Half Full or Half Empty?

Is this glass half full or half empty? An oft repeated, clichéd question!

But truly, what is the answer?

I am probably asking the wrong question. The glass is obviously both half full as well as half empty.

Let me rephrase the question: “If I were to ask you to choose between describing this glass as half full or half empty, which option would you choose?”

So, did you make a choice?

What can be concluded from either of the choices made?

Can we conclude that if the choice was:

• “the glass is half full”, “closure” is on our mind?
• “the glass is half empty”, “exploration” is on our mind?

Which is a more preferable state of mind to be in - “closure” or “exploration”?

I feel the answer would be context specific. There would be situations where seeking “closure” is the effective response, and there would be situations where “exploration” would be the effective response.

Situations which might require the “exploration approach”:

• Brainstorming/Ideation/Creation – the more the ideas, the better it is. I view it as a “boundaryless exploration” phase.
• Individual working on a developmental need – while working on a development need having an exploration mindset helps. The process of movement between the stages of Unconscious Incompetence, Conscious Incompetence, Conscious Competence, and Unconscious Competence is non-linear. There is a significant period where one would feel NOT OK. But one would have to stay with that feeling and keep on exploring. I call it “Being OK with Not Being Ok”. Such a mindset would ensure that one stays with the feeling of discomfort (an obvious feeling when one is striving for something which is not readily forthcoming), exploring further while working towards addressing the development need.
• Generating alternative hypothesis and checking for solutions while solving novel, complex problems - you might want to generate multiple hypothesis on what the possible solution might be and suspend judgement till the time you have more primary data/feedback on your pilots/experiments. Having a “closure” mindset in such a scenario might cause one to accept the first possible hypothesis/solution that one comes across.
• Goal Setting at work – there would be an element of divergence before convergence happens.

Situations which might require the “closure approach”:

• Target achievement - when the targets and the method of working have already been agreed upon. The focus at this stage is on ensuring that the targets are achieved within the required boundary (time, cost, etc) conditions.

• Crisis management - a situation of high risk is spiraling out of control. It requires a quick, effective (and not necessarily perfect) solution at damage mitigation/control.
• When what is required is an effective (and not necessarily perfect) solution – think of competitive situations where there are significant disadvantages associated with being the second mover.

Can you think of more situations in which exploration and/or closure approach would be effective?

-

Sourav

Facilitation!

The last 2 weeks have been workshop weeks: have co- facilitated workshops over 4 days.

My legs may be a bit tired but my mind is refreshed. I have stumbled across a few fresh insights, and a few realizations from the past have got re-enforced. In this blog entry I would share insights and realizations about facilitation styles. A blog entry on realization about specific knowledge/practice areas would follow soon.

Analogies!

We love analogies. Analogies provide a non – threatening situation for individuals and teams to explore sensitive issues they might be facing at work. These analogies might take the form of business games, case studies, evaluating similar situations in different industries, etc. With a combination of smart program design and on the spot improvisation a facilitator can ensure such experiences are full of energy and fun. But are these exercises an end in themselves? Is it a fair assumption to make that a participant would reflect by himself/herself on his/her experiences and take away whatever learnings s/he feels is relevant for him/her?

I feel there are two additional steps a facilitator should ensure. Facilitating the group to:

• draw out generic learnings from the situations.
• discuss how these learnings might be transferred on to the job. The focus here should be on the immediate context an individual/manger works in.

These two steps would complete the learning cycle.

The Missing Participant!

Periodically, during sessions, I observed someone busy fidgeting with his phone and someone else scribbling an indecipherable picture (some modern art form I am sure) on his notepad. There was an apparent paradox here – the majority of the participants were in the midst of intense and animated debates while these handful participants seemed lost. I tried bringing these “missing participants” back into the discussions. But they soon drifted back into their world. At times I got a bit perturbed. I thought “What should I do?”

I was reminded of the Adult Learning theories I relate to. Individuals learn what it is important for them to learn and when the learnings have meaning for them.

I chose to focus my energies on the participants who were intensely involved in the proceedings. My belief seemed to bear fruit over time – participants who seemed “not to be in the room” in the initial few sessions became intensely involved in the discussions/proceedings for some of the sessions. Probably the discussions during those sessions had more meaning for them!

Where are you?

There was a youtube video I had seen a few years back. The video was about the artisans of Kumartuli – the famous center near Kolkata where idols of goddess Durga are made. The video tracked the making of a Durga idol from start to finish and included intensive interviews with some of the artisans. One of the artisans was asked “Making an idol is physically demanding. It requires you to work 12-14 hours a day over 2-3 months. You also would not be sitting throughout your work. You would be standing at different places and in different angles. You can’t afford to go wrong with your strokes/work, as rework would require a lot of effort/time/cost. You would be working at a place around your home, so family distractions would be there too. How do you maintain your focus?”

The artisan replied “Before we start our work every morning, we physically draw a circle around the space we work in. When we step into that space the only thing that matters is the idol and what can we do. Our focus is only there. Working like this over a period of time has trained us to be able to focus on the work we do to the exclusion of everything else. Crowds, noise, changes in weather, family – nothing distracts us.”

The response of the artisan has stayed with me.

I had caught an early morning flight to get to one of the programs. This meant that I hardly got any sleep in the night (what if I don’t hear the alarm and keep on sleeping J) and had woken up around 4 am. How do I ensure that my attention doesn’t flag or get diverted anytime during the day?

When I enter the boundaries of the training room, that’s the only place I belong to. This also helps me sense individual energies and inter-personal dynamics within the room.

Partners!

I had 2 different co-facilitators for the 2 workshops.

We had planned before about our roles during different parts of the session. But then, at times, I found my co-facilitators stepping on to my shoes: playing the role I was to play. I was a bit perplexed, and a little later annoyed. I thought “should I let this continue? How can I constructively respond?”

I remembered the famous coaching paradigm of ‘positive intent’. Assume that whatever the other person is doing, s/he is doing it with ‘positive intent’. This helped me look at the situation with new eyes.

However much you plan, on the spot improvisation would happen. It probably is needed too, as the group might behave in a manner you would not have expected. This means that I as a facilitator at times might also have to deviate from the initial agreed on script.

Subsequently co-facilitators would have to shift roles in a manner that they complement each other. I am not sure whether there is any science to this shifting. The underlying theme is “Positive Intent”.

One simple mechanism I used with my co-facilitators was to ask them after each session “So what are the things we did right/wrong in this session? What should we do differently in the next session?”.

What’s in it for me?

I must make a confession.

I have often wondered as to why people love to teach or facilitate sessions. The first thought which usually strikes me is “Probably they love to teach or share their knowledge with others.”

I have realized that the above answer is only half the truth for me. I love to facilitate sessions also because in the process I chance upon realizations, gain insights, clarify my own conscious/semi-conscious doubts and consequently grow and learn.

If you love facilitating, what would your answer be?

-

Sourav

Passion, Choice, and Exclusion

Which statement would you prefer being described by:

• “You are an expert.”, or
• “You are a jack of all trades, master of none.”

Or are these two statements mutually exclusive? Why can’t one be “a jack of all trades and master of all”?

Now try framing the answer to these questions:

• “What is your true calling in life?”
• “What is it that you are truly passionate about?”

Did you select one or a few choices while answering these two questions?

Or does your answer consist of a multitude of options?

If you are like most of the people I have come across, your answers would usually consist of one option. If your answers consist of even two options, you belong to a minor minority. J

What about the options we don’t choose? When we say that we are passionate about something, are we not saying that we are not passionate about the options we don’t choose?

Passion is an emotion. It comes from the heart. What emotion then do we feel when we are working on the things which are not our true calling in life?

Is the act of choosing only valuable when we reject the options we don’t choose? Is passion exhibited only then?

What if we were to instead live our life passionately? Would we not lead a more complete and fulfilling life?

-

Sourav

Our Most Important Assets?

“Employees are our most important assets.” - is an oft repeated statement across the corporate world.

I am not able to really relate with the statement above and often wonder what it means!

The person/s who is/are making this statement – are they employees too?

If they are why would they say “our employees”? Wouldn’t they rather say something akin to “Each one of us is important here. What can we do to achieve our own, and support each other in fulfilling their, dreams?”

If they are not, who are they and what rules/expectations govern their behaviour/universe?

When we say something is our most important asset, who is the focus on? Isn’t the focus still on us? It is our need and the “asset” is important because it satisfies/fulfills our needs. Think of owning your favourite car or your dream home.

The dictionary definitions of asset are (refer dictionary.com)

• “a useful and desirable thing or quality.”
• “a single item of ownership having exchange value.”

Do such definitions apply to human beings? Would friends think of each other as “assets”? What about family members? Would someone say that my family member is my greatest “asset”?

The only “asset” (and I use this word for want of knowledge of a better word) in an organization which has free choice is an employee. An employee chooses whether s/he belongs in a group and to what extent s/he would want to contribute in that group.

When one recognizes this for ourselves and for the people we work with, do we create a space where we give teeth to the statement “Each one of us is important here. I have a choice and I recognize your freedom to exercise your choice too.”

That’s a statement I can relate with!

-

Sourav

Control By What?

So, are you in charge? Is everything under control?

If you are in a position where you are leading a team, it is highly possible that you would be asked, or you would be asking yourself, frequently different forms of these questions?

I find the word “control” interesting. What does it mean in the context of a team? How does one “control” the behaviour of others?

Or is “control” the wrong word to use? Can you really control the behaviour of others? Or is it about inviting them to co-opt in finding and treading a common path?

What are the options a team manager/leader has?

Control can be exercised on the:

• Output an individual is expected to deliver and the time by which the output would be delivered – “This is what I want by End of Day/Week/Month.”
• Process s/he would follow in reaching at the output. – “These are the steps you would follow in reaching the outcome.”
• Input s/he would be given.

What control we apply would depend on the nature of the task and to an extent, the person we are working with. E.g. – controlling by process might not be effective for Knowledge Workers.

At the same time we also see, albeit not in some industries, “minimum time one devotes at work everyday” being exercised as a means of control? Leave rules (and not just yearly leave limits) are another manifestation of this behaviour.

Why this focus on time based control?

Time studies work in cases of manual work – where there are a set of activities which need to be completed in a particular way and order. You figure out the steps and focus on crashing the time for each step so that the total time for the entire process comes down. This would lead to productivity improvements.

Time based control mechanism would have led to the focus on “minimum time a workman needs to spend at work to get his job done”. I have a feeling that the practice of production shifts and overtime on manufacturing shop floors might have emerged through negotiations between workmen and employers on time at work- “If what you want from me is x minimum time on the job, I would want to negotiate to make that the standard and it would cost you a premium to make me work beyond that.”

But does this time based control focus works in case of knowledge workers? The mental process knowledge workers use to come out with their solutions are non-linear and are not time based. Hence time based studies are of limited use, if not useless, in case of knowledge workers.

What would the existence of time based presence rules imply for knowledge workers? Do such rules support or impede their work?

I am not sure whether there are studies on the impact of time based controls on the effectiveness/productivity of knowledge workers but I would be interested in knowing the results of any such study.

There are a few possible responses:

• I don’t enjoy this time based limitation but I work inspite of it because probably the work gives me satisfaction/the work I am doing helps my career.
• “If you use time as a limitation, you would get time as a limitation in response.” Office timings would be followed. Divisions between office and non-office hours would be maintained. Weekends would be sacrosanct and would be meant solely for the family.

In an atmosphere like this, discretion may show up but I wonder whether it would show up because one feels engaged to the organization or inspite of it?

-

Sourav

Generativity, Intimacy, Incentives, Disincentives

It is that time of the year when the 'adrenaline pumping','overflowing with energy' Sales Conferences happen.

The entire sales heirarchy meets to discuss the year gone by and the year ahead, and have a lot of fun and frolic. There is a lot of hullah, noise, games, partying and by the time the 3 days draw to a close everyone is invariably overcharged with energy and a firm belief that at the least 'We can conquer the world against all odds!'

I have been a part of one such conference over the last 3 days. When I look around I realize that the median age of the 300 plus people in this room is in all probability lower than the median age of Indian population (approx. 25 years). That makes this group a very young one. I also am reminded of the sales incentive scheme which supposedly drive 'sales growth' further.

I have a few questions/thoughts on my mind:
1)What purpose would a conference like this serve if the average/median age of the sales force were to be much higher? Do such conferences happen in many of the Western countries where average/median age of the population would be closer to 40 years? These conferences might still be aimed to act as 'energizers' but the form and shape of them might vary. Our current conference design is aimed towards the Intimacy vs Isolation dilemma (encountered by people in 20s age group) which Erik Erikkson talks about. A space is created where participants start relating to, and drawing energy from, the larger group they belong to. Future conference designs (as the population ages) might require us to address the Generativity vs Stagnation dilemma(encountered by people in 30s and 40s age group) that Eric Erikkson talks about. Or maybe conference may not be the ideal format to address the Generarivity vs Stagnation dilemma.

2)In an economy where the market is not growing (think of the developed countries with stagnant or degrowing GDPs), why would a sales incentive scheme be required? No growth, no incentive! But then how would a company buffer itself against unsatisfactory performance? It might still have an incentive scheme but of a form where a person gets a certain amount of money if he/business unit/company meets its business targets but gets a reduced/no amount in case of underperformance. This might then be called a Sales Disincentive scheme. This reminds me of a Sales Disincentive scheme a friend was working on. What was the context for this need? I must check up with him.

-
Sourav
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Socratic and Maeutic Methods

“The difficult but critical part in addressing a situation lies not in seeking the answers, but in first framing the right questions.”

I have heard from friends/colleagues that the Socratic method is my natural preference in discussions. I have been intrigued as to what does this method talk about and how is my natural preference related to this method. On delving further I have realized that my preference is a derivative of the Socratic method. It is called “The Maieutic Method ”.

The Maeutic method is based on the idea that truth is latent in the mind of every human being (through traditions and experiences of past generations) but has to “given birth” by answering intelligently posed questions.

The Socratic method also involves questioning but is aimed at exposing the individual’s erroneous conceptions/prejudices.

I don’t have an opinion (neither agree nor disagree) with the belief in the Maeutic method that truth is latent in the mind of every human being because of traditions and experience of past generations. But I do relate to the other details of the Maeutic method

But is this method always applicable? What are the situations it might be applicable in? What are the situations it might not be applicable in? Are there certain preconditions for this method to work effectively?

I draw from my personal experiences in answering these questions.

• The Maeutic method works in a situation where, in the short term, there is an obvious carrot at stake. Hence the method works in interviews and with interns.
• In a peer-peer or a superior –subordinate relationship a high degree of trust is required for the Maeutic method to work. An individual whose questions are answered with questions might feel threatened. S/he may feel “questioned”. The Maeutic method involves inviting an individual to be willing to “explore” and that too in the darkness for atleast some period of time. Would you be willing to do that in the presence of someone you don’t trust? Without trust, engaging in a Mauetic method of discussion would lead to creation of defenses. These defenses would get manifested in various ways, viz:

· ‘I can’t figure out the answer.’

· ‘I think I have a sense of it but I can’t put a word/sentence to it.’

· ‘You tell me the answer’, etc.

· The Maeutic method helps in problem identification (cause and effect analysis), alternative generation and evaluation, and charting out a course of action. But we need to be careful in the alternative generation stage.

· The Maeutic method involves intellectual discipline. Consequently there is a risk that at the alternative generation stage, only well cooked/thought through ideas is expressed. Ideas which might initially sound wild or half cooked but may effectively address the situation would consequently not even be expressed.

· I have frequently found that we are uncomfortable with a state of “non-closure”. This leads us to usually pick from among the first few, if not the first, solution which makes sense to us. “Cognitive dissonance” is the term for this J (My HR Background does provide me with an armor of HR lingo J).

· It might be a better idea to sensitize the individual/group to the fact that we are in a brainstorming stage and hence all ideas (including wild and half cooked ideas) can be expressed.

· The Maeutic method presupposed that the individual has all the answers or atleast is capable of finding his/her answers. There would be cases where this is not true or where it would be more beneficial for the individual to be provided an answer.

· Coaching is certainly based on the Maeutic principle. The coach takes a ‘coach position’ and guides the individual towards framing his/her problem/s and finding out effective solutions. In most cases, the coach does not provide the answers. This may be the reason why coaching comes naturally to me.

-

Sourav

Elephants and Blue Oceans!

'Does innovation come from existing market players or from new market players?'
'Do institutional structures of existing market players make them less able to innovate?'

Or are these the right questions to ask?

What matters more 'Innovation in its original sense' (the first form of a product/service) or 'the first form of a product/service highly valued by customers'?

What is wrong in not being the creator of a product/service if you can be the player to create the first form of the product/service highly valued by customers and scale up fast enough to create a critical customer base for your offering? This is a form of imitation but the imitator has done much better than others(including the originator of the idea).

W. Chan Kim and Renee Mauborgne in their article 'The Blue Ocean Strategy' (printed in the October 2004 edition of HBR) provide some answers.

They, in their research, have found that blue oceans (unchartered market space) are created not necessarily through technological innovations but by the first player who links an innovation(tecnological or other) to customer need/s and scales up its offerings fast enough to gather a critical customer base. The authors term this behaviour as 'value innovation' as compared to 'technological innovation'.

The authors have also found in their research that blue oceans are usually created by existing market players from within their core businesses. It is not a line extension but an alteration of the current boundaries of the red oceans to create blue oceans.

The authors quote examples from 3 different industries over the last 100 years to drive home their point:
>Automobiles-Ford's Model T, GM's car for every purpose and purse, Japanese fuel efficient cars, Chrysler's minivan.
>Computers/PC- CTR's tabulating machine, IBM's 650 electronic computer, Apple's Personal Computers, Compaq's PC servers,Dell's built to order computers.
>Movie Theatres- Nickelodeon, Palace Theatres,AMC Mutiplex, AMC Megaplex.

Innovation is not the key. The ability to create a form of product/service (innovation) highly valued by customers and scale up fast enough to create a critical customer base is the key.

This can be done by both new entrants and existing players, and by technology innovators and technology adaptors(value innovators/creators).

There is hope for the so called behemoths in any industry.

An elephant can be agile and flexible!
It can create blue oceans!

-
Sourav
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Of Migrant Populations!

A Vodafone hoarding I recently saw in Bangalore!

The advertistment talks of special STD call rates for calls to Southern or Eastern states in India. I was intrigued by this exclusive focus on Southern and Eastern states. I have never come across such an offer before.

It is an obvious indicator of the number of migrant employees from Southern and Eastern states in Bangalore.

There are other indicators too.

Andhra cuisine restaurants are popular in Bangalore. I remember the long queues and the mouth wateringly spicy food at the different Nandhini Palace restaurants I used to frequent during the early 2000s.

There is a road in Indiranagar that makes me feel nostalgic about the street food in Kolkata. You would find "Phuchkawallas", "Bengali sweet shops" (of rosogolla, sandesh, and misti doi fame), and "Cheeken roll" (paratha and not roti roll) shops.

The phenomenon of large number of migrant employees is not unique to Bangalore. What would the trends be in Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai, Kolkata, and Hyderabad? Which states would Vodafone talk about if it were to come out with a similar advertistment in these cities?

I hear that because of Bihar's economic progress under the leadership of Nitish Kumar,over the last few years a large number of migrant Bihari labourers are returning from various parts of India to Bihar. This trend is supposedly causing labour shortage problems for the fast growing Indian construction industry.

Would a strong economic recovery in Bengal, under the leadership of Mamata Banerjee, initiate a similar reverse migration trend for the embattled state? If a similar trend does arise, what industries in what cities might get negatively impacted by this trend?

-
Sourav
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Youth or Youthfulness, Experience or Capacity for Experience

'He must be good because he is experienced.'
'Lets hire him. He has significant amount of the right experiences.'
'This job requires action. Lets get some fresh young blood for this role.'
I often wonder whether these statements are valid.

There are 2 statements I relate with:
>'Youthfulness matters more than youth';
>'Capacity for experience matters more than experience.'

Ability to handle a situation matters, and that ability is not a function of age.

In some situations we overvalue youth. In other situations we overvalue experience.

Sharing a link to a HBR article, written by Prof. Kishore Sengupta and 2 other professors. The article is titled 'The Experience Trap': it talks of why people don't seem to learn from their experiences.
http://hbr.org/2008/02/the-experience-trap/ar/1

-
Sourav