Jay A. Conger believes that contrary to popular belief, persuasion is NOT the same as selling an idea or convincing opponents to see things your way. It is instead a process of learning from others and negotiating a shared solution.
So, persuasion consists of four essential elements:
1) establishing credibility
2) framing to find common ground
3) providing vivid evidence, and
4) connecting emotionally
Credibility grows out of two sources: expertise and relationships. But, even, if a persuader’s credibility is high, his position must make sense – even more, it must appeal – to the audience. Therefore, a persuader must frame his position to illuminate its benefits to everyone who will feel its impact.
Persuasion then becomes a matter of presenting evidence – but not just ordinary charts and spreadsheets. The most effective persuaders use vivid – even over-the-top-stories, metaphors, and examples to make their positions come alive.
Finally, good persuaders have the ability to accurately sense and respond to their audience’s emotional state. Sometimes, that means they have to suppress their own emotions; at other times, they must intensify them.
Work today gets done in an environment where people don’t just ask – “what should I do?” They now ask – “why should I do it?” In this kind of environment, the art of persuasion is highly required to get things done.
At times, persuasion is commonly perceived as just another form of manipulation – devious and to be avoided. Certainly, persuasion can be used in selling and deal-clinching situations, and it can be misused to manipulate people. But, exercised constructively and to its full potential, persuasion supersedes sales and is quite the opposite of deception.
Dialogue happens before and during the persuasion process. Before the process begins, effective persuaders use dialogue to learn more about their audience’s opinions, concerns, and perspectives. During the process, dialogue continues to be a form of learning, but it is also the beginning of the negotiation stage. You invite people to discuss, even debate, the merits of your position, and then to offer honest feedback and suggest alternative solutions. That may sound like a slow way to achieve your goal, but effective persuasion is about testing and revising ideas in concert with your colleagues’ concerns and needs. In fact, the best persuaders not only listen to others, but also incorporate their perspectives into a shared solution. Persuasion often demands compromise.
Four ways not to persuade:
1) Don’t attempt to make your case with an upfront, hard sell.
2) Don’t resist compromise.
3) Don’t think persuasion lies only in presenting great arguments.
4) Don’t assume persuasion is a one-shot effort.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Conversation between Neo and the Architect
The following is a conversation - the best conversation I have ever heard or have ever seen in a movie!! - from Matrix Reloaded.
The Architect: “Hello, Neo.”
Neo: “Who are you?”
The Architect: “I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I’ve been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.”
Neo: “Why am I here?”
The Architect: “Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control - which has led you, inexorably, here.”
Neo: “You haven’t answered my question.”
The Architect: “Quite right. Interesting! That was quicker than the others. The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.”
Neo: “There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.”
The Architect: “Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.”
Neo: "Choice. The problem is choice.”
The Architect: “The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art, flawless, and sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me, because it required a lesser mind or, perhaps, a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.”
Neo: “The Oracle.”
The Architect: “Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.”
Neo: “This is about Zion.”
The Architect: “You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.”
Neo: “Bullshit.”
The Architect: “Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it. The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.”
Neo: “You won’t let it happen, you can’t. You need human beings to survive.”
The Architect: “There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every human being in this world. It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis, love.”
Neo: “Trinity.”
The Architect: “Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.”
Neo: “No!”
The Architect: “Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein, the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the source, and the salvation of Zion. The door to the left leads back to the matrix, to her, and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you’re going to do, don’t we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth: she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.”
(Neo walks to the door on his left.)
The Architect: “Humph. Hope - it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously, the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.”
Neo: “If I were you, I would hope that we don’t meet again.”
The Architect: “We won’t.”
The Architect: “Hello, Neo.”
Neo: “Who are you?”
The Architect: “I am the Architect. I created the matrix. I’ve been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also irrelevant.”
Neo: “Why am I here?”
The Architect: “Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the matrix. You are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control - which has led you, inexorably, here.”
Neo: “You haven’t answered my question.”
The Architect: “Quite right. Interesting! That was quicker than the others. The matrix is older than you know. I prefer counting from the emergence of one integral anomaly to the emergence of the next, in which case this is the sixth version.”
Neo: “There are only two possible explanations: either no one told me, or no one knows.”
The Architect: “Precisely. As you are undoubtedly gathering, the anomaly is systemic, creating fluctuations in even the most simplistic equations.”
Neo: "Choice. The problem is choice.”
The Architect: “The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect. It was a work of art, flawless, and sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental failure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer eluded me, because it required a lesser mind or, perhaps, a mind less bound by the parameters of perfection. Thus, the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother.”
Neo: “The Oracle.”
The Architect: “Please. As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program, while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster.”
Neo: “This is about Zion.”
The Architect: “You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.”
Neo: “Bullshit.”
The Architect: “Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it. The function of the One is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 individuals, 16 female, 7 male, to rebuild Zion. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing everyone connected to the matrix, which coupled with the extermination of Zion will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire human race.”
Neo: “You won’t let it happen, you can’t. You need human beings to survive.”
The Architect: “There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every human being in this world. It is interesting reading your reactions. Your five predecessors were by design based on a similar predication, a contingent affirmation that was meant to create a profound attachment to the rest of your species, facilitating the function of the one. While the others experienced this in a very general way, your experience is far more specific. Vis-à-vis, love.”
Neo: “Trinity.”
The Architect: “Apropos, she entered the matrix to save your life at the cost of her own.”
Neo: “No!”
The Architect: “Which brings us at last to the moment of truth, wherein, the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. There are two doors. The door to your right leads to the source, and the salvation of Zion. The door to the left leads back to the matrix, to her, and to the end of your species. As you adequately put, the problem is choice. But we already know what you’re going to do, don’t we? Already I can see the chain reaction, the chemical precursors that signal the onset of emotion, designed specifically to overwhelm logic, and reason. An emotion that is already blinding you from the simple and obvious truth: she is going to die, and there is nothing that you can do to stop it.”
(Neo walks to the door on his left.)
The Architect: “Humph. Hope - it is the quintessential human delusion, simultaneously, the source of your greatest strength, and your greatest weakness.”
Neo: “If I were you, I would hope that we don’t meet again.”
The Architect: “We won’t.”
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
The Alternative Workplace
The concept of the alternative workplace is catching up with a lot of companies. And, this is, definitely, a good thing to ponder on. The Alternative Workplace (AW) is the combination of nontraditional work practices, setting, and locations that is beginning to supplement traditional offices.
Among the potential benefits for companies are reduced costs, increased productivity, and an edge in vying for and keeping talented employees. But, at the same time, AW is not for everyone.
The AW can be achieved by different means:
1) Having some workers on different shifts or travel schedules share desks and office space.
2) Satellite offices, wherein centralized facilities are broken up into a network of smaller workplaces that can be located close to customers or to employees’ homes. Satellites can diversify the risk of over-concentration in a single location, and broaden the pool of potential employees.
3) Telecommuting is one of the most commonly recognized forms of AW. Telecommuting means performing work electronically wherever the worker chooses. This, generally, supplements the traditional workplace rather than replacing it.
4) Home offices.
Most organizations find that a mix of AW options is better than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Advantages of AW:
1) Reduced costs for the companies.
2) Better hold on talented employees.
3) Less commuting to office. This helps the employees the most. They travel to work as per the need.
4) Less traffic and less pollution.
5) Under this setting, companies become a lot productive, as they tend to reward the results and not the “efforts” of their employees.
6) The work-meetings tend to be more productive, because when employees meet, they tend to be result-oriented.
7) Employees get more time to be with their families. This makes them happier and more satisfied. Thus, their productivity shoots up.
8) More flexibility to the employees. They work as and when they feel like.
Disadvantages of AW:
1) This is not for everyone.
2) Trade secrets should be well handled.
Among the potential benefits for companies are reduced costs, increased productivity, and an edge in vying for and keeping talented employees. But, at the same time, AW is not for everyone.
The AW can be achieved by different means:
1) Having some workers on different shifts or travel schedules share desks and office space.
2) Satellite offices, wherein centralized facilities are broken up into a network of smaller workplaces that can be located close to customers or to employees’ homes. Satellites can diversify the risk of over-concentration in a single location, and broaden the pool of potential employees.
3) Telecommuting is one of the most commonly recognized forms of AW. Telecommuting means performing work electronically wherever the worker chooses. This, generally, supplements the traditional workplace rather than replacing it.
4) Home offices.
Most organizations find that a mix of AW options is better than a one-size-fits-all approach.
Advantages of AW:
1) Reduced costs for the companies.
2) Better hold on talented employees.
3) Less commuting to office. This helps the employees the most. They travel to work as per the need.
4) Less traffic and less pollution.
5) Under this setting, companies become a lot productive, as they tend to reward the results and not the “efforts” of their employees.
6) The work-meetings tend to be more productive, because when employees meet, they tend to be result-oriented.
7) Employees get more time to be with their families. This makes them happier and more satisfied. Thus, their productivity shoots up.
8) More flexibility to the employees. They work as and when they feel like.
Disadvantages of AW:
1) This is not for everyone.
2) Trade secrets should be well handled.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Unleashed 1.0 of “Rocket Science” of IT
A key component of green projects is integrated design, which leverages the expertise of multiple disciplines, such as architecture, engineering, and contracting to devise comprehensive solutions.
Development costs are only the tip of the iceberg. Maintenance, base of the iceberg, is the major cost incurring factor. Software maintenance comprises: error correction, 20 percent; adaptation, 20 percent; and enhancements, 60 percent.
Software becomes increasingly unstructured as it is changed.
We think flexibility means start working without even understanding what all need to be done!! Interpreting flexibility this way is suicidal!!
A system becomes intellectually unmanageable when the level of interactions reaches the point where they cannot be thoroughly: planned, understood, anticipated, and guarded against.
Prototyping is done to assess feasibility and to verify requirements.
Drawbacks of prototyping are:
1) Prototype evolves into a final product - which is less robust.
2) Documentation is often sacrificed.
3) Quality defects may cause problems later.
4) Hard to change basic decisions made early.
5) Can be an excuse for poor programming practices.
6) Not so easy to maintain.
The basic characteristics of an Incremental Model are:
1) Functionality produced and delivered in small increments.
2) Focus attention first on essential features and add functionality only if and when needed.
3) Systems tend to be leaner.
4) May be hard to add functions later.
5) Follows Waterfall down to implementation.
6) Different parts implemented, tested, and delivered according to different priorities and at different times.
Spiral Model is risk driven, and radius of spiral represents cost accumulated so far.
Drawbacks of CMM: treats people as assembly line workers, i.e. replaceable, and unreliable. Humans are subordinated to defined processes.
Characteristics of a good Requirement Specification are:
1) A structured document that sets out the services the system is expected to provide.
2) Should be precise so that it can act as a contract between the system procurer and software developers. Needs to be understandable by both.
3) Describes what the system will do, but NOT how it will do so.
Characteristics of a good Design Specification are:
1) An abstract description of the software that serves as a basis for detailed design and implementation.
2) Describes HOW the requirements will be achieved.
3) Goals and constraints specified in requirements document should be traceable to the design specification and from there to the code.
Contents of a Requirements Document should be:
1) Introduction
2) System model with Use-Cases
3) System evolution – fundamental assumptions on which the system is based and anticipated changes due to the hardware evolution, changing user needs, etcetera
4) Functional requirements – the services provided to the user. This includes timing and accuracy requirements.
5) Constraints – how the goals can be achieved. E.g. safety, hardware, programming languages, standards that must be followed, quality requirements, etcetera.
6) Priorities – guide tradeoffs and design decisions, if all the requirements and constraints cannot be completely achieved.
7) Interfaces to the environment – input and output interfaces and relevant assumptions about environmental components with which the software will be interacting.
8) Glossary
9) Indexes
Make program structure fit the problem structure.
Think of development as a TREE rather than a LINE.
Development costs are only the tip of the iceberg. Maintenance, base of the iceberg, is the major cost incurring factor. Software maintenance comprises: error correction, 20 percent; adaptation, 20 percent; and enhancements, 60 percent.
Software becomes increasingly unstructured as it is changed.
We think flexibility means start working without even understanding what all need to be done!! Interpreting flexibility this way is suicidal!!
A system becomes intellectually unmanageable when the level of interactions reaches the point where they cannot be thoroughly: planned, understood, anticipated, and guarded against.
Prototyping is done to assess feasibility and to verify requirements.
Drawbacks of prototyping are:
1) Prototype evolves into a final product - which is less robust.
2) Documentation is often sacrificed.
3) Quality defects may cause problems later.
4) Hard to change basic decisions made early.
5) Can be an excuse for poor programming practices.
6) Not so easy to maintain.
The basic characteristics of an Incremental Model are:
1) Functionality produced and delivered in small increments.
2) Focus attention first on essential features and add functionality only if and when needed.
3) Systems tend to be leaner.
4) May be hard to add functions later.
5) Follows Waterfall down to implementation.
6) Different parts implemented, tested, and delivered according to different priorities and at different times.
Spiral Model is risk driven, and radius of spiral represents cost accumulated so far.
Drawbacks of CMM: treats people as assembly line workers, i.e. replaceable, and unreliable. Humans are subordinated to defined processes.
Characteristics of a good Requirement Specification are:
1) A structured document that sets out the services the system is expected to provide.
2) Should be precise so that it can act as a contract between the system procurer and software developers. Needs to be understandable by both.
3) Describes what the system will do, but NOT how it will do so.
Characteristics of a good Design Specification are:
1) An abstract description of the software that serves as a basis for detailed design and implementation.
2) Describes HOW the requirements will be achieved.
3) Goals and constraints specified in requirements document should be traceable to the design specification and from there to the code.
Contents of a Requirements Document should be:
1) Introduction
2) System model with Use-Cases
3) System evolution – fundamental assumptions on which the system is based and anticipated changes due to the hardware evolution, changing user needs, etcetera
4) Functional requirements – the services provided to the user. This includes timing and accuracy requirements.
5) Constraints – how the goals can be achieved. E.g. safety, hardware, programming languages, standards that must be followed, quality requirements, etcetera.
6) Priorities – guide tradeoffs and design decisions, if all the requirements and constraints cannot be completely achieved.
7) Interfaces to the environment – input and output interfaces and relevant assumptions about environmental components with which the software will be interacting.
8) Glossary
9) Indexes
Make program structure fit the problem structure.
Think of development as a TREE rather than a LINE.
Managing Diversity
According to David A. Thomas and Robin J. Ely, it is our belief that there is a distinct way to unleash the powerful benefits of a diverse workforce. Although these benefits include increased profitability, they go beyond financial measures to encompass learning, creativity, flexibility, organizational and individual growth, and the ability of a company to adjust rapidly and successfully to market changes.
The desired transformation, however, requires a fundamental change in the attitudes and behaviors of an organization’s leadership. And that will come only when senior managers abandon an underlying and flawed assumption about diversity and replace it with a broader understanding. Most people assume that workplace diversity is all about increasing racial, national, gender, or class representation – in other words, recruiting and retaining more people from traditionally underrepresented “identity groups.” This is ONLY partially true. Diversity is much more than this.
Diversity is not only “diversifying” the work place by bringing different kinds of people on board, but also “diversifying” the way the work is done at a workplace.
Three perspectives have guided most diversity initiatives to date:
1) The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm
2) The access-and-legitimacy paradigm
3) The learning-and-effectiveness paradigm – the best amongst these three
The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm: This paradigm is perhaps thus far the dominant way of understanding diversity. Leaders who look at diversity through this usually focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment, and compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity requirements. Under this paradigm, nevertheless, progress in diversity is measured by how well the company achieves its recruitment and retention goals rather than by the degree to which conditions in the company allow employees to draw on their personal assets and perspectives to do their work more effectively. The staff gets diversified, but the work does not.
The access-and-legitimacy paradigm: This paradigm accepts and celebrates the differences. When this paradigm has taken hold, organizations have pushed for access to – and legitimacy with – a more diverse clientele by matching the demographics of the organization to those of critical consumer or constituent group. In some cases, the effort has led to substantial increases in organizational diversity. This paradigm has a lot of good things – kind of near to perfect – but one: once the organization appears to be achieving its goals, the leaders seldom go on to identify and analyze the culturally based skills, beliefs, and practices that worked so well. Nor do they consider how the organization can incorporate and learn from those skills, beliefs, or practices in order to capitalize on diversity in the long run.
The learning-and-effectiveness paradigm: This paradigm incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms but goes beyond them by, concretely, connecting diversity to approaches to work. Under this paradigm, companies incorporate employees’ perspectives into the main work of the organizations, enhance work by rethinking primary tasks, and redefine markets, products, strategies, missions, business practices, and even cultures. This relatively new paradigm for managing diversity transcends both – the fairness-paradigm that promotes equal opportunity for all individuals, and access-paradigm that acknowledges cultural differences among people and that recognizes the value in those differences. Yet this new paradigm lets the organization internalize differences among employees so that the organization learns and grows because of the internalized differences. Thus, employees can say – we are all on the same team, with our differences – not despite them.
The desired transformation, however, requires a fundamental change in the attitudes and behaviors of an organization’s leadership. And that will come only when senior managers abandon an underlying and flawed assumption about diversity and replace it with a broader understanding. Most people assume that workplace diversity is all about increasing racial, national, gender, or class representation – in other words, recruiting and retaining more people from traditionally underrepresented “identity groups.” This is ONLY partially true. Diversity is much more than this.
Diversity is not only “diversifying” the work place by bringing different kinds of people on board, but also “diversifying” the way the work is done at a workplace.
Three perspectives have guided most diversity initiatives to date:
1) The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm
2) The access-and-legitimacy paradigm
3) The learning-and-effectiveness paradigm – the best amongst these three
The discrimination-and-fairness paradigm: This paradigm is perhaps thus far the dominant way of understanding diversity. Leaders who look at diversity through this usually focus on equal opportunity, fair treatment, recruitment, and compliance with Equal Employment Opportunity requirements. Under this paradigm, nevertheless, progress in diversity is measured by how well the company achieves its recruitment and retention goals rather than by the degree to which conditions in the company allow employees to draw on their personal assets and perspectives to do their work more effectively. The staff gets diversified, but the work does not.
The access-and-legitimacy paradigm: This paradigm accepts and celebrates the differences. When this paradigm has taken hold, organizations have pushed for access to – and legitimacy with – a more diverse clientele by matching the demographics of the organization to those of critical consumer or constituent group. In some cases, the effort has led to substantial increases in organizational diversity. This paradigm has a lot of good things – kind of near to perfect – but one: once the organization appears to be achieving its goals, the leaders seldom go on to identify and analyze the culturally based skills, beliefs, and practices that worked so well. Nor do they consider how the organization can incorporate and learn from those skills, beliefs, or practices in order to capitalize on diversity in the long run.
The learning-and-effectiveness paradigm: This paradigm incorporates aspects of the first two paradigms but goes beyond them by, concretely, connecting diversity to approaches to work. Under this paradigm, companies incorporate employees’ perspectives into the main work of the organizations, enhance work by rethinking primary tasks, and redefine markets, products, strategies, missions, business practices, and even cultures. This relatively new paradigm for managing diversity transcends both – the fairness-paradigm that promotes equal opportunity for all individuals, and access-paradigm that acknowledges cultural differences among people and that recognizes the value in those differences. Yet this new paradigm lets the organization internalize differences among employees so that the organization learns and grows because of the internalized differences. Thus, employees can say – we are all on the same team, with our differences – not despite them.
Empowerment
According to Chris Argyris, human beings can commit themselves in two fundamentally different ways: Externally and Internally. Both are valuable in the workplace, but only internal commitment reinforces empowerment.
If management wants employees to take more responsibility for their own destiny, it must encourage the development of internal commitment. As the name implies, internal commitment comes largely from within. The more that top management wants internal commitment from its employees, the more it must try to involve employees in defining work objectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets.
External commitment is a psychological survival mechanism for many employees – it is a form of adaptive behavior that allows individuals to get by in most work environments.
Realize that external and internal commitment can coexist in organizations but that how they do so is crucial to the ultimate success or failure of empowerment in the organization. External commitment is all it takes for performance in most routine jobs. Unnecessary attempts to increase empowerment only end up creating downward spirals of cynicism, disillusionment, and inefficiencies. As a first precaution, distinguish between jobs that require internal commitment and those that do not.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can empower all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot empower all of the people all of the time.
If management wants employees to take more responsibility for their own destiny, it must encourage the development of internal commitment. As the name implies, internal commitment comes largely from within. The more that top management wants internal commitment from its employees, the more it must try to involve employees in defining work objectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets.
External commitment is a psychological survival mechanism for many employees – it is a form of adaptive behavior that allows individuals to get by in most work environments.
Realize that external and internal commitment can coexist in organizations but that how they do so is crucial to the ultimate success or failure of empowerment in the organization. External commitment is all it takes for performance in most routine jobs. Unnecessary attempts to increase empowerment only end up creating downward spirals of cynicism, disillusionment, and inefficiencies. As a first precaution, distinguish between jobs that require internal commitment and those that do not.
To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln: You can empower all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot empower all of the people all of the time.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Six Dangerous Myths About Pay
In the “Harvard Business Review on Managing People”, an article by Jeffrey Pfeffer states that businesspeople are adopting wrongheaded notions about how to pay people and why. In particular businesspeople are under six dangerous myths about pay. Here, I present you my understandings of that research paper.
Myth #1: Labor rates are the same as labor costs.
Myth #2: Cutting labor rates will lower labor costs.
Myth #3: Labor costs represent a large portion of a company’s total costs.
Myth #4: Keeping labor costs low creates a substantial competitive edge.
Myth #5: Individual incentive pay improves performance.
Myth #6: People work primarily for the money.
Explanation of Myth #1 and Myth #2: A labor rate is total salary paid to the labor force divided by total time worked by them. But, labor costs take productivity into account, besides the total amount paid to the labor force. Thus, labor rates and labor costs are different. For example, consider two companies X and Y that are in the same business and produce the same products.
Case 1: Company X pays $10 per-hour to 100 employees for producing Z units of a product in 50 hours.
So, Labor Rate = (total salary paid to the labor force)/ (total time worked) = $(10*100*50)/ (50 hours) = $1000/hour
Labor Cost = $50000
Case 2: Company Y pays $15 per-hour to 100 employees for producing Z units of the same product as Y does in 30 hours.
So, Labor Rate = (total salary paid to the labor force)/ (total time worked) =
$(15*100*30)/ (30 hours) = $1500/hour
Labor Cost = $45000
Now, see, although Labor Rate at company Y, $1500/hour, is higher than the Labor Rate at company X, $1000/hour, but, still, Labor Cost at Y, $45000, is lower than the Labor Cost at X, $50000.
How is this possible? This is possible simply because of higher productivity demonstrated at company Y than that at company X. The labor force at Y finished the same job in lesser number of hours than did the labor force at X, keeping the quality of work the same. And, this theory of productivity is true in, almost, all the fields of businesses.
Case #1 and Case #2, mentioned above, also explain Myth #2 – just by lowering the labor rate, it’s not possible to reduce the labor cost. Productivity is something that should not be overlooked. In order to remain competitive in the market, a company cannot afford to live with these two myths.
Explanation of Myth #3: Managers who mix up labor rates and labor costs also tend to accept Myth #3 that labor costs are a significant portion of total costs. Sometimes, that’s true. It is, for example, at Accounting and Consulting firms. But, the ratio of labor costs to total costs varies widely in different industries and companies. And even where it is true, it’s not as important as many managers believe. One of the reasons why the confusion over costs and rates persists is that labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact. Labor rates are highly visible, and it’s easy to compare the rates you pay with those paid by competitors or with those paid in other parts of the world. Moreover, labor rates often appear to be a company’s most malleable financial variable. It seems a lot quicker and easier to cut wages than to control costs in other ways, like reconfiguring manufacturing processes, changing corporate culture, or altering product design.
Explanation of Myth #4: Those who swallow this myth may neglect other more effective ways of competing strategies, such as through quality, service, delivery, and innovation. In reality, low labor costs are a slippery way to compete and perhaps the least sustainable competitive advantage there is.
Explanation of Myth #5: Individual incentive pay has been shown to undermine teamwork, encourage employees to focus on the short term, and lead people to link compensation to political skills and ingratiating personalities rather than to performance. Instead of individual incentive pay companies should opt for group-oriented compensation system. Some people might refute group-oriented pay-system on the basis that it induces “free riding” attitude in the team members. But, this is incorrect, because individuals do not make decisions about how much effort to expend in a social vacuum. Moreover, employees are influenced by peer pressure and the social relations they have with their workmates. Plus, sometimes, individual pay schemes go so far as to affect customers. For example, salespeople might piss the customers off by pestering them to buy the services or products that they are selling - in order to meet their targets. Another good reason is that in the typical individual-based merit pay system, the boss works with a raise budget that’s some percentage of the total salary budget for the unit. It’s inherently a zero-sum process: the more I get in my raise, the less is left for my colleagues. So, the worse my workmates perform, the happier I am because I know I will look better by comparison. This discourages people from sharing best practices and learning from other employees.
Explanation of Myth #6: People do work for money – but they work even more for meaning in their lives. In fact, they work to have fun. Companies that ignore this fact are essentially bribing their employees and will pay the price in a lack of loyalty and commitment.
Myth #1: Labor rates are the same as labor costs.
Myth #2: Cutting labor rates will lower labor costs.
Myth #3: Labor costs represent a large portion of a company’s total costs.
Myth #4: Keeping labor costs low creates a substantial competitive edge.
Myth #5: Individual incentive pay improves performance.
Myth #6: People work primarily for the money.
Explanation of Myth #1 and Myth #2: A labor rate is total salary paid to the labor force divided by total time worked by them. But, labor costs take productivity into account, besides the total amount paid to the labor force. Thus, labor rates and labor costs are different. For example, consider two companies X and Y that are in the same business and produce the same products.
Case 1: Company X pays $10 per-hour to 100 employees for producing Z units of a product in 50 hours.
So, Labor Rate = (total salary paid to the labor force)/ (total time worked) = $(10*100*50)/ (50 hours) = $1000/hour
Labor Cost = $50000
Case 2: Company Y pays $15 per-hour to 100 employees for producing Z units of the same product as Y does in 30 hours.
So, Labor Rate = (total salary paid to the labor force)/ (total time worked) =
$(15*100*30)/ (30 hours) = $1500/hour
Labor Cost = $45000
Now, see, although Labor Rate at company Y, $1500/hour, is higher than the Labor Rate at company X, $1000/hour, but, still, Labor Cost at Y, $45000, is lower than the Labor Cost at X, $50000.
How is this possible? This is possible simply because of higher productivity demonstrated at company Y than that at company X. The labor force at Y finished the same job in lesser number of hours than did the labor force at X, keeping the quality of work the same. And, this theory of productivity is true in, almost, all the fields of businesses.
Case #1 and Case #2, mentioned above, also explain Myth #2 – just by lowering the labor rate, it’s not possible to reduce the labor cost. Productivity is something that should not be overlooked. In order to remain competitive in the market, a company cannot afford to live with these two myths.
Explanation of Myth #3: Managers who mix up labor rates and labor costs also tend to accept Myth #3 that labor costs are a significant portion of total costs. Sometimes, that’s true. It is, for example, at Accounting and Consulting firms. But, the ratio of labor costs to total costs varies widely in different industries and companies. And even where it is true, it’s not as important as many managers believe. One of the reasons why the confusion over costs and rates persists is that labor rates are a convenient target for managers who want to make an impact. Labor rates are highly visible, and it’s easy to compare the rates you pay with those paid by competitors or with those paid in other parts of the world. Moreover, labor rates often appear to be a company’s most malleable financial variable. It seems a lot quicker and easier to cut wages than to control costs in other ways, like reconfiguring manufacturing processes, changing corporate culture, or altering product design.
Explanation of Myth #4: Those who swallow this myth may neglect other more effective ways of competing strategies, such as through quality, service, delivery, and innovation. In reality, low labor costs are a slippery way to compete and perhaps the least sustainable competitive advantage there is.
Explanation of Myth #5: Individual incentive pay has been shown to undermine teamwork, encourage employees to focus on the short term, and lead people to link compensation to political skills and ingratiating personalities rather than to performance. Instead of individual incentive pay companies should opt for group-oriented compensation system. Some people might refute group-oriented pay-system on the basis that it induces “free riding” attitude in the team members. But, this is incorrect, because individuals do not make decisions about how much effort to expend in a social vacuum. Moreover, employees are influenced by peer pressure and the social relations they have with their workmates. Plus, sometimes, individual pay schemes go so far as to affect customers. For example, salespeople might piss the customers off by pestering them to buy the services or products that they are selling - in order to meet their targets. Another good reason is that in the typical individual-based merit pay system, the boss works with a raise budget that’s some percentage of the total salary budget for the unit. It’s inherently a zero-sum process: the more I get in my raise, the less is left for my colleagues. So, the worse my workmates perform, the happier I am because I know I will look better by comparison. This discourages people from sharing best practices and learning from other employees.
Explanation of Myth #6: People do work for money – but they work even more for meaning in their lives. In fact, they work to have fun. Companies that ignore this fact are essentially bribing their employees and will pay the price in a lack of loyalty and commitment.
Pygmalion Effect
In the popular book, "Harvard Business Review on Managing People," one of the articles is by J.Sterling Livingston, who presents "Pygmalion in Management." I present you the gist of that article. Moreover, I encourage you to read the complete article on your own in order to gain more insights.
The way managers treat their subordinates is subtly influenced by what they expect of them. If managers’ expectations are high, productivity is likely to be excellent. If their expectations are low, productivity is likely to be poor. It is as though there were a law that caused subordinates’ performance to rise or fall to meet managers’ expectations.
Cases available from scientific research now reveal:
1) What managers expect of their subordinates and the way they treat them largely determines their performance and career progress.
2) A unique characteristic of superior managers is the ability to create high performance expectations that subordinates fulfill.
3) Less effective managers fail to develop similar expectations, and as a consequence, the productivity of their subordinates suffers.
4) Subordinates, more often that not, appear to do what they believe they are expected to do.
Pygmalion effect is also noticed in the healing professions, where a physician’s or psychiatrist’s expectations can have a formidable influence on a patient’s physical or mental health. For instance, the havoc of a doctor’s pessimistic prognosis has often been observed. Again, it is well known that the efficacy of a new drug or a new treatment can be greatly influenced by the physician’s expectations – a result referred to by the medical profession as a “placebo effect.”
When an employee is treated by her manager as a super-person, she tries to live up to that image, and does what she knows a super-employee is expected to do. But, when an employee, with poor productivity records, is treated by her manager as not having “any chance” of success, this negative expectation also becomes a managerial self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is virtually impossible for a manager to mask her low expectations of her subordinates because the message usually is communicated unintentionally, without conscious action on her part. Indeed, managers often communicate most when they believe they are communicating the least - for example, the silent treatment communicates negative feelings even more effectively, at times, than a tongue-lashing does. Indifferent and noncommittal treatment, more often than not, is the kind of treatment that communicates low expectations and leads to poor performance.
In general, managers are more effective in communicating low expectations to their subordinates than in communicating high expectations to them, even though most managers believe exactly the opposite. Clearly, the way managers treat subordinates, not the way they organize them, is the key to high expectations and high productivity.
Managerial expectations must pass the test of reality before they can be translated into performance. Subordinates will not be motivated to reach high levels of productivity unless they consider the boss’s high expectations realistic and achievable. If they are encouraged to strive for unattainable goals, they eventually give up trying and settle for results that are lower than they are capable of achieving. In short, “dangling the carrot just beyond the donkey’s reach,” endorsed by many managers, is NOT a good motivational device.
The degree of motivation and efforts rises until the expectancy of success reaches 50%, and then begins to fall even though the expectancy of success continues to increase. No motivation or response is aroused when the goal is perceived as being either virtually certain or virtually impossible to attain.
What accounts for the difference between superior managers, who create high performance expectations that their subordinates fulfill, and weaker managers, who create low performance expectations that their subordinates fulfill too?
The answer, in part, seems to be that superior mangers have greater confidence than the weaker managers have in their own abilities to develop the talents of their subordinates. Contrary to what might be assumed, the high expectations of superior managers are based primarily on what they think about themselves – about their own ability to select, train, and motivate their subordinates. What managers believe about themselves subtly influences what they believe about their subordinates, what they expect of them, and how they treat them. If they have confidence in their abilities to develop and stimulate them to high levels of performance, they will expect much of them and will treat them with confidence that their expectations will be met. But, if they have doubts about their abilities to stimulate them, they will expect less of them and will treat them with less confidence.
Initial corporate expectations for performance (with real responsibility) mold subsequent expectations and behavior. Thus, initial bosses of new college hires must be the best in the organization. Unfortunately, however, most companies practice exactly the opposite. Although most top executives have not yet diagnosed the problem, industry’s greatest challenge by far is to rectify the underdevelopment, underutilization, and inefficient management and use of its most valuable resource – its young managerial and professional talent. According to me, the underlying causes of high attrition are underdevelopment and underutilization of a work force that has high career aspirations. Moreover, a “generation gap” between bosses and subordinates is another significant cause of breakdown. Many managers resent the abstract, academic language, and narrow rationalization characteristically used by recent graduates.
Industry has not developed effective first-line managers fast enough to meet its needs. As a consequence, many companies are under developing their most valuable resource – talented young men and women. They are incurring heavy attrition costs and contributing to the negative attitudes young people often have about careers in business.
The challenge is clear: to speed the development of managers who will treat subordinates in ways that lead to high performance and career satisfaction. Managers not only shape the expectations and productivity of their subordinates, but also influence their attitudes toward their jobs and themselves. If managers are unskilled, they leave scars on the careers of young people, cut deeply into their self-esteem, and distort their image of themselves as human beings. But, if they are skillful and have high expectations, subordinates’ self-confidence will grow, their capabilities will develop, and their productivity will be high. More often than one realizes, the manager is Pygmalion.
The way managers treat their subordinates is subtly influenced by what they expect of them. If managers’ expectations are high, productivity is likely to be excellent. If their expectations are low, productivity is likely to be poor. It is as though there were a law that caused subordinates’ performance to rise or fall to meet managers’ expectations.
Cases available from scientific research now reveal:
1) What managers expect of their subordinates and the way they treat them largely determines their performance and career progress.
2) A unique characteristic of superior managers is the ability to create high performance expectations that subordinates fulfill.
3) Less effective managers fail to develop similar expectations, and as a consequence, the productivity of their subordinates suffers.
4) Subordinates, more often that not, appear to do what they believe they are expected to do.
Pygmalion effect is also noticed in the healing professions, where a physician’s or psychiatrist’s expectations can have a formidable influence on a patient’s physical or mental health. For instance, the havoc of a doctor’s pessimistic prognosis has often been observed. Again, it is well known that the efficacy of a new drug or a new treatment can be greatly influenced by the physician’s expectations – a result referred to by the medical profession as a “placebo effect.”
When an employee is treated by her manager as a super-person, she tries to live up to that image, and does what she knows a super-employee is expected to do. But, when an employee, with poor productivity records, is treated by her manager as not having “any chance” of success, this negative expectation also becomes a managerial self-fulfilling prophecy.
It is virtually impossible for a manager to mask her low expectations of her subordinates because the message usually is communicated unintentionally, without conscious action on her part. Indeed, managers often communicate most when they believe they are communicating the least - for example, the silent treatment communicates negative feelings even more effectively, at times, than a tongue-lashing does. Indifferent and noncommittal treatment, more often than not, is the kind of treatment that communicates low expectations and leads to poor performance.
In general, managers are more effective in communicating low expectations to their subordinates than in communicating high expectations to them, even though most managers believe exactly the opposite. Clearly, the way managers treat subordinates, not the way they organize them, is the key to high expectations and high productivity.
Managerial expectations must pass the test of reality before they can be translated into performance. Subordinates will not be motivated to reach high levels of productivity unless they consider the boss’s high expectations realistic and achievable. If they are encouraged to strive for unattainable goals, they eventually give up trying and settle for results that are lower than they are capable of achieving. In short, “dangling the carrot just beyond the donkey’s reach,” endorsed by many managers, is NOT a good motivational device.
The degree of motivation and efforts rises until the expectancy of success reaches 50%, and then begins to fall even though the expectancy of success continues to increase. No motivation or response is aroused when the goal is perceived as being either virtually certain or virtually impossible to attain.
What accounts for the difference between superior managers, who create high performance expectations that their subordinates fulfill, and weaker managers, who create low performance expectations that their subordinates fulfill too?
The answer, in part, seems to be that superior mangers have greater confidence than the weaker managers have in their own abilities to develop the talents of their subordinates. Contrary to what might be assumed, the high expectations of superior managers are based primarily on what they think about themselves – about their own ability to select, train, and motivate their subordinates. What managers believe about themselves subtly influences what they believe about their subordinates, what they expect of them, and how they treat them. If they have confidence in their abilities to develop and stimulate them to high levels of performance, they will expect much of them and will treat them with confidence that their expectations will be met. But, if they have doubts about their abilities to stimulate them, they will expect less of them and will treat them with less confidence.
Initial corporate expectations for performance (with real responsibility) mold subsequent expectations and behavior. Thus, initial bosses of new college hires must be the best in the organization. Unfortunately, however, most companies practice exactly the opposite. Although most top executives have not yet diagnosed the problem, industry’s greatest challenge by far is to rectify the underdevelopment, underutilization, and inefficient management and use of its most valuable resource – its young managerial and professional talent. According to me, the underlying causes of high attrition are underdevelopment and underutilization of a work force that has high career aspirations. Moreover, a “generation gap” between bosses and subordinates is another significant cause of breakdown. Many managers resent the abstract, academic language, and narrow rationalization characteristically used by recent graduates.
Industry has not developed effective first-line managers fast enough to meet its needs. As a consequence, many companies are under developing their most valuable resource – talented young men and women. They are incurring heavy attrition costs and contributing to the negative attitudes young people often have about careers in business.
The challenge is clear: to speed the development of managers who will treat subordinates in ways that lead to high performance and career satisfaction. Managers not only shape the expectations and productivity of their subordinates, but also influence their attitudes toward their jobs and themselves. If managers are unskilled, they leave scars on the careers of young people, cut deeply into their self-esteem, and distort their image of themselves as human beings. But, if they are skillful and have high expectations, subordinates’ self-confidence will grow, their capabilities will develop, and their productivity will be high. More often than one realizes, the manager is Pygmalion.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Two Dimensions, Four Cultures
In the popular book, “Harvard Business Review on Managing People”, one of the articles - is by Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones - presents a matrix for understanding organizational culture, and what holds the modern company together. I present you the gist of that article. Moreover, I encourage you to read the complete article on your own in order to gain more insights.
Sociability is a measure of sincere friendliness among members of a community.
Solidarity is a measure of community’s ability to pursue shared objectives quickly and effectively, regardless of personal ties.
Note: None of these cultures is “the best.” In fact each is appropriate for different business environments.
Networked Organization:
Networked organizations are characterized not by a lack of hierarchy but by a profusion of ways to get around it. Few organizations start their life cycle in the networked quadrant. Sociability is built up over time. It follows that many organizations migrate to networked organization from other quadrants.
Characteristics:
1) People frequently stop to talk in the hallways.
2) People wander into one another’s offices with no purpose but to say hello.
3) Lunch is an event in which groups often go out and dine together.
4) Many of these organizations celebrate birthdays, field softball teams, and hold parties to honor an employee’s long service or retirement.
5) Employees act like family, attending one another’s weddings, and anniversary parties.
6) Friends or cliques of friends make sure that decisions about issues are made before meetings are held to discuss them.
7) People move from one position to another without “required” training.
8) Employees are hired without going through official channels in the human resources department.
Advantages:
1) Informality can lend flexibility to an organization and be a healthy way of cutting through the bureaucracy.
2) The ability to collect and selectively disseminate soft information.
3) The ability to acquire sponsors or allies in the company who will speak on their behalf both formally and informally.
Disadvantages:
1) The low level of solidarity means the managers often have trouble getting functions or operating companies to cooperate.
2) A networked organization is usually so political that individuals and cliques spend much of their time pursuing personal agendas.
3) It becomes hard for colleagues to agree on priorities and for managers to enforce them.
4) Employees often contest performance measures, procedures, rules, and systems.
How to improve?
1) Learn to overcome the negatives of sociability, such as cliques, gossip, and low productivity.
2) Focus on increased creativity and commitment.
3) Move individuals regularly between functions, businesses, and countries in order to limit excessive local identification and help them develop a wider strategic view of the organization.
4) Later on, these individuals often become the primary managers of the networked organization’s political processes, and they keep them healthy.
Mercenary Organization:
Characteristics:
1) Low on hallway hobnobbing and high on data-laden memos.
2) Almost all communication in a mercenary organization is focused on business matters.
3) Individual interests coincide with corporate objectives, and those objectives are often linked to a crystal clear perception of the “enemy” and the steps to beat it.
4) Ability to respond quickly and cohesively to a perceived opportunity or threat in the marketplace.
5) Priorities are decided swiftly – generally by senior management – and enforced throughout the organization with little debate.
6) A clear separation of work and social life. Interestingly, these cultures often consist of people whose work life takes priority over their private life.
7) Members of this kind of business community rarely fraternize outside the office, and if they do, it is at business functions.
8) Because of the absence of the personal ties, mercenary organizations are generally intolerant of poor performance.
9) They are rarely bastions of loyalty because people stay with high-solidarity companies as long as their personal needs are met, and then they move on.
Advantages:
1) Because of focused activities, many mercenary organizations are very productive.
2) Unhindered by friendships, employees are not reluctant to compete, further enhancing performance as standards get pushed ever higher.
Disadvantages:
1) Employees busy chasing specific targets are often disinclined to cooperate, share information, or exchange new or creative ideas.
2) Cooperation between units with different goals is even less likely.
Fragmented Organization:
People in fragmented organizations often work with their doors shut or at home.
Characteristics:
1) Employees show a low consciousness of organizational membership. They often believe that they work for themselves or they identify with occupational groups.
2) Employees don’t like to wear the name of the company on their T-shirts.
3) Employees engage in none of the extracurricular rites and rituals that characterize high-sociability cultures, considering them a waste of time.
4) People work with their doors shut or, in many cases, at home, going to the office only to collect mails or make long-distance calls.
5) Employees are generally secretive about their projects and progress with co-workers, offering information only when asked point-blank.
6) In extreme cases, members of fragmented organizations have such low levels of sociability that they attempt to sabotage the work of their “colleagues” through gossip, rumor, or overt criticism delivered to higher-ups in the organization.
7) This culture also has low levels of solidarity: its members rarely agree about organizational objectives, critical success factors, and performance standards.
8) Any social behavior that is discretionary is unlikely to take place.
Advantages-cum-disadvantages:
1) This kind of environment is attractive to individuals who prefer to work alone or to keep their work and personal lives entirely separate.
2) This culture functions well in manufacturing concerns that rely heavily on the outsourcing of piecework.
3) This culture may succeed in professional organizations, such as Consulting and Law Firms, in which highly trained individuals have idiosyncratic work styles.
4) This culture can also work for companies that have become virtual: employees work either at home or on the road, reporting in to a central base mainly by electronic means.
Communal Organization:
A communal culture can evolve at any stage of a company’s life cycle. This culture is most prevalent at start-ups. Many managers see the communal organization as the ideal.
Characteristics:
1) In communal organizations, everything feels in sync.
2) Employees possess a high, sometimes exaggerated, consciousness of organizational identity and membership.
3) Organizational life is punctuated by social events that take on a strong ritual significance.
4) An equitable share of risks and rewards among employees.
5) Communal organizations place an extremely high value on fairness and justice.
6) Solidarity also shows itself clearly when it comes to company goals and values.
7) Finally, in communal organizations, employees are very clear about the competition. They know which companies threaten theirs.
Advantages:
1) Ideal.
2) Once this culture is achieved and sustained, corporate life becomes very productive.
3) Very useful for an organization where innovation requires elaborate and extensive teamwork across functions and perhaps locations.
4) Very useful for an organization where there are real synergies among organizational subunits and real opportunities for learning.
5) Very useful for an organization where the business environment is dynamic and complex, such as in IT, telecommunications, and pharmaceuticals, because in these industries, organizations interface with their environment through multiple connections involving technology, customers, the government, competition, and research institutes. Communal culture aids in the synthesis of information from all the sources.
Disadvantages:
1) Employees may withdraw their cooperation the moment they become unable to identify shared advantage.
2) Communal culture may be an inappropriate and unattainable ideal in many business contexts. The reason is that many businesses that achieve the communal form find it hard to sustain. Communal culture works mostly for religious, political, and civic organizations.
3) High levels of sociability and solidarity are often formed around particular founders or leaders whose departure may weaken either or both forms of social relationship.
4) The high-sociability, half of the communal culture, is often antithetical to what goes on inside an organization during periods of growth, diversification, or internalization.
5) The sincere geniality of sociability doesn’t usually coexist – it cannot – with solidarity’s dispassionate, sometimes ruthless focus on achievement of goals. When the two do coexist, it is often in religious or volunteer groups.
To increase sociability, Managers can take the following steps:
1) Promote the sharing of ideas, interests, and emotions by recruiting compatible people – people who naturally seem likely to become friends.
2) Increase social interaction among employees by arranging casual gatherings inside and outside the office, such as parties, excursions, and book club.
3) Reduce formality amongst employees.
4) Limit hierarchical differences.
5) Act like a friend yourself, and set example for geniality and kindness by caring for those in trouble.
To build solidarity, Managers can take the following steps:
1) Develop awareness of competitors through briefings, newsletters, videos, memos, or E-mails.
2) Create a sense of urgency.
3) Stimulate the will to win.
4) Encourage commitment to shared corporate goals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)