turns out that failure is the fate of most mavericks; for every success story that we hear about, there many more deviants or revolutionaries who have been shunned, fired, or ran their organizations into the ground. As James March, Stanford’s renowned organizational theorist, put it: “Most deviants end up on the scrap pile of failed mutations, not as heroes of organizational transformation.” And identifying which few mavericks are likely to win has proven to be difficult for researchers and investors –- after all, most new companies and products fail. Again, I turn to Jim March:

Unfortunately, the difference between visionary genius and delusional madness is much clearer in history books than in experience. … Only a tiny proportion of our heretics will ever be canonized, and we cannot identify the saints ahead of time.

Although being a maverick is risky, I agree with Taylor and LaBarre that they are essential to innovation. My favorite maverick – and yes, another success story – is Annette Kyle, the only case that I used in both The Knowing-Doing Gap and Weird Ideas That Work. Annette led a little revolution in early 1996 among the 55 employees at the Bayport Terminal in Seabrook, Texas  -- –- which was part of was part of the chemical group of Hoechst Celanese Corporation. The terminal loaded about three billion pounds of chemicals per year from rail cars onto trucks, barges, and ships. As I wrote in Weird Ideas:

When Kyle took over in 1994, she discovered most practices had not changed since it had opened in 1974, even though the volume handled had tripled. The operation was deeply inefficient as a result. For example, when a ship arrived to be loaded and had to wait because operators were running late, Celanese was charged waiting fees called “demurrage charges,” often $10,000 per hour. In 1994, the terminal paid about $2.5 million in these charges. It also took operators an average of three hours to load a truck, even though the industry average was under an hour. The terminal had a traditional structure where supervisors closely oversaw the operators who loaded the chemicals. The supervisors clung to old ways, even though it hampered the speed and quality of the work.

After devoting herself to learning about how the terminal worked –- not just talking to people, but putting overalls and working alongside her people as the did their jobs –- Kyle tried a series of small changes to improve the efficiency. All failed as people quickly reverted to her their old ways. So she planned and implemented a revolution in early 1996. As I wrote in Weird Ideas:

On the morning of January 3, 1996, the terminal was closed and all employees attended a meeting. Kyle announced and immediately implemented sweeping changes. Operators were now self-managing and worked without immediate bosses; supervisors were now “marine planners,” responsible for planning the flow of materials; and schedules, and information about how well goals were being met were displayed on a large board that everyone could check at any time. Kyle also brought in a coffin where she put various items to symbolize that the past was dead, like a “Ships Happen” sign from the supervisors’ office, which reflected the destructive old attitude that preparing in advance to load a ship wasn’t always possible.

The positive effects of Kyle’s revolution were evident almost immediately. Demurrage fees dropped from over $1,000,000 in the first half of 1995 to less than $10,000 in the first half of 1996. More than 90% of the trucks were loaded within an hour of their arrival. Supervisors and operators were shocked at first, but soon developed positive reactions to the new ways. An evaluation by independent researchers from the University of Southern  California indicated that employees were satisfied with and motivated by the changes.

As I said, predicting why one maverick succeeds and another fails is risky business. But there are some hints about why Annette succeeded in this case:

1. The people at the terminal were ready for change, they knew there were serious performance problems – people are more likely to change when they are dissatisfied with the status quo.

2. Annette didn’t just ride in on her white horse and start changing things, she spent a long time learning how the operation worked and gaining trust before she started changing things.

3.  Annette had “cover” from her immediate boss – senior management was not asked for prior approval, she just did it – so she didn’t ask for permission in advance and wasn’t burdened by corporate red tape.

4. The Bayport terminal was a long way from the main plant, so other people in the company who might have stopped or slowed the change didn’t know what was going on.  The closer you are to the “main” part of an organization, the harder it is to do something new or different.

5. Annette was willing to take a risk because she was planning on taking a leave and, as she told me, was willing to risk being fired as well – although she didn’t believe that would happen because she doing what was best for her people and the company.

It has been several years since I talked with Annette. The last time I did, she was focusing on raising her kids and working on making big changes in the science curriculum in their schools. She also told me that there were fears that the Bayport operation would be outsourced and all the people she worked with fired; I don’t know what happened, and if anyone does know, I would be curious to find out. Of course, one dramatic change isn’t enough to save an organization forever. But regardless of what happened since then, Annette is my favorite maverick because she had so much courage and skill, and loved her people and cared so deeply about making things better.

P.S. Check out the Mavericks blog.

Comments

[Bob Sutton]

Lilly,

Thanks so much. I will write Annette and see what she can add. I still think Annette is a hero, but alas, nothing lasts for ever.

[Lilly Evans]

Bob, I think you will find that Bayport facility does not exist any more. So, it would be interesting to hear what happened to Annette Kyle.

It would seem that two events, totally unrelated to the operation of the facility itself but pertinent devastating to its existence happened in early 2000s. First was the demerger of Celanese from Hoechts (now Aventis after a merger with rival) and later Celanese faith of refocusing plus being taken over by hedge fund (Blackstone). The other event has to do with Houston Port Authority expansion.

From enclosed document it would appear that old Bayport Terminal is a big development site.

BAYPORT CONTAINER & CRUISE TERMINAL
Brady; Texas Secretary of State Geoffrey Connor; Harris County ... improvements for Seabrook near the Bayport facility, including a fire station ...
www.portofhouston.com/pdf/factsheets/03.2005%20Bayport%20-%20Development%20Timeline.pdf