A Smaller World

The "world's coming closer together", "distances are shortening", "global integration" are terms i hear frequently. I often wonder at what's the evidence for this "increased global integration" phenomenon.

Yes, international tourism is one aspect of it but frankly i don't have the figures for how this has increased over the years. Though i realize that "Indians travelling abroad" has become a more frequent phenomenon.

We see more Indian expatriates than before but is this a trend across countries?

Companies from emerging economies (China, Brazil, and India) are spreading their wings globally but what percentage of global trade do the revenues of these companies account for?

Internet has made information easily accessible but how many "cross-boundary" pages do we access and how frequently ?

I came across a study by Professor Pankaj Ghemawat of IESE Business School in which he attempts to answer some of these questions. The study gives an interesting perspectives on the subject.

http://www.economist.com/node/18584204

-

Sourav

"Talent for Extra-Ordinary Performance" debate

“Talent” is a subject which brings forth contrasting and strong emotions from different groups of people.

Some specific topics which causes heated debate and result in people (including so called experts) to take starkly polar positions include:

• Nature v/s Nurture debate - whether talent is inborn or can be acquired?
• Debate on the definition of “Talent” - You would hear about the requirement for intelligence quotient, emotional quotient, general mental ability, etc.
• Is talent really required for outstanding performance of a team?

Of these, the third question has particularly intrigued me for sometime. I term it “Extra-ordinary performance from ordinary people”.

Team performance (success or failure) is usually easier to define in competitive sports. There are 4 questions which are relevant:

• Can you think of high performing teams which had a significant number of stars (exceptional talents)?
• West Indies cricket team of the 1980s, Australian cricket team of the 1990s and early 2000s.
• Hungary football team of the 1950s – led by Ferenc Puskas: in case you are okay with ignoring their loss in the 1954 World Cup Final.
• Indian cricket team during the 2011 World Cup.
• Chennai Super Kings during the IPLs – 2 semi final appearances and 2 wins.
• Can you think of high performing teams which didn’t have a plethora of stars (exceptional talents)?
• Holland soccer team of the 1970s – Total football approach, et al.
• New Zealand cricket team during the World Cups – they have made it to the semi finals a number of times.
• Barcelona (what I hear from my football crazy friends)
• Rajasthan Royals during IPL1
• Can you think of “filled with high performers” teams which have not performed well?
• Real Madrid (again, what I gather from my football crazy friends)
• Indian cricket team of the early 2000s.
• Brazilian football team in the 1990 World Cup – a 2^nd round exit.
• Mumbai Indians during IPL 1 and IPL 2.
• Can you think of a team without stars which has not performed well – you would find a lot of examples here.

The evidences lead to a split verdict.

It seems extra-ordinary performance can be inspired from teams which are filled with stars as well as from teams without stars. At the same time, a team full of/devoid of stars can also perform ordinarily.

But one conclusion which can be drawn is that having stars in your team is not a necessary condition for extra-ordinary performance.

-

Sourav

P.S. – There is a heated debate on the “talent for extra-ordinary performance” topic happening in the HBR blog circuit. Mark Zuterberg had made a comment a few weeks ago in the New York Times. He had said “ Someone who is exceptional in their role is not just a little better than someone who is pretty good. They are 100 times better”. Bill Taylor has retorted to this statement in a blog posted in the HBR blog circuit. A storm seems to have brewed up with positions being taken and heated exchanges flying around. Check out these links:

http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2011/06/great_people_are_overrated.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/taylor/2011/06/great_people_are_overrated_par.html

http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/06/why_a_great_individual_is_bett.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Inductive and Deductive

The other day I was browsing through the net when I came across a statement which read "Indians are usually inductive, and not deductive, in their approach to problem solving."

 

I pondered over the statement for sometime. A few thoughts and questions zipped through my mind:

 

"There are 2 kinds of reasoning: inductive and deductive. But then would these be left brain processes or right brain processes? Would deductive be a left brained process and inductive a right brained process? What's the difference between these two?"

 

The dictionary says that

"Deductive  reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion drawn from a set of premises contains no more information than the premises taken collectively. All dogs are animals; this is a dog; therefore, this is an animal"

 

"Inductive  reasoning is a logical process in which a conclusion is proposed that contains more information than the observations or experience on which it is based. Every crow ever seen was black; all crows are black."

 

Given these definitions, I feel that being inductive would involve the ability to see patterns – figuring out the whole. To make sense of a situation one figures out the whole (in contrast to figuring out the individual components). Hence being inductive would involve using right side of the brain.

 

What about the natural preference of Indians? What do our normal day to day experiences tell us? An inductive culture should veer towards "To understand him, it is important for me to understand the context s/he is coming from".

 

The usual conversation starters for Indians are aimed towards understanding the personal, social, and historical context a person is coming from. It is important for us to know this to understand the person and become comfortable with him.

 

I feel we are more of an inductive than deductive culture.

 

Maybe this is the reason why the Gestalt principle – the whole is greater than the sum of its parts – appeals to me.

 

But then Gestalt principle has its origins in Germany. What about the Germans then? Are they more inductive than deductive too?

 

-

Sourav

Development and Weaknesses

Picture this conversation:

Suresh (Superior): So Amit, I want to have a discussion with you on your developmental needs. What would be a good time to have this discussion?

Amit (Reportee): (Lump in the throat, and a contracted stomach) (Inner Talk: Why does Suresh want to have this discussion with me? Would I make myself  vulnerable by exposing too much? Should I tell him things which sound correct but believable?).

Suresh, should we have this discussion in about a week's time?

Suresh: Right, Amit. Same day, next week then!

Amit: Right Suresh! (Inner Talk: atleast I have got a week's time to figure out a response).

 

I feel that such conversations (and the corresponding inner talk) are common when it comes to development related discussions.

 

The superior may want to focus on the development of the reportee. For the reportee, the term development is loaded with threat – s/he perceives it as weaknesses which need to be first exposed, acknowledged, and then worked on.

 

Under what circumstances would a reportee be willing and have the energy to work through all three stages of the process. I feel it should be an atmosphere of trust, support, encouragement, and challenge.  Of these, trust is the most important. If trust is not there the first stage of acknowledgement and sharing concerns with the superior would not happen. The reportee would have his defences up and no attempt the superior makes can lead to success.

 

How to build trust in a superior- reportee relationship? Well! Let me ask you something. Can you think back of relationships in your personal life characterized by high trust? What made the development and sustenance of trust in these relationships possible?

 

-

Sourav

About Development, Horses, and the Role of a Manager

There's a set of statements i had framed back in 2006 about "Development".

"You can take a horse to the water. You can give it enough water to drink. You can tell the horse that drinking is good for its health. But the choice to drink or not to drink lies with the horse."

I believed in this statement for quite sometime. But over the last year or so, i am not so sure whether these statements should reflect reality.

What does a superior do when a reportee does not take interest in his own development, or resists all efforts by the superior to plan for the reportee's development?

Should the superior give up or should he keep on trying ?

The other day i heard someone say that when a reportee resists my efforts to develop him, i feel "rejected". Consequently i reject him back, and give up on him. Yesterday, i heard someone else say "I feel inadequate in such a situation. I subsequently keep on trying."

I am not sure what's the correct response. But i realize that when our efforts get resisted, it arouses strong emotions/feelings in us. This makes us behave the way we do.

Being cued on to how i am feeling would be the first step in dealing with the problem . The second step would be to understand how i am behaving consequently or how i might behave. Subsequently one must be genuine - if there is energy to try again, do go ahead and try. If there is a lack of energy to try, one might want to be genuine in sharing this feedback with the other person. "How the resistance is making me feel and consequently how i might possibly react?"

But then the discussion should not be close ended. It should give the other person a chance to respond. A statement like "I feel ............because of whatever has been happening. I am not going to try till the time you feel it's important for you. Whenever you feel you would want to work on your development areas and might need my support, do come back to me. I am always open to discuss."

In this way we would be true to our feelings and would have kept the door open too.

-

Sourav

Dreams

What should one focus on "Working towards what one wants to do?", or "Avoiding what one does not want to do?".

Yes, i know a possible first reply to this question. "Is it really about choice? We learn from our hardships and hence we must embrace whatever comes to us, without getting too choosy. And anyways, what would you do after you achieve your dream? Would you stop striving or would you work towards a higher dream? Where does this end? "

I agree but I don't agree.

There are certain dreams one has, and working towards them is life giving. You may stumble in between, get up and stumble again. You may realize mid-way that the dream itself has changed. You may feel hurt whenever you encounter setbacks. You might not have even crystallized the dream - it may have an amorphous shape as of today.

But action is better than inaction.

Which brings me back to my original question "Action on what?". Focusing on what you don't want to do, gives it more energy. If you say that I don't want to pursue this work today - you have given it energy. It is going to stay in your mind for the day. So where would you get the time to think about things you want to do?...

Okay! We should focus on what we want to do. But isn't that easier said than done. "Do we really know our dream - what we want to do with our lives? Even if we were to know it, would we get the satisfaction we hope for when we finally achieve it? ".

I don't know! The striving for a perfect dream "which has been well thought out" is something which i have personally gone through. But then i realized that this leads to inaction and the years go by.

What works for me is to have tentative dreams which i work towards - those that energize me to action. Do i have complete clarity when i move - no!

You may ask that through this won't we land up somewhere we don't want to be?

Possible, but anyways are we always in control? Do we know whether staying in the present would ensure that we stay somewhere acceptable to us?

I had heard a statement a few years back "Kites fly against and not with the wind".

"I want to fly towards where i want to go - it doesn't matter whether it's with or against the wind."

-

Sourav

Manager: the best individual contributor?

Today i was facilitating a workshop on people management. We were discussing about "Who would a good manager be?". One of the points made by a colleague has stayed with me.

He said that a good manager is a "Captain" and not a "Boss". His observation struck a chord with me. I asked him to elaborate.

He added "a good Captain has the ability to figure out what to do in a situation to win", and he should be a "good player" himself.

The word "good" rung out. I asked him "Why did you choose the word good? Why not the best?".

He responded "he should be good enough to deserve his place in the team as an individual contributor. He need not be the best individual contributor".

I felt my eyes were opened up. I now have a possible answer to a question which has been on my mind for long. "What makes a captain like M.S. Dhoni or Steve Waugh so special?".

It is their exceptional skill at figuring out what to do in a situation to win. But at the same time they are good enough to deserve their place in the team on the basis of their individual merit.

I now also have a probable answer to another question which has been on my mind for sometime.

"Should a manager of individual contributors have his own individual Performance Indicators or should his Performance Indicators be a summation of the indicators of his reportees?"

He obviously needs to have his own performance indicators- he needs to deserve his place in the team on the basis of his individual performance, but he needn't be the best individual contributor in the team.

-

Sourav