Value Chain!

Should we look at only role content when charting out our career plans? What other factors should we consider?

I feel we should also consider what is portfolio of contexts we are building for ourselves.

We can look at life stage of an organization- start up, high growth, mature, or declining.

We can also look at where in value chain is context? Is it

• Closer to customer- pre-sales, sales, delivery, post sales service?
• A little higher up in Supply chain? - secondary distribution (to customer)?
• Much higher up in supply chain-primary sourcing/distribution to factories.
• Product design/R&D?
• Central function -governance of value chain?

 

I have worked in a central org, manufacturing org, sales org, and delivery org.

 

Why is working across different points of value chain important? Well, for one as we see different points we understand the value chain better. For another, different parts of value chain hold different values.

Some values a central org may hold are integration, standardization, bet practices, etc.

In a manufacturing set up values may be Right First Time (no errors), predictability, reliability, process orientation, etc.

In a sales org values may be outcome orientation, resourcefulness, etc.

A delivery org might have values similar to a manufacturing org - focus on processes, quantitative orientation, large scale implementation, etc.

I've worked in mature and high growth phases. I've worked in HQs , with sales orgs, with manufacturing orgs, and with delivery orgs. I’ve worked in HQs as well as in subsidiaries. I've started experienced handling international markets.

What are some of contexts I have not experienced? Service (should be about customer orientation/delight) and R&D (creativity, knowledge); start up and declining phase orgs; and regional and HQ (international) roles.

These are some lines I am thinking on, along with content of next roles, as I plan my next career steps.

-
Sourav

Excellent Managers

What are enablers for managerial excellence?

Let’s make an assumption - focus of excellence is on what managers are doing today.

Hence focus becomes - what are HR processes manager is supposed to manage for his/her directs.  Some of these processes are across employee life cycle (e.g - joining, onboarding, development) some across team life cycle (e.g- storming, forming, norming).

I've come across two ways of ensuring this focus.

• Organization clarifies what is expected of Managers and measures them on basis of outcomes (subjective or objective).
• Organization institutes project teams to drive outcomes/improvements related to focus.

Both ways can work. In the first way, consistency in outcomes across managers may be a challenge.  In the second way, there is a danger that responsibility for managing is abdicated – responsibility for managerial outcomes is perceived to have moved to project teams.

But obviously, managerial outcomes still need to emerge from Managers doing the right thing for their employees.

That's a focus one has to maintain in the second way.

 

-

Sourav

 

Behaviors

A few years back I got interested in individual and group behavior. I wanted to explore 'why do individuals/groups behave the way they do?'

I read works of a number of psychologists - Freud, Adler, Jung, Ellis, Frankl, etc. Each of them seemed to have different answers for WHYs.  Who got it right?

Determinism didn't sound right- we were shaped by our biological instincts but we did have choice.

I could resonate with some elements of collective unconscious- sometimes I could evidence of it in similar decisions taken by people far removed in space and time. But I did value uniqueness – the fact that sometime I did take decisions on my own too. Again I felt that Jung’s theory sounded deterministic.

Fictional finalism sounded right.  I did find people setting and working towards a better future -even though they may not reach it.

I could find evidence of suffering and meaninglessness in stages of our lives, but life was not all about suffering and meaninglessness.

Concept that neurosis was an exaggeration of normal things we do seemed relevant.

-

But then again – who got it right?

-

I chanced upon biographical works of some of these psychologists. I realized they were trying to find meaning of their experiences/lives and their theories brought sense to their experiences/lives.

So it seemed all of them were right but only in certain contexts/situations.

Hence these theories might have application at different points of our lives. They might be applicable to different people in different degrees.

Every theory seems to provide a possible explanation to behavior. But none seem to be comprehensive in scope.

But that's possibly what reality is.  

Each situation can be same as or different from a previous situation. Every human being is unique in some way and I am not sure whether a theory can encompass all human beings.

 

-
Sourav

Building a Career!

What are next roles I want to work towards?

Well! That's not very difficult to figure out. I can rattle off 2-3 roles that come on top of my mind.

But is identifying and working towards roles an opportune/resourceful way to build a career?

Recently, I came across an alternative approach that resonated with me.

Think of your career in terms of a combination of skills and experiences.

 

What skills and experiences do you want in your next role/s?

I see an advantage of approaching building careers in this fashion.

Thinking of next role gets us fixated on role. We sometimes stop identifying and even evaluating alternatives. Coveted roles are limited and number of contestants are high.

On other hand, when we approach building careers in terms of skills and experiences, we become receptive to a number of opportunities - some of it not obviously apparent.

We might be able to identify emerging opportunities. We might land up identifying multiple opportunities.

A career as a portfolio of skills and experiences! And experiences being much more than just identified roles!

Subsequent question obviously is 'What skills and experiences do you want in your next roles?’  Obviously you will look at what are your career goals in long term, what skills and experiences you want to work towards in medium term, and what skills and experiences you already have.

I refer back to my belief in ‘intentionality’ - ‘ It’s necessary we intentionally and smartly build our portfolio of skills and experiences'

-
Sourav

 

The Plant and The Machine!

He asked me 'Will he move out? He is the one who has built this team from scratch to where it's now.'

I tried sensing emotion behind the question. Was it a feeling of attachment, of fear, or of discomfort?

I thought it was a combination of all emotions.

The person who was moving out was struggling with his own emotions. He asked me 'Is this a message to me? Am I not doing well?'

I felt for him. But I sensed the need for a change of guard.

He had built the business to a certain size. He had 'seeded' an industry at its nascent stages. He had made saplings sprout and overseen their growth to a healthy and beautiful plant

There was enough opportunity now to make plant grow to a tree. Essentially, market was poised for explosive growth. But same skills that had held him in good stead in ramp up stage threatened his success in explosive growth stage.

Soon a new leader came in. His style was diametrically opposite to previous leader.

No more was there space for experiments and pilots. Everything had to be done on a large scale. Feedback style changed to more direct and less encouragement.

It felt less like a lab/playground and more like a war machine.

We knew what we wanted to achieve and we will get it!

Did we succeed? We seem to be on the right path.

Was leadership change necessary?

Well. I don't know.

At this time, I am left with a few observations/questions:

• Do we typecast 'preference' as 'strengths' and exclude possibility of leader being able to use learned (non-preferred) behavior too?
• Plant and Machine are roles appropriate to different growth stages of a team/business. Different roles can be played by same person. But at times it may be necessary to change leadership too.
  I relate more to a plant than to a machine. At same time I feel there is a lot to learn in the machine mode.
• Sometimes a leader is impatient to make an impact. It is important to guide the leader's energy in right direction. It's possible that when one has a hammer everything looks like a nail.

-
Sourav

Differences!

A year back I told myself 'I am starting a race on a new track after a long time. Corners and turns may be different. I will just classify differences as different and stay away from associating value judgments with them.'

Have I been successful in my attempts?

I was successful in the first few months. I noticed differences. I discussed them out. At places I could make environment adopt to my style/needs. At other places i had to understand the environment and eco-system. There were instances when I didn't have an immediate resolution but a solution seemed possible in near future.

 A year down the line, a few differences have become sticky issues. There are certain places where priority of values for environment and for me is different. There are a few places where I perceive environment to be of a certain type but other stake holders don't seem to perceive it so -probably they are don´t see what I see.

How do I handle this situation? I am sometimes tempted to classify these sticky differences as bad. But then I hold on to my initial stance- ´what's different is just different. It's not necessarily bad!´

I think it's time to revisit differences map I had created a few months back. I then need to figure out my coping strategy- how exactly am I going to cope with some of the value priority differences that I encounter at work.

I remember what Charles Handy had said in one of his books - we rely on a faulty assumption that the organization will serve all our needs

It's time to think creatively again and use Handy's inverse doughnut philosophy.

 

-
Sourav

 

 

Strengths and Weaknesses

What do you work on -your strengths or weaknesses?

If you were to believe in development school of thought, then you should work on identifying and plugging your development needs.

If you were to believe in strengths school of thought, then you should capitalize on your strengths to plug your gaps.

Strengths school of thought appeals more to me - Let´s capitalize on our strengths!

But then there are times when I stumble across a blind spot of mine  - a movement from unconscious incompetence to conscious competence in learning stages.

In such times I wonder 'I didn't know till now that this was my blind spot. In past, have my strengths covered for these blind spots? Maybe! I don't know! But I could have had made more effective use of my time/resources if I had known my weaknesses'.

So Yes! We should leverage our strengths. But we should also attempt to be aware of our weaknesses.

This will enable us to use our strengths more appropriately and effectively.

-
Sourav