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.
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.
Posted by: Bob Sutton | November 28, 2006 at 12:02 PM
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
Posted by: Lilly Evans | November 28, 2006 at 10:57 AM