Away from Money...

For the past many years I have been reading many articles how money seems to be waning as a motivator. I recently read an article as to why money does not get the required results and also why money will get important as you go up in the organisation.http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-09-09/news/30135782_1_rats-shock-bonuses/1However, I would tend to disagree with this tournament theory and the fact that money becomes important by default as nothing else is available.I have seen many seniors in whom there is a drive to influence, to change, to leave an impact, to leave a legacy. As you go higher up you are in positions where the cars, suits or houses no longer differentiate (relatively). Why do people talk about a Kamath or a Indra Nooyi. Do people discuss their houses or what they have achieved? More importantly did they do it because there was large amounts of money involved?I would hypothesise that there are inflection points for the various motivators in life...from growth to security to legacy. If the the inflection point of leaving a legacy does not occur then money does become important and stays important.This next article seems to support this point. The survey says "making progress in meaningful work" is what engages people.http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/opinion/sunday/do-happier-people-work-harder.html?_r=1And therefore choices we make as we grow in the organisations will reflect a lot on how engaged and motivated we are with the work...and more importantly how engaged we are with LIFE!

White Spaces and Industry Veterans

A few months back I was in the middle of a discussion with an industry veteran. He had spent 24 years in the same company –his first company. He made an interesting observation during our conversation- his observation has stayed with me.

He said, and I quote “There was a time when I found it difficult to keep myself motivated at work. I had donned most of the roles an employee in this company could don. I could not see new challenges for me in the horizon. It was through these struggles that I came with up a solution that has withstood the test of times. Every year, thenceforth, I venture out into the unknown. I take up something which I know would challenge me/I am not comfortable about. I usually would not have a clue on how to go about it at the beginning. But then I manage to find my way through. This ensures both that I stay engaged on the job and my team has enough space to work (I don’t overstep onto their feet).”

Industry veterans can be an asset or a liability depending on the situation or the way they approach their work. When they use institutional knowledge to thwart creativity and refuse to give up their old responsibilities/power, they are a liability. But when they consciously venture out into the unknown and use their institutional knowledge as a reserve pool (to be used for references) they can be assets -a positive driving force for change.

I had read somewhere about ‘White Spaces’ in the context of new projects. These are about going into previously unchartered landscapes. ‘White Spaces’ can be of two types: doing something completely different from what you are doing today; doing something which is an extension of what you are doing today. The essence of ‘White Spaces’ is that it is an ‘Unknown space’. You would not know what might emerge there. People who are high on learnability are probably more likely to succeed in these white spaces.

We usually talk of importance of a Learning organization. But I also see a subtle difference between an organization which decides to learn reactively (in response to the environment) or pro-actively (by venturing out into white spaces).

To pro-actively shape our destiny in the future, a question we need to ask ourselves, our teams, and our organization is ‘What are the white spaces we would want to work on this year?’. These white spaces need to be defined and worked on, every year, at all 3 units of performance – individual, teams, and organization.

-

Sourav

Inter-Dependent Groups and Conflict

So here I was in a group of about 45 people. It was the 1^st day of a workshop that was to span across 2 days. The seating arrangement was different. We were to sit on mattresses placed on the floor in U shaped arrangement. There strangely seemed to be no PPT.

Most of us knew each other but still there was this anxiety and excitement on what lay ahead. I was aware that there was this group of some 10 participants who had participated in a planning workshop before. I had heard, through informal networks, good reviews of the planning workshop. I, and the other first time participants, were curious to know what had transpired there.

The facilitators found a unique way of transferring context from one group to the other. They 1^st called in the “experienced” group to sit in a circle, within the U, and share their experiences of their experience of the first workshop and Appreciate Inquiry discussion they would have had with their subordinates (a planned post workshop event). The first time participants sat in the outside U and could comment/ pitch in anytime we felt like.

After those in the inner circle were done sharing their experiences, we were called in to the inner circle to share what we had felt while we had heard the 1^st group sharing their stories.

At the end of these 2 sharing sessions, all of us were on almost common ground.

At the start of the 1^st day, there were 2 specific groups in the room. There was a need to bring them to common ground. The facilitators acknowledged this need and found a creative, experiential way to bring the groups together.

What might have happened had this initial exercise not being done? The presence of the 2 groups within the same room might have been a White Elephant- something no one speaks about but is present and influences all interactions within the room.

What are the other situations where different groups need to be brought to common ground? I can think of inter-dependent departments (e.g.- production and maintenance, sales and commercial, research and marketing). Even mergers and acquisitions would come under this realm. What seems to go wrong in these situations? Why do we frequently see friction and heartburn in these integrations/inter-dependent relationships? What can be done about them?

I think the answer lies in ‘speed’ and ‘norms’ of the different teams.

Different teams have different ‘speeds/flows’ in which they work. A simple manifestation of this would be the turnaround time for any query which flows into the team-some teams may respond in 24 hours; others may take 48 hours. Another manifestation would be what is meant by a project timeline- an IT team might be used to working on year long projects while a sales team would talk in terms of quarters.

Different teams also have different ‘norms’ – these would be in terms of decision making, communication, rituals, etc. Sales might prefer things to be done over phone, while accounts might need everything written down and documented.

Many a times these differences in ‘speed’ and ‘norms’ are not acknowledged leading to continuous and, at times, caustic friction between inter-dependent teams. Acknowledging these differences and making the teams take conscious steps towards reaching common ground on ‘speed’ and ‘norms’ would be the first step in ensuring effective collaboration.

-

Sourav

Staying at the Top

An organization has done things right (in retrospect all successful organizations seem to have got things right) and succeeded beyond expectations. It is now widely recognized as a success story. What next?

The road to the top is exciting, but staying at the top seems a bit trickier. You don’t necessarily have someone to benchmarking against. An oft used strategy when an organization reaches the top is to ‘Defend its territory!’.

But does only territorial defense lead to success in the long run? What were the behaviors which enabled success in the first place? It was about exploration and gaining territory. Given that there were larger players around, survival required exploration and hence the company focused on it. But when you are the largest player around, not exploring doesn’t visibly threaten your existence in the near future. If you happen to be in an industry not characterized by sudden technological breakthroughs or obsolescence and customer preference changes the temptation to maintain status quo becomes higher.

How does a market leader attempt to maintain status quo?

It might try to ‘standardize’ everything which it thinks led to its success. The focus shifts to ‘reliability’ – everything must be predictable. How do you ensure reliability? Implement stringent systems/procedures. Page loads of process manuals are created and an army of audit processes are instituted.

What happens to the focus of management in such a scenario? Think of a situation where not much happening is in the external environment and consequently not many organizational changes are required within. In such situations, the focus of management exclusively shifts to figuring out errors/deviations and correcting them.

Hence you have a system where in search of reliability and predictability, systems replace people instead of supporting people in their work. Status quo is maintained and with not much harm because the winds of change are not there.

Let us delve deeper into what happens to peoples’ behavior in such cases. The system runs definite risks:

• Of ‘filtering in’ only particular kind of employee profiles during selection. One manifestation of this might be that the system would filter in people whose natural competence/preference lies in ‘defending’.
• Of ‘filtering out’ quickly anyone who doesn’t fit the bill. ‘He didn’t fit our culture’ is what is said in such cases.
• Of behaviors undergoing standardization. You might subsequently create clones who over a period of time get institutionalized and soon start glorifying their institutionalization. ‘If you are not like us, you are worth nothing’; ‘We are the best’! are oft heard statements in such cases.

There is a difference between a successful company and a company that exhibits success enabling behaviors.

Are the behaviors listed above representative of a company that exhibits success enabling behavior? At the least, the company (the market leader) would undergo a tumultuous phase when the winds of change arrive and its survival depends on doing something more than just defending/maintaining status quo!

What are the success enabling behaviors that a company can exhibit – behaviors that increase the odds of a company succeeding even under adverse external conditions?. That’s something I would delve into in a subsequent post.

-

Sourav

Group Size and Split the Bill Problem!

Are larger or smaller groups better to get work done? Research on groups and teams tells us that there is an optimum group size (150- Dunbar Number) beyond which groups/teams become dysfunctional. Hence the need to split groups into smaller operational units once the number of people in the group exceeds 150.

What seems to be the problem? What do we mean by dysfunctionality? What happens in a larger society as compared to a smaller neighborhood? Why is it difficult to get work done through groups?

The other day I was reading about Venkat Krishnan (an IIMA graduate) and his entrepreneurial venture – Give India. He made a few interesting observations:

• He had traveled across the USA and he had found that the middle class there had a high sense of ownership.
• He compared this to the lack of ownership of the Indian middle class. He mentioned what Gandhi had said in the early 20^th century – that the Indian middle class would be the instrument to freedom.

This set me thinking. Tim Harford talks of Split the Bill problem. When there are multiple people involved, but no one has a significantly high majority stake and no one has individual accountability - then everyone tries to maximize individual pleasure/benefit and not look at the total picture. The summation of individual benefits doesn’t lead to an optimum solution at the group level.

I remember a study of different organizational types that concluded privately held organizations, or those with majority stakeholders, seem to do better than listed organizations (without any majority stakeholders).

One thing seems to be clear. Driving ownership and individual accountability seems to become harder as an organization grows in size. Probably that’s the reason why high growth organizations sometimes realize that stories of ‘discretion’ from across seem to thin down as they become larger.

Similarly, given India’s large population, driving ownership amongst citizens is a greater challenge than the challenge might be in countries with lesser population.

So what is the solution for organizations of large size? What can they do to make each employee take ownership for his/her decisions, which invariably would also impact his/her eco-system?

I can think of a few solutions:

• There are advantages of clearly delineating job responsibilities/duties but it also seems to drive unintended consequences. One of these unintended consequences is the mindset ‘My work is my work. Please don’t intrude into it. Your work is your work. I won’t intrude into it.’ In this case the team/group is just a collation of individuals. There are no synergies that emerge from having a team work on a problem. So the challenge is to ensure that job responsibilities specify/highlight what are the minimum expected requirements from the job while at the same time ensuring that employees are encourage to go beyond their job descriptions. How can this be done?
• ‘We can help others if we know what they are working on.’ This means that everyone needs to have clarity on what everyone else is working on. This would enable everyone to understand how their own actions might be impacting others and consequently take corrective action. This, along with understanding and accepting the larger organizational goal, would also form basis for collaboration amongst individuals/teams.

My proposed solution rests on the assumption that individuals are willing to extend themselves for purposes beyond their own immediate benefit.

What other solutions can you think of to drive ownership in large teams?

-

Sourav