Best Practives in Leadership Development & Organization Change 30

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A good source for background information is The Balancing Act: Mastering the Com-
peting Demands of Leadership by K. Patterson, J. Grenny, R. McMillan, and A.
Switzler (Cincinnati, Ohio: Thompson Executive Press, 1996). This book points out
that no matter how large or compelling the vision, change leaders need to focus on
specific behaviors as targets for change. The authors develop an understanding of
what supports existing behavior and what needs to change for new behavior to
replace it. The book includes a chapter on how to gain leverage through social
influence by working with opinion leaders.
Also see Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes are High (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2002) by the same authors. This book describes the pivotal role that
certain common but challenging conversations play in accelerating or impeding
change—and the skills for succeeding at them. The book outlines the principles
referred to in this chapter that were taught by leaders at Lockheed Martin.
Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations (New York: Free Press, 1983) is a seminal
work on leading change and the foundation for the opinion leader intervention
described in this chapter. Rogers describes the challenges faced in the diffusion of
any new idea, whether a new behavior or new medicine, and outlines best prac-
tices from ongoing meta-research into the hundreds of available studies of change.
In The Leadership Engine: How Winning Companies Build Leaders at Every Level
(New York: Harper Trade, 1997), Eli Cohen and Noel Tichy conclude that winning
companies have leaders who “nurture the development of other leaders at all levels
of the organization.” They explain that top leaders must develop a teachable point of
view on business ideas and values, and they must have a personal vision that can be
codified, embodied as a story, and communicated throughout the organization. In
short, they argue that leaders are teachers, regardless of their level or role.
The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference (New York: Little
Brown and Company, 2000), by Malcolm Gladwell, describes various roles played by
informal influencers. Gladwell describes Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen—three
kinds of informal leaders—and their pivotal role in the rapid diffusion of new ideas.
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS

Joseph Grenny is a founding partner in VitalSmarts, Inc., a management con-
sulting and training company located in Orem, Utah. Prior to starting his own
company, he spent six years as an executive with the Covey Leadership Center.
In over fifteen years of organization development consulting, he has worked
with senior leaders in Fortune 100 and government organizations to bring
about clear and measurable culture change. He has authored or co-authored
numerous articles in the areas of personal and organizational effectiveness, and
co-authored The Balancing Act: Mastering the Competing Demands of
Leadership and Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High.
260
BEST PRACTICES IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATION CHANGE
cart_14399_ch10.qxd 10/19/04 12:25 PM Page 260
The latter book is currently on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal
best-seller lists. He has designed and delivered major culture-change initiatives
for AT&T, Coregis Insurance, IBM, the State of California, and Lockheed Martin,
among others. Contact: Joseph
@
VitalSmarts.com.
Lawrence Peters is professor of management at the Neeley School of Business
at Texas Christian University and president of Leadership Solutions. He has pub-
lished over fifty articles in leading journals and books, has written two case-
books, and is senior editor of the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Human Resource
Management. He has been the recipient of college and university teaching
awards, and specializes in the area of leadership. He currently teaches leader-
ship courses at the undergraduate, M.B.A., and Executive M.B.A. levels. He
consults with private and public organizations in a variety of areas associated
with change efforts. In the past three years, he has consulted with Bell
Helicopter, Chubb Insurance, Ford Motor Company, The Hartford Insurance
Company, Lockheed Martin, Sprint PCS, and Verizon Communications. Contact:
L.Peters

@
TCU.edu.
M. Quinn Price is a senior manager in the Organizational Effectiveness Group
at AT&T Wireless. His expertise includes leading cultural transformations,
designing responsive organizations, and managing large-scale change. His
clients have included Microsoft, Safeway, S.C. Johnson, and Lockheed Martin,
among others. His work has been featured in the International HR Journal and
HR Magazine. Contact: quinn.price
@
attws.com.
Karie Willyerd is the chief talent officer for Solectron Corporation, an elec-
tronics manufacturing services company. She previously worked at both
H. J. Heinz and Lockheed Martin, where she was director of People and Orga-
nization Development. Currently she is on the board of the International Athena
Foundation and is a former board member of ASTD. She holds a master’s degree
in industrial and performance technology from Boise State University and
bachelor’s degrees in English and journalism from Texas Christian University.
She is a 2003 candidate for an Executive Doctorate in Management from Case
Western Reserve University. Contact: KarieWillyerd
@
ca.slr.com.
Change Champions—Collectively, this group has served as internal and exter-
nal consultants to a number of major corporations, government agencies, and
nonprofit organizations that were attempting to make significant changes (see
individual bios). These client companies have helped us better understand the
change levers reported in this chapter—some by not embracing them, others
by actively doing so. The difference was dramatic and helped shape our think-
ing. We are thankful to clients with whom we have worked and know our
understanding reflects what we learned together about creating successful
transformations.

LOCKHEED MARTIN
261
cart_14399_ch10.qxd 10/19/04 12:25 PM Page 261
262
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Mattel
This case study describes Mattel’s Project Platypus—a dynamic change and
innovation process for bringing out human potential in an organization
through the synthesis of collaborative, action-, and results-oriented experiences,
resulting in new business opportunities and high-performance products.
OVERVIEW 263
INTRODUCTION 263
Postmodernism 264
Company as Living System 264
Figure 11.1: Platypus 265
THE INITIATIVE 265
The Living Stage 266
The Theater 266
PROJECT PLATYPUS: THE PROCESS 267
Scene 1: Immersion 267
Exhibit 11.1: Project Platypus: Organization of People, Ideas,
and Experiences 268
Exhibit 11.2: Elements of Story 269
Scene 2: Expression 269
Exhibit 11.3: Bonds and Membrane Form 270
Figure 11.2: Person, Obstacle, Want/Need 270
Scene 3: Alignment 271
Figure 11.3: Bonds Strengthen 272
Scene 4: Alignment 273
Figure 11.4: Realignment 273

Scene 5: Alignment 274
Figure 11.5: Impulses and Chaos 275
Scene 6: Evolution 276
Figure 11.6: Impulse and Coherence 276
Scene 7: Communication 278
Figure 11.7: Interaction with Exterior Systems 278
S
S
cart_14399_ch11.qxd 10/19/04 1:13 PM Page 262
MATTEL
263
RESULTS AND IMPACT 279
Figure 11.8: Comments from Platypi 280
ABOUT THE CONTRIBUTORS 280
OVERVIEW
This case study describes the unique approach used by the Girls Division at
Mattel to successfully reinvent how the world’s number one toy company inno-
vates. This is an originative prototype that demonstrates how companies can
leverage their human assets through new ways to collaborate.
The organization initiated a re-occurring product development process involv-
ing employees from all areas of the company, which is centered on the concept
of living systems within a theatrical model. It promotes collaboration, self-
organization, self-generation, and self-correction. The division has established a
ground-breaking methodology that capitalizes on human potential, creating new
brand opportunities for growth.
The lessons learned by Mattel, Girls Division are important for any company or
community seeking new ways to ensure a healthy, sustainable, and innovative
future.
INTRODUCTION
It’s the year 2001. Mattel, the world’s largest toy company, had survived its first

annual loss in more than a decade due to the 1999 acquisition of the Learning
Company. CEO Robert Eckert, formerly Kraft Foods president, had been in place
for a little over a year. During this time, the focus had been primarily on cost
cutting and supply chain improvement. Mattel had become an efficient machine.
It created over three thousand new toys annually between each of its three
divisions: Boys, Girls, and Fisher-Price.
Ivy Ross, senior vice president of design and development for the Girls Divi-
sion, had been at the company for about three and a half years. She had wit-
nessed and participated in many reengineering processes. Mattel already
dominated most of the traditional toy categories. It was clear that in order to
keep growing, Mattel needed to start looking for new opportunities. This meant
exploring emerging patterns in the marketplace or creating new ones.
Based on known realities of Mattel’s processes, Ross’s instinct told her that
a new process to innovation had to be developed. It was important that the new
process leverage all the human assets that Mattel had. As Margaret Wheatley
puts it, “If we want to succeed with knowledge management, we must attend
cart_14399_ch11.qxd 10/19/04 1:13 PM Page 263
264
BEST PRACTICES IN LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT AND ORGANIZATION CHANGE
to human needs and dynamics. . . . Knowledge [is not] the asset or capital. Peo-
ple are.” The key to innovation lies in creating a community where everyone
feels valued, with passion and trust at it’s core. The end result must be some-
thing greater than any one person could have created by themselves. The
process must be as innovative as the brands it would produce. It must mirror
society from both a cultural and humanistic point of view.
What follows is a description of the research that influenced the approach
and methodology that has become known as “Project Platypus.”
Postmodernism
Postmodernism is a term first used in architecture during the 1960s, when archi-
tects started to reject the unique architecture of modernism, expressing instead

a desire for the more classical forms of the past. They began incorporating
elements of the past forms onto modern designs. The result was somewhat of
a hybrid or collage approach that used several styles in one structure. This cre-
ated a certain playfulness of architecture, where there were no boundaries and
no rules, another trait of postmodernism. Art is seen as process performance,
where the artist shares identity with the audience, as opposed to art being made
in isolation and then validated by the audience. There is a movement toward
improvisation with an emphasis on what is emergent or what is being created at
the moment, not what is scripted. Postmodernism calls for an end to the dom-
inance of an overarching belief in scientific rationality, because it denies the
existence of any ultimate principle. Nothing can explain everything for all
groups, cultures, traditions, or race. Postmodernism focuses on the relative truth
for each person. Interpretation is everything; reality is merely our interpretation
of what the world means to us. There is a rejection of the autonomous individ-
ual with an emphasis upon the collective unconscious experience. There is a
merging of subject and object, self and other, and a loss of centralized control,
with more politics at the local level, due to a plurality of viewpoints.
Company as Living System
What is a living system? It is a body that has the capacity to self-organize, self-
generate, self-correct, and self-regulate. It cannot be controlled, only contained
or perturbed by sending impulses rather than instructions. A living system thrives
on feedback, and it is known to produce a spontaneous emergence of order at
critical points of instability. It seeks relationships and connections that lead to
more complex systems and relationships. It is alive and life enhancing.
There is no reason that we shouldn’t think of a company in the same way.
Most of the assets in a company are human beings. Unfortunately, an assembly-
line machine mentality has become etched into our corporate thinking. Social
sustainability theorist Fritjof Capra notes, “Seeing a company as a machine also
implies that it will eventually run down, unless it is periodically serviced and
cart_14399_ch11.qxd 10/19/04 1:13 PM Page 264