Insights for the day 12/12

Putting Your Company's Whole Brain to Work

Group EQ. Get people with various levels of EQ together to make a productive team. Rather, you may never have a choice to choose people with the desired level of EQ. Which means that you work with what you have. It is then about making the team with different EQ levels productive. It is more important to recognize the EQ level of each member of the team. While there are tools available to gauge the EQ level of a person, one may also evaluate the EQ levels by pure observation. Recognize the level of EQ and appreciate it. A high or a low EQ isn't necessarily good or bad. Having people with varied level of EQ working together in teams may lead to conflicts as is mostly the case. it is then about having set norms that need to be followed. This is so that people know the boundaries.

I could put this into perspective from the reading of the case - Bob's meltdown. I see that group EQ has a role to play even if it is a group of the Management team. The case reflects this fact and I can relate it back to my workplace. I remember events where behaviour of certain top brass employees in my company was inconsistent with both, their usual behaviour and the company policies. While at that time I never bothered to think about such behaviour, I can now see what goes behind such behaviour. There was an event of a project manager from the consulting team shouting back at his peer from the development team. It was triggered when the manager from the development team asked the manager from the consulting team to stay a little longer to discuss about an ongoing project. The response from the manager from the consulting team was very surprising and this happened in front of most of the employees. Mostly their direct repots. An incident very similar to the one I read in today's case.

I have two thoughts here. One, how to create an environment where such issues do not happen frequently? And second, Issues like this will happen from time to time. What is it that one can do to fix them soon? If I were in a position similar to Jay Nguyen, my work really starts much earlier than just fire fighting later on. It is a function of team building and discipline (norms) that creates an amicable environment workplace. Here team building is the preventive measure and discipline is the corrective measure. From my work experience I believe team building is a mostly a very simple process but can get complex sometimes. Simply put, it is about getting people to know each other and getting them to appreciate each other. There are all types of people out there and everybody always finds someone that he / she gets along well. It is mostly the circumstances / environment that make the difference. I believe that the answer lies here. If I can create an environment then the tam will usually get along well. Further, there will be times where conflicts of emotions arise. And at such times you may need to fall back to the set norms of the team.

Insights for the day 11/12

The Art of Work:

Today’s session started with a discussion on yesterday’s topic of the CAN groups. Most of the things that I reflected in my yesterdays email were reinforced with the example given to us by Professor Borromeo. He talked about an incident back in 1993 where the news of choosing your CAN group mates reached the students. And their reactions to this news were very different than what was expected of them. The high graders got together in groups and the laggers were left all by themselves. There I saw an opportunity for any of the high graders to assume a position of leadership by taking responsibility of the weaker students. But that did not happen. Obviously very disappointing. This goes on to say how important it is to "Learn" human behaviour. Both, to understand others around you but more importantly to understand oneself. How human beings behave in groups vs. individually; how they behave in the good times vs. the tough times; is a very interesting concept to study and I pursue it carefully. What I can reflect right now in reference to the example shared by Professor Borromeo is that any person can be nice when he/she is surrounded by nice easy surroundings. The true self of a person really emerges in situations that are high pressure and difficult.

The discussion for today mostly revolved around motivation: Self motivation and motivating others. Folks reflected on their understanding of motivation and what motivates them. There were as may versions as voices I could hear. But all thought really neared around defining motivation as a feeling to do a particular thing. The act of making your objective so attractive that it drives you for it.

So where does motivation come from?

Some amount / sort of motivation can be sought from your surroundings. In other words you can be motivated by people / things around you. But such motivation is usually short lived and usually dies down with the accomplishment or failure of the objective. Further, one has to 'depend' on other  people / things to seek motivation which may not always happen. Over the past few years that I have spent working I realize that true and sustainable motivation really comes from within the person. I can motivate myself. I know what works best for me; not others. More importantly, I set my own challenges, however big or small they may be, and so in order to live upto my self esteem, I have to fulfil the promises I have made to myself.

The case in today’s HBO class today was Billy Bonsai. It has taken me a while to appreciate that every case being discussed in the class doesn't really have a solution or a key. And the more I realize this fact that more openly I am able to think. Realizing that these isn't a perfect solution for the case makes me thing out of the box. I think this has been the most important learning at AIM yet. If I imagine being in the situation of Hidayat (the case character) I would most probably consider Billy as a valuable employee that I may not want to lose. He is a positive character of skill, motivation and high on energy. Someone who is always an important ingredient of a team. the issues at hand is really about having Billy be a little more dedicated to his work. And this is never a difficult task as long as the person in question has motivation and positive energy. It is only channelling his energy. As a manager, the most difficult people I have come across are the people who do not have a drive. When there isn't a drive, the only thing you can do is constant monitoring and that can really become very energy sapping.

Insights for the day 10/12

Trouble brews in the team:

Today’s class started with a discussion on the functioning of a group with our CAN groups as an example. We talked about what are the common goals of a particular CAN group.

 I realize that different people have different objectives in a group some of which may be common among its members. In the CAN group example people listed group learning, team work, better grades, completing projects on time, etc as common objectives. However I have a different viewpoint on this. Since in our CAN groups, the performance of one member has no impact on the performance of the others, there cannot be too many common objectives. With the exception of completing projects that have to be submitted by CAN groups as a whole. And such projects are few and far between. With that said, members are mostly guided with their own independent objectives which seldom have other members in the scheme of things. I believe that for a CAN group to really work as team, the performance for the team members should be interrelated. How my fellow group mate does should have at least some bearing on my grades as well. Most of the academic learning happens during the classes and self study sessions. Hence what I expect to take away from my CAN group is experiential learning in terms of group dynamics. The eventual work environment will mostly be marked by working in groups. What I study in MBA will only be useful if I am able to reflect my learnings while working in a group; and frequently a difficult group to work with.

The ideal objectives of working in a CAN group should not be purely academic. I would want to learn how people's behaviours change while working in a group. I would want to learn what works in a group and what doesn't. For some others I see an opportunity to learn things like leveraging other people’s knowledge about a particular subject, experiencing how to make oneself heard in a competitive group, assuming leadership among peers, etc. The CAN groups provide us with a low stake practice ground as compared to the real world. And this opportunity should not be lost in purely maximizing academic learning. While studies are a medium and enhanced academic learning a useful by-product, it is group dynamics that is the real take away for me.

When I reflect back to the case in discussion today, I again realize the importance of understanding the working of a group. It should not have taken Larry Franco as many emails to realize that the group "HAS" to work together. From my experience I believe that it is more important to get the group working together towards a common objective even if it means letting go of the top performer. One cannot hold the cohesiveness performance of the group a ransom to the performance of a single member. While star performers are valuable, it does not necessarily follow that they cannot work in a group. A small amount of counselling and perhaps a stricter action sometimes can do the trick. There will however still be a few exceptions and I know them as "Brain Boxes". For such people to be most productive and successful an individual contributor role would be most suited.

Insights for the day 08/12

The Survival Manual -

The session today started with a discussion on how to build an indept understanding on the subject in discussion. How is it that one can (or in a group) achieve breadth and depth of understanding.

The key lies in probing, in poking the point of discussion from all directions by asking questions. Every question answered will lead to multiple other ideas and observations. Each of which could be probed further until such time that the breadth and depth of the topic is measured. More so in a group discussion.

So how is it really done?

Dont let go of any idea or observation. Explore it further to generate related questions. Keep the though process open by asking open-ended questoins.

One should start by taking a overview of the discussion / topic. Whats going on here? What underlying message is emerging.

At first the answer may be vague and broad and thats healthy for developing a broader undestanding about the topic. Each idea generated here needs to be probed further untill the depth is exhausted. Asking questions like Who? When? Where ? How? and Why? and asking questions like Who not? When not? Where not? How not? and Why not? will add much more dimension to the though process. An indepth discussion on these thoughs will in most cases paint a picture in your mind. Try to read the patterns from this picture. Try and generalize these patterns it and you may end up developing a theorey that could be replicated in other situations too.

This is a constructive method in maddness to the expand the thinking process.

Insights for the day 11/06

The Tipping Point

There are two things I would like to talk about from todays session. These are:

1) The Tipping Point

2) Path to success as I know it

The Tipping Point - 

"The levels at which the momentum for change becomes unstoppable" - Wikipedia

The essence here is again "change". I have expierenced this in the past, both at work and otherwise. But could never give a name to this phenomena. How sometimes things start changing (for good or bad) at a very rapid pace on a very large scale. Some times the initiation of this change is unintentional; unexpected. Eg, a certain movie character, the spread of AIDS, the spread of sudden affinity to a celebrity, an adoption of a behaviour, practicing yoga, etc. If you look around countiously you would realize that these changes happen all the time at various scales.

So who initiates such changes? Who catalizes it? Who follows? These are things I never though of in the past. I learned about these dimensions form todays session. But am not yet able to relate to these very well.

But with insight in the topic now, I am sure I will be more contious about these dimensions.

The other thing I would like to talk about is "The path to success". This is something that i have followed and preached at workplace. Exactly the way it was discussed in the class.

1) Where are we currently? - Unless we know where we are currently, we will not be able to plan to get any where. How would one know how much distance is left to be travelled? And in which direction?

2) Where do we want to get to? - It is important to know our target. Else how will you aim? Unless you know your destination, you would not know the route to get there.

3) How do we get there? - With the above two questions answered we have won half the battle. If a person is countious enough to know where he is and where he needs to go to, he will most likely get there. Such a person would be able to find his own directions. So It is really the first two answers that are most important.

4) How do we know that we are getting there? Ofcourse, you will need to stop and keep evaluation your progress. This lets you change direction / strategy in time if there is a need to do so.

Insights for the day 11/05

The Dance of Change

The essence of todays discussion was CHANGE and how people and organizations react to changes that effect them. Change is the only constant in todays business environment. There are companies that have made fortunes only because they were able to quickly adapt and change according to the changing business needs. At the same time there have been faliures bacause organization were unable to change when required.

I have always known that people are resistant to change but have never really thought about it in much detail; until todays session. "People are usually resistant to a change" was more of a given for me. But I now think about why it is so. Why are people resistant to change and what will it take to make them change, either willingly or forcefully? And is change even required?

Primarily, people are accustomed to a set practices and behaviours. A change may be required form time to time as the external environment changes. We know the business environment today is continously changing and organizations need to be able to adapt quickly and frequently.

People are usually accustomed to their comfort zone. Changing usually means that they step out of their comfort zone. Unless there is a real need or mandate they will not be very willing to do so. So, to change people you will need to make them step out of their confort zone. This can be done by showing them a need to change. Show them what is in it for them. Unless they see a benifit of changing, they will not change. People will do something that makes them feel good. Sometimes, a quick reward, quick results may need to be showcased to help people change. Reward the behaviour that you want people to repeat. Of course, there will always be people who are always unwilling to change. No amount of motivation / reward can make them change their behaviours. This is a common scenario I had seen in my work environment. In such sitations one may need to 'force' people to change. Punish them if need be. Punish them if they are too stubborn for change. Perhaps create an amount of discomfort in their comfort zone.

Furthermore, there may still be people who will just not cchange. Afterall it may not be a bad idea to let such people go. 

Some open questions I would like to be answered

Is there an end to motivation ? I can motivate my people but this is a never ending exercise. The performance goes back to square one as I stop motivation them. Isn't there an end to it?

I may not always be doing the job that I love. What then will keep me motivated all the time?

How do you balance between being people focussed and performance focussed? When to stop being considerate and start firing people?

Insights for the day 11/05

People are our Greatest Assets

The topic for todays discussion was "People are our greatest assets". This is something I have been hearing ever since I started working. And I am sure this virtue has been propogated several times over in the last several decades at every organization possible. Evidently it is not news and nor is it something that has recently been discoverd by the management gurus. Why then is it still a buzz word? I believe it is so because it is importat for organizations to understand this fact. However, most just preach and a very few pursue this virtue.

In the recent past and in present we have had umpteen number of management gurus talk about this including people like Peter Drucker. Give people empowerement, responsibility, motivation, care for them, etc. This is not a new thought. It has been with us since a long time. We have know this all along. Why is it then being talked about over again? Perhaps because we have not been practicing it. Managers / Organizations accept it cognitivly but do not reflect this in their actions. I feel that following this practice does not take professional training. It is only an attitude / behaviour that has to be developed over time. And the way it can be done is by creating a cohesive organization. Easier said than done I am sure. Perhaps the essence of the topic is a little intangible for me to be able to put in words. But by expierence I realize it. 

In todays organizations people are our customers. While organizations are still in the process of acknowledging this, 'People' have already realized it. This is very evident from the way people work and respond to each other. The work environment has changed and the bureaucratic environment is quickly becoming the past. To get a work done managers can no longer impose their authority any more. You need to convince people about their and the organizations objectives. The entire framework of HRMS has moved from being a "Personnel Department" to "Human Resources" to now "Human Capital Management". People realize that employment is no more 'employment'. It is now more of an association from which both parties benifit equally. Employees invest their time and energy in the companies they work for.

Another intresting discussion was on how organization have increased focus on developing a positive winning culture. Organizations realize that everything but the culture can be replicated by their competition. Everything like product design, strategy, business models, employees can be copied / borrowed / stolen / bought by the competition? It is only the culture that cannot be stolen or copied so easily and hence there is am increased focus on nurturing a good organization culture.

As a contribution to the class I coluld share my expierece of some typical "people policies" of the companies that I worked with. Examples of how it is the people leave people and not organizatoins. How people impact the workplace more than the HR Practices. While i could share some of these with the class, the other thoughts we still left in work-in-process.

Major Insights for the day 11/04

Corporate and organization Culture

Todays session revolved around Organization and Corporate Culture. The differences and similarities between the two. I understand that Corporate Culture is what is defined. The culture that is to be. Whereas, an organizatoin culture is what evolves as a result of beliefs, thoughts, etc. Of course these two are related.

Organization culture is evolved by the behaviour of the people in the organization. It is informally what people have started to believe is working mutually. A set of beliefs that people subconciously recognize as true and effective in their working with peers, customers, etc. Basically, the charecterstics of behaviour that they adopt in dealing with people both in the organization and people from outside. An organization culture is one that is passed on from one group of people to another that is newer in the organization.

From the vedio I saw for IDEO, i relaize that the organization culture, however intangible, can be very visible in the form of people's behaviour, general atmosphere and how they work with each other. During the class today there was a discussion on the Chris Argyris' "Theory of Action". Why do organizations and people in organization do not learn. Why don't they change their behaviours? People / Organizations; all have an innate recognition of their expected actions / behaviours to be reciprocated in particular situations which is usually different than how they "actually" react in such situations. The problem is that most people / organizations are not usually aware of this inequality of behaviour. This is the reason that prevents them from changing their behaviour. it goes on to say that people say something and not really mean the very same thing. They contradict themselves. People do not often walk their talks. if they knew about this disparity, they would probably be more prone to change.

During the class we also talked very briefly about some intresting reads on War for talent at Enron and Islamic banking. I am yet to read more about these on the internet.

Today i could not participate in the class discussion. This was really because my ideas were alrady brought up by other folks in the class and a little lack of opportunity.

Major Insights for the day 11/03

What makes a "Best Employer"?

Being a "Best Employer" has many benifits. One of which and perhaps the most important is that you will have the best people willing to join your workforce. Further, your workforce will be keen to stay with you longer and be more commited during this while. The initial discussion focused around the Best Employer philosphy of Hewitt. The culture of a company has a far reaching impact on the well being of its employees and the growth of a company. While, the leadership of any organization plays a critical role in the development of a good culture, it is certainly not limited to just that. Culture os a function of how people behave / interact with each other. A good culture is characterised by ethical conduct, empowerment of employees, meritocracy VS seniority based policies, work flexibility, etc.

A good part of the discussion was focused on Emotional Engagement and its impact on peoples behaviour. Lot of fellow students shared their personal expierence from the past work expierence oh what impact did a good or bad culture have on their behaviour and outlook towrds the company. While most agreed that emotional enagegement with their peers, bosses and the company helped them go that extra mile for their companies. In most cases People did more that what they signed up for simply because they felt strongly for the association they had with their bosses and the company as a whole. Motivation came out to be another very important factor that impacted peoples behaviour at workplace. While everyoone agrees that motivation can really influence people, desire and ability to perform better, what is still a little ambigous is the sincierity behind such motivation. Is it a genuine feeling of wanting to do your job best or is a tool used by supervisors to get the work done. I believe that motivation is a mix of both and needs to be that way. However emotional engagement is something that cannot be made up artificially. It may done superficially for a short while but will eventually emerge soon.

Is physical proximity a barrier to emotional engagement. There were though to both support and attach the motion. My belief on this is that emotional engagement does not depend on physical proximity. There are umpteen examples out there of people working together but still not wanteing to see eye to eye. Of course pysical proximity is a good medium for emotional engagement but is not a decisive factor. Emotional engagement can be developed and nurtred over a period of time irrespective of physical proximity.

There was also a small discussion on some usual behaviours of emotinally engaged employees It syas that these employees - Say—speak positively about their organization; Stay—they tend to stay much longer in the organization despite better opportunities elsewhere; and, Strive—they put in extra time and effort to contribute to the organizations success.