European Master Facility Management

Title assignment Name module/course code Name lecturer Name student Full-time / Part-time Greenwich student nr. Saxion student nr. Academic year Date : Brian M. Carney: Freedom in production : Management Principles : Drs. Wessel Ytsma CMC : Tran Nguyen Hai Ngan, Adrianna Wo, Bryan : Full-time : : : 2011 : 28/09/2011

Coursework is received on the understanding that it is the students own work and that it has not, in whole or part, been presented elsewhere for assessment. Where material has been used from other resources it has been properly acknowledged in accordance with the Universitys Regulation regarding Cheating and Plagiarism. Lecturers comment: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Grade Awarded: _____________

Freedom INC.
Critical review and analysis
Tran Nguyen Hai Ngan, Adrianna Wo, Bryan

ABSTRACT
In troubled economic times, Carney M. Brian offered a proven way for companies to boost productivity, profits, and growth. The secrets for a successful business paradigm are said to be based on a trusting, nonhierarchical and liberated environment. The key to this success includes: 1. Listening to employees instead of telling them what to do, 2. Treating them as equals and not limiting information through a trickle-down hierarchy, and 3. Encouraging a culture in which employees have commitments as opposed to jobs. Could the concept of Carney generate some magic performance? Our analysis indicated that although these companies may liberate their workers to fulfill their own individual potential, achieve better productivity and loyalty, the practical challenges are enormous. Further researches and evident are needed to consolidate Carneys approach.

I. Introduction In todays business environment, enterprise needs to act in a flexible way in order to meet economic challenges and ensure the long-term survival of the organization (Johnson et al., 2008). Therefore, to be successful in the challenging and rapid changing business environment; it is a need for any business in having the ability, not only to manage changes effectively, but also to create a working environment which can foster innovation and productivity. Many management theories and practices have been discussed accordingly. While many researchers believe topdown supervision, standardized regulations, and procedures are necessary to control and maintain quality of daily operation; Brian M. Carney argues that creating a working environment where employees are allowed and encouraged to work independently might lead to higher productivity, profit, and growth (Carney & Getz, 2009). However, operating without standardized procedure or supervision might lead to anarchy. As a result, it becomes a direct challenge for Facility Manager to harmonize the need of productivity and employee's satisfaction without compromising the company working policy and structure. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze the pros and cons of Carney's freedom concept that offer an alternative approach to facility management. II. Discussion 1. Background of the author: Brian M. Carney is a London-based member of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal and the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal Europe. In term of academic background, after majoring in Philosophy at Yale, Carney graduated in Master of Philosophy from Boston University. Before joining the Wall Street Journal in 2000, he worked at the Innovations in American Government program at Harvard University. In addition, he won the prestigious Gerald Loeb Award for Commentary in 2009 and the Bastiat Prize for Journalism with his researching on business and economic affairs in 2003 (Carney & Getz, 2009). 2. Carneys principals in freedom production: Carney believes that the more freedom allowance that people receive from their workplaces, the higher possibility of productivity and creativity they might contribute to their daily work lives. According to his opinion, rules and bureaucracy systems at any workplace might affect employees competencies, in which might produce stress and resulted in absenteeism and the loss in productivity accordingly (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.9). According to McKnight, the idea is simple that, if you put fences around people, you get sheep. Give peoples the room they need (ibid). Theoretically, while others believe that operating without close supervision and controlling might lead to anarchy and resulted in the loss of cost-control, Carney argued that the inflexibility of an organization which is built by standardized operational procedures, on the contrary, might constraints people from creativity and making constant decision and solution to increase performance and customers satisfaction. This in turn might cause unaccountable costs in relation to the loss of potential revenue, inefficiency in adapting to changes, and the missed business opportunities (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.57). Therefore, freeing a companys people to act not only can eliminate many hidden cost but also dramatically boost innovation and organizational growth (ibid, p.62). One of the great advantages of liberating company is that it allows employees to make constant and immediate decisions which can solve the problem by the time that it happens to satisfy customers needs without wasting time to question and wait for the solution from managers. Moreover, liberated employees are free not only to act, but also to question and suggest better and more efficient ways to improve their daily task performance (ibid, p.93). In addition, liberating working environment can lead to employees satisfaction in term of self-fulfillment and selfactualization, which in turn can increase employees loyalty and engagement. Indeed, employees loyalty can be considered as a competitive advantage as it will help to reduce employees turnover rate. Accordingly, time and cost for recruitment and training are reduced constantly (ibid, p.246). Moreover, employees who are treated equally and with respect and courtesy tend to treat both colleagues and clients well in return. Therefore, loyalty employees play a crucial role in delivering quality guest service and leading to repeat customers, growth, higher margins, and other factors of world-class performance (ibid, p.149). Notably, loyalty employees act as key factor in successfully sustaining a culture in term of more stable interpersonal relationships, institutional knowledge, and levels of expertise within the company (ibid, p,312). This loyalty is an even greater advantage for sustaining a liberating culture, as it tends to rely essentially on unwritten rules, on tradition, and on its keepers.

Therefore, in order to liberate employees from the bureaucratic working environment, Carney has proposed four main freedom principals in his book. Firstly, stop telling and start listening (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.12). Freedom in the workplace implies ordered liberty from the perspective of self-disciplined. According to his research, there are two types of company in term of management, which are how company and why company (ibid, p.33). While how company is operating with its hierarchy, bureaucracy, command-and-control policies, why company replaces the entire myriad how, with a single question of why people are doing that. Therefore, instead of instructing people on how to get their job done, liberated organization should allow people to use different approaches to accomplish their task as long as it meets the organizational objectives. Removing all the symbols and practices, which might prevent people from the feeling of being treated intrinsically, equal hence plays an important role in encouraging people sharing their ideas. Secondly, being openly and actively sharing company vision to all line employees so people will own it (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.33). In term of clearly understanding the company goals, having the feeling of being part of an organization and being treated equally, employees will not only be more active to perform their daily task but also enthusiastically contribute to the organization. This is a distinction between how and why cultures. In a how company, the governing principals aim to always consult the hierarchy while in a why company, it is replaced with inform and consult all persons potentially affected by your future decision (ibid, p.284) Thirdly, Carney suggests that instead of trying to motivate people, focusing on building an environment that allows people to grow, to be self-directed and self-motivated will be more effectively in respect of employees long-time commitment (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.285). According to Abraham Maslows hierarchy of needs, the highest level of motivation is self-actualization in which people are self-motivated when their personal fulfillment and growth are achieved (Maslow, 1970, appendix 1). Therefore, when people are provided a working environment that supports growth and self-direction, they self-motivate and create initiatives, leading to increased performance and productivity. In contrast, when the environment deprives people of their needs satisfaction, then motivation becomes externally controlled and people do only what they are rewarded or punished for, which resulted in only short-term performance benefits (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.163). Therefore, stay alert, his fourth freedom principal, by becoming the culture keeper in order to maintain freedom in the workplace is recommended (ibid, p.12). As organizational culture is highly influenced by top management, leaders and managers hence play a crucial role in continuously building and maintaining a corporate environment in which all the people are free to make decisions, while ensuring that they understand, own, and aim toward that vision through communication process (Robin, 2003, appendix 2). 3. Carneys principles influences on: a. Present-day thinking: The concept of liberating, motivating, and empowering employees has been revealed in different researchers papers including Mary P. Follett with the Behavioral Movement principals, and Frederick Herzberg with the Empowerment principals many years ago. These authors focus on the aspect of humanistic psychology and its influences on human performance on daily work lives. A top-down controlling system might prevent people in taking initiative, which is necessary for fostering innovation and growths. This might result in losing the company competitive advantages that are always crucial for business. Built from the same ground, Carney's principle has provided a new perspective on the importance of freedom to the success of an organization. As a branch of a major research stream, it is hard to distinguish Carney's direct influence on present-day thinking, especially in term of academic values. In fact, his researches evident through personal and professional experiences are not rigor enough for breaking the hardness of qualitative research requirement. However, it is certain that Carney did offer an alternative approach to people management. Notably, his "freedomform companies" are very beneficial to the collaboration between scholar and managers. In this research, presented by the co-author of Freedom Inc., Getz (2010) concluded the importance of freedom companies in liberating and transforming business leaders and scholars. As a result, the collaboration between scholars and business executives will facilitate the adoption of strategic organizational approaches.

b. Society Carneys research also takes environmental influences on employees mental health into account; rather than focusing solely on employees internal thoughts and desires. According to Carney, people normally respond to the environment in which they find themselves in, even though they cannot realize (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.10). Employees physical and mental stress causing by discouraging freedom working environment can be considered as evidence of the influences of humanistic psychology on healthcare, education, and work performance. Therefore, Carney presented critical relations between humanistic psychology and work performance that can help to propose a new management approach. It helps to remove some of the stigma attached to therapy and create a healthy working environment where each and every individual is able to explore his or her abilities. The influence of a book or research on the society is usually not a clear cut, so does the work of Carney. However, the straight feedbacks of those readers who spend time and money to read this book could provide some mosaic picture of his influences. Out of the fifteen readers review from Amazon, Barnes & Noble and Goodreads, ninety three percent of the feedbacks are positive or very positive (Appendix 3). The strong support and appraisal for his concept are critical, thus it is exactly what people are expecting for in their workplaces. c. Relationship to the work of facility manager According to the Facility Management Association of Australia (FMAA), facility management is the practice of integrating the management of people and the business process of an organization with the physical infrastructure to enhance corporate performance (Best, Langston, & Valence, 2003). Therefore, in order to build a corporate liberating working environment, facility manager should take responsibility in creating working conditions which enhance personal retreats, providing non-territorial work-station and facilitating information gathering (Smith, 2000, appendix 4). For instance, using open doors method to show trust to employees as well as encouraging communication and relationship among staff members except where privacy is truly necessary. Besides, in term of developing non-secrete working culture, constructing materials such as glass are necessary to take into consideration according to its transparency characteristic. In addition, by reducing the number of required private room for each employees or different department based on hierarchical approach might reflect on the inefficient in space management. Therefore, facility manager should instead consider in creating and providing more free space for group discussion, practicing shared resources such as storages and utility rooms, and open planning in order to encourage communication and free flow of information across the organization (Best, Langston, & Valence, 2003). The nature of Facility Management is the good leadership of a proper organization as the part of the knowledge domain. (Cots, Roper, Payant, 2010, p.3). It has been a matter of debate for centuries what actually forms a right leader. In general we usually label leader good or effective(Kotter,1990, p.5). Leadership within complex organization is in charge of adapting changes in company by establishing direction, aligning people as well as inspiring them (Ibidem,s.5). A big number of Facility Managers have the tendency to focus mainly on their role as a technical staff, however its essential to develop Facility Manager skills and knowledge as a real business leader. Major changes in work itself, as well as social and environmental dictates are influencing leadership as a new generation of managers and the workforce have differing attitudes toward work, the environment, and the workplace (MacKnight,2008, cited Kots, Roper, Payant,2010,p.66). According to B.Carney principals and simultaneously to changes in companies and transforming them from how to why companies the substantial conclusion turns upthe leader must be initiative and risk taking that is possible for a natural leader in freedom companies (Carney&Getz, 2009p.205). Company should be satisfied with respect, trust and proper way of the directing. There is always a danger in stating that a certain type of leader of a particular management style will be successful in a given environment or position. Because facility management is so diverse, the leader will never be knowledgeable in every aspect of FM.(Kots, Roper, Payant, s.64). For that reason liberated companies requires self-directing leaders, which act on their own initiative, seizing the opportunity and becoming natural leaders (Carney&Getz, 2009, p.208). In the ordinary business people who are the closest to a problem opportunity to solve it are in duty. Nonetheless if you provide employees with right conditions for growth and self-directing they would reveal their talents for natural leadership the same way the extraordinary ones (ibid. p. 208). It constitutes significant concern and a matter of innovations that should be posed in companies in order to gain sustainable environment with clear vision of leadership. In addition, facility manager should developing wide ranges of technological support services in order to simplify

the daily operational procedures and paper documentations to prevent bureaucracy. For instance, allowing all staff to have authorization to order stationeries directly with the facility department would help. Similarly, a drop-box should be available at the office of Facility Manager, so that all employees can drop their ideas or concerns quickly. Besides that, building a computer networks with less Internets filter could help to reinforce the freedom vision, which then will support the individual and the organization in pursuing their performance improvement (ibid). 4. Critical discussion of viewpoints: While Carney believes that providing liberating working environment where employees are free and empowered to be self-directed and self motivation can turn out as an competitive advantage in term of employees self-engagement to contribute effectively to company performance; others researcher do concerns that liberation at work place might lead to anarchy and the loss in cost-control. Furthermore, other criticism is that Carneys principle on the influences of humanistic psychology on work performance is difficult to test scientifically. His research on freedom in production was also based on a very limited sample of companies, including people he knew as well as case studies and interviews that he approached by himself. Regardless of these criticisms, Carneys freedom in production principals represents only part of a strategic management process which implemented without taking into account other management phases including the establishment of strategic intent, strategic planning and controlling process (Appendix 5, Kazmi, 2008, p.20). Indeed, the high percentages of companies which are operating under the how approach leads to the consideration of the effectiveness and feasibility of liberating management approach in practices. In fact, the conception of Carney towards freedom in production has opposed the scientific management principle of Frederick W. Taylor who defined a clear division of labor authorization between management and employees (1967). Taylor has emphasized the important role of manager's responsibility in getting involved in employees performances, supervising, improving work methods, and providing financial incentives to employees in order to ensure and increase productivity. Under the same assumption, Max Weber, the early-twentieth-century German founder of the "rational-legal authority" concept, claimed that organizational objectives and effective return on investment could only be achieved by a strictly bureaucratic organization with standardize procedures along with their precisely, continuously, and controllable characteristics (Swedberg & Agevall, 2005). In addition, Weber postulated that rules and regulations of a bureaucracy are mainly used to prevent or minimize the possibility of personal favoritism in employment, operation, and performance evaluation process (ibid). However, Carneys principals on freedom in production have shown the positive progress in recognizing and managing employees in aligning with the Theory X and Theory Y of Douglas McGregor (Appendix 6, 1960). According to McGregor employees classification, X represents to those employees who are not willing to work in which directing, close supervising and controlling are necessary. On the other hand, Y represents to those employees who have self-direction, motivation, and engagement in accomplishing organizational objectives without close supervision. Carney would prefer organizations to consider employees as Y or neo Y classification who will contribute more effectively; because they are not only being liberated in acting but also being placed at a appropriate position in which they feel interested in and confident in performing their jobs. Nevertheless, Carneys freedom principals do not take into consideration of the differences of national, professional, and organizational cultures. These cultural differences has been revealed in Hofstedes research on cultural diversity which include the difference of the power distance perceptions between employees and employers, the level of uncertainty avoidance, the difference of the cultural preference in individualism versus collectivism, and the difference in characteristics between females and males, etc. (Hofstede, 1984). According to this theory, applying freedom in production might face challenge when it comes to the issue of cultural diversity as people with different backgrounds, language, and culture might prefer to be treated differently. Moreover, creating a freedom working environment and liberating culture is the process which starts with the change in supervision habits of top management, the practices of shared vision, and the process of maintaining liberating culture through operation which all remain challenging in practices. Firstly, changing the top managers behavior from talking to listening and transforming managers how into why is a hard, often risky, and alwayslengthy process (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.147). In term of the need for self-esteem of human being, manager or leader normally resists activating the liberation campaign as they afraid of their position and status are threatened and their futures are made uncertain by the liberation campaign (Maslow, 1970).

Besides that, it remains challenging for the organization to activate the liberating campaign when its people do not share its vision. Vision is usually created and influenced by top leader but is seldom translated into meaningful shared visions (Robin, 2003). Indeed, building up a vision that all the members of the organization are willing to devote their deepest aspiration in achieving and understanding that vision itself remains the difficulty for the organization. Getting employees to share it and emotionally own it takes time and vision-reinforcing effort (Carney & Getz, 2009, p.90). Last but not least, freedom in production is mainly affected by working culture including all the information, insight, and actions that cannot be captured by rules that were laid down in advance. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain a freedom-based culture over the years in the face of turnover among leaders and employees. III. Conclusion Carneys principle in freedom production provides insight thoughts for any organization to take into consideration in facilitating its approach in increasing social and economic values. Freedom works because it embraces what Douglas McGregor called in 1957 the human side of enterprise as it engages and involves people more fully in all organizational activities in which leads to self-motivated employees. However, there is a gap between theories and practices. Indeed, creating a liberated working culture is costly and demands long term commitment of the organization and each individual employee.Therefore, to succeed in engaging people more fully in their works, a liberating leader must, first, eliminate negative organizational culture such as some employees are more favored than others by applying universal information principle, removing barriers in accessing organizational information, etc. Importantly, the practices of freedom in production should be widespread and activated by all employees. Building organizational culture hence is needed. As changing the company hierarchical culture requires the transformation of each and every employees behavior. Therefore, change has to start from the top. Liberating leaders play an important role in not only creating a freedom working culture but also in continuously providing employees with information relevant to the organizations strategic vision along with the means necessary for them facilitating their jobs in term of having sufficient knowledge. Notably, the process of building shared vision should be implemented continuously whereby the vision of both the organization and individual are taken into consideration. In short, Carneys principle cannot be considered as a unique formula in which can apply to any particular situations. Although creating liberating working environment might be one of the effective management approaches, which can help to reduce employees turnover, foster growth, and lead to higher productivity; its practices should be applied flexibly according to different countries with different organizational and professional cultures. Personal Statements 1. Tran Nguyen Hai Ngan Freedom in management is not a new concept but it is great renewal of managerial perspectives. Brians four freedom principles did indicate clear path on how to build up a liberating company. However, Brians freedom principals are hardly apply in reality as it is easily lead to anarchy without proper involvement and guidance of top managers. In term of management perspective, Brians freedom principles might contribute significantly to companies which its working culture is based on individual oriented but not the task or power oriented. 1. Freedom leads to be self-motivation and high job satisfaction which fosters to productivity accordingly. 2. 3. 4. Freedom in production is feasible, but the question on its sustainable operation may need more time and evidence. Facility manager, through different channels, can have big impact to the "freedom" level of organization in term of facilitys support services and interior design of a workplace. What to free and how much "free" remains the big challenge for Facility Manager in pursuing this management approach.

2. Adrianna Wo

Brian Carney book Freedom is not only easy to read and pleasant book, but also contains lots of rules, that should be implemented and knowledge, which might be valuable nowadays- in time of generation conflict existing and need of change in the approach to be really successful in management. The 4 rules created by Carney are based on theories and experience. The author provided the evidence of possibility to get the show on the road describing particular cases, what is considered also a concern of freedom in companies as the one, which has existed for a longer time. There is clear vision of liberated organization introduced considering the changes to be done as well. However it cant be treated as a general rule for each company. According to the fact, that it demands restructuring culture and adapting engaging leadership, abundance of problems could appear in case of decision of total change in the management and rules the people within specific environment are used to. Companies may facilitate and liberate their workers to fulfill their own individual potential and performance with better productivity and loyalty, however the practical side of it seem to be huge challenge and doesnt ensure being successful, especially if we keep in mind, that still bureaucracy and hierarchical top down model of management are in common use. The importance and value of the B. Carney work is undeniable as it brings new solutions to the problems existing all over the world. The content of the book might be a good advice in the way of creating company not only in the nowadays economic crisis situation, but in future generations. Significantly people must be aware of clear way and steps to achieve liberated company environment as well as of obstacles and signs, which could be the guidance of limitations indicating the areas in which its impossible. 1. Liberated companies builds freedom environment, which explicitly search for the ways to evoke employees carrying out for their own as well as for companys profit. 2. Leadership, who spreads his vision in company through all employees relatively at the same time, brings out the feeling of intrinsically equality. 3. Using tangible rewards as incentives creates only commitment of goal set achievement and simultaneously implemented punishments works out discentively. 4. Unwritten rules in the liberated companies may constitute constraints according to the fact, that each company has different organization and professional culture. 3. Bryan Positive 1. Brians guiding principles in creating liberating working organization are readable and easy to remember. 2. It is far beyond a traditional management or business book. The contents of this book blend lots theories about spiritual, business, and strategies. It draws a new sight to the field of psychology and the studies of human behavior. Negative 3. The authors of the book, Brian and Getz, are considered of lacking practical managerial experience as Brian majors in journalism while Getz is a professor which are specialize in theories only. 4. Brians principles focus on creating an environment that gives employees freedom in arranging their daily work. In order to do this, managers should respect all individual's needs which remain challenges in reality as it is hard to fulfill all human needs.

Referencing: Amazon (2011) Freedom Inc.: Free Your Employees and Let Them Lead Your Business to Higher Productivity,

Profits, and Growth [online]. Available from: http://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Inc-Employees-BusinessProductivity/dp/0307409384 [accessed 25 September 2011]. Barnes & Noble (2011) Freedom Inc.: Free Your Employees and Let Them Lead Your Business to Higher Productivity, Profits, and Growth [online]. Available from: http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Freedom-Inc/IsaacGetz/e/9780307409386 [accessed 25 September 2011]. Best, R., Langston, C. & de Valence, G. (2003) Workplace Strategies and Facilities Management: Building in Value. UK: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 24. Carney, B, M. & Getz, I. (2009) Freedom Inc. Free Your Employees and Let Them Lead Your Business to Higher Productivity, Profits, and Growth. United Sates: Crown Business. Cotts, D.G., Roper, K.O. &Payant, R.P. (2010) The Facility management Handbook, 3rd ed. New York: AMACOM Getz, I. (2010) 1960s Lessons Learned: Liberating Leadership and Transformational Scholarship. Journal of Management, August 3, 2010. USA: SAGE Goodreads, 2011. Freedom Inc.: Free Your Employees and Let Them Lead Your Business to Higher Productivity, Profits, and Growth [online]. Available from: http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6987108-freedom-inc [accessed 25 September 2011]. Hofstede, G. (1984) Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. 2nd ed. Beverly Hills CA: SAGE Publications. Johnson, G., Scholes, K. & Whittington, R. (2008) Exploring corporate strategy. 8th ed. UK: Pearson Education limited. Kazmi, A. (2008) Strategic management and business policy. 3rd ed. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill Education, p.20. Kotter J, P. (1990) A force for a change. How Leadership Differs From Management. New York: The Free Press. Maslow, A. (1970) Motivation and Personality. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row, p.46. McGregor, D. (1960) The Human Side of the Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Robbins, S. P (2003) Organizational Behaviour. 9th ed. UK: Prentice Hall. Smith, S. (2000) Reframing approaches to strategic facility planning. In: Proceedings of IdeaAction 2000. National Conference of the Facility Management Association of Australia. Swedberg, R. & Agevall, O. (2005) The Max Weber dictionary: key words and central concepts. California : Stanford University Press. Taylor, F. W. (1967) The Principles of Scientific Management. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

Appendixes: Appendix 1: Maslows hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970)

Appendix 2: How Organization Cultures Form (Robin, 2003, p.584)

Appendix 3: Readers feedbacks statistic (Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Goodreads, 2011) Rating | Site 1 Very Negative 2 3 4 5 Very Positive Amazon 0 0 0 0 5 Barnes&Noble 0 0 1 0 1 Goodreads 0 1 0 2 5

Appendix 4: Mapping organizational change to facilities design (Smith, 2000)

Appendix 5: Four Phases in Strategic Management Process, Kazmi, 2008, p.20

Appendix 6: McGregor Douglas's Theory X and Theory Y (McGregor, 1960)