http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=51584&discussionID=810572&commentID=1026856&goback=%2Eana_51584_1230027780828_1#commentID_1026856
The reasons for organizations to listen to employees and/or employees want them to be heard by the organization are as follows... Why should Organization listen to Employees? 1.More often than not, i have seen organizations work on a "Herd Mentality". (Not too far off from "Nerd" mentality). 2.This is perhaps generated because of the notion of infallibility of the organization/function ( Introducing you to Organizational Myopia) ..... 3. ...or because a particular department/function head is acting mostly in his own interest rather than the organizational context (I-am-the-Boss-out-here syndrome). The typical response to such syndrome is you-are-right-boss syndrome. 4.Yet many times it is simply because of lack of transparency (Information dissemination on a need-to-know basis constraints). 5. Sometimes organizations are too comfortable being "process oriented" and are not willing to relook at the systems for a alternate way of doing the same/ better thing. What Employees want the organization to hear? 6. Treat us as an "intelligent partner" than a "senseless worker/follower". ( A corollary to Point 1). 7. Shall we work towards Organization betterment or do u want a ego masseur (Corollary to Point 3) 8. Admit the drawbacks in the portfolio and cut losses rather than bleed thru Organizational Myopia ( Corollary to Point 2) 9. A process is what we make out of it. It is certainly not a time consuming constraint (Corollary to point 5) 10. Its ok to tell me i am bad. Just tell me whos better for me to learn. In short be transparent or let me know the rules and perspectives of judging me and my performance. (Corollary to Point 4) How or what forums is it where you can hear what the employees say? Online Blog within the company ( no identity) Feedback wall ( any one can come and write his thoughts about what the organization is doing well, what it is not, how to do it better and other greivances) Open mails from the department heads on subjects that concern their people and othe Organizations Open lunch spaces where any body can approach any one and have a chat on things that he/she wants cleared An HR person in every team, who can read issues concerning employees and pro actively engage them in dialogue. A clear Objective stated for employee and organization and having metrics covering the same.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
The story of Re-Org(s) 1.0,2.0,3.0......
I have not blogged on this post for a while now. Reason being that it has taken me some time to absorb developments around me as it has happened.
The flavour this witness seems to be re organisation. Re organisation broadly put is aligning structure around strategy. So it is change mandated by Porter's five forces model or rather the changes in the five forces. So if your strategy is sound then your re-org will be seen as pro-active. How ever the question i intend to ask is 'What if there are re-org version 1.0, 2.0,3.0 and so on'.
One view is that in uncertain atmosphere pre emptive changes are positive. On the other hand it is just so confusing and unsettling. A re organisation takes time to settle in, a new re organisation is bound to confound and hassle more. That it also gives a feeling that the organisation knows nothing on which way it is headed is another point alltogether.Suddenly more people crowd the smoking alleys and the lunch table conversations are sessions of intellectualization, which is something that the young and old executives and managers love doing.
There is more than a fair share of anguish and anxiety amongst the people in office, rumours run wild and all that suffers is real work at hand.
It is only fair to assume that strategy in a fast changing landscape is redundant with every new evolution in technology (especially in the internet age). Perhaps the leadership teams are not enabled to predict future as it unfolds. Hence changes in structure and processes are reactions that happen as the scenarios unfold. However, i sometimes am tempted to think that most of these reactions happen on grounds which is removed from the traditional atrenghts of the company. Should organizations work on hard platforms based on their strenghts building into the future? Or should they start building the staircase from the future into the present ground. I somehow feel that the strenghts-->future route is far better than the backward integration from future into the present.
Re-Org 1.0,2.0,3.0 are hence sometimes avoidable as you build your strenght into future...
The flavour this witness seems to be re organisation. Re organisation broadly put is aligning structure around strategy. So it is change mandated by Porter's five forces model or rather the changes in the five forces. So if your strategy is sound then your re-org will be seen as pro-active. How ever the question i intend to ask is 'What if there are re-org version 1.0, 2.0,3.0 and so on'.
One view is that in uncertain atmosphere pre emptive changes are positive. On the other hand it is just so confusing and unsettling. A re organisation takes time to settle in, a new re organisation is bound to confound and hassle more. That it also gives a feeling that the organisation knows nothing on which way it is headed is another point alltogether.Suddenly more people crowd the smoking alleys and the lunch table conversations are sessions of intellectualization, which is something that the young and old executives and managers love doing.
There is more than a fair share of anguish and anxiety amongst the people in office, rumours run wild and all that suffers is real work at hand.
It is only fair to assume that strategy in a fast changing landscape is redundant with every new evolution in technology (especially in the internet age). Perhaps the leadership teams are not enabled to predict future as it unfolds. Hence changes in structure and processes are reactions that happen as the scenarios unfold. However, i sometimes am tempted to think that most of these reactions happen on grounds which is removed from the traditional atrenghts of the company. Should organizations work on hard platforms based on their strenghts building into the future? Or should they start building the staircase from the future into the present ground. I somehow feel that the strenghts-->future route is far better than the backward integration from future into the present.
Re-Org 1.0,2.0,3.0 are hence sometimes avoidable as you build your strenght into future...
Monday, September 8, 2008
The Self Destructive habits of Great Organizations V (The Employee's version)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/CEOs_salaries_as_high_as_25_of_companys_net_profit/rssarticleshow/3442578.cms
Not that i do this with a purpose except perhaps lament the fate of the poor employee who does the dirty job, skips meals due to official engagements, in increasingly becoming unhealthy and is lowly paid!
One thought that struck me sometime back atleast in contaxt of the present day economy and the company i work for:
Do i get paid for the job?
OR
Do i pay the company for the job that i am doing?
Illustration:
A salary is supposed to take care of your expenditures and enable you to save. Mathematically,
Salary= Expenditures + Savings.
The ultimate idea is to generate savings and create assets.
If the salaries are so low that they dont take care of the Bills,loans and the spends that make a life, it is but obvious that you would put pressure on your savings.
For some, like me, the expenditures are "higher" than the salary (can you beat that!). So i end up subsidizing for my low salary from my savings. Hence my savings goes bust to support my expenditures (beacuse my salary is low).
The ultimate idea is now reversed: I loose my savings.
Thus i am paying from my pocket to work in the organization that i am working for.
To put it a bit more coarsely, i am paying for my CEO's BMW!!
Not that i do this with a purpose except perhaps lament the fate of the poor employee who does the dirty job, skips meals due to official engagements, in increasingly becoming unhealthy and is lowly paid!
One thought that struck me sometime back atleast in contaxt of the present day economy and the company i work for:
Do i get paid for the job?
OR
Do i pay the company for the job that i am doing?
Illustration:
A salary is supposed to take care of your expenditures and enable you to save. Mathematically,
Salary= Expenditures + Savings.
The ultimate idea is to generate savings and create assets.
If the salaries are so low that they dont take care of the Bills,loans and the spends that make a life, it is but obvious that you would put pressure on your savings.
For some, like me, the expenditures are "higher" than the salary (can you beat that!). So i end up subsidizing for my low salary from my savings. Hence my savings goes bust to support my expenditures (beacuse my salary is low).
The ultimate idea is now reversed: I loose my savings.
Thus i am paying from my pocket to work in the organization that i am working for.
To put it a bit more coarsely, i am paying for my CEO's BMW!!
The Self Destructive habits of Great Organizations (add on)
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/quickiearticleshow/msid-3457372.cms
A short add on to the earlier post: Cost Cuts and BMWs. It seems that the size and cost of these status marques are very directly proportional to the CEO/Company image etc.
Somewhere... there is a mind loss!
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The Self Destructive habits of Great Organizations IV
4. Cost cuts and BMWs
The year had been hard. The market was not perforing as per expectations. the fluctuating oil prices, the rising inflation were just the beginnings. This year the company had not delivered any knock out products. Normally, each quarter, the company had a record of at least one product which did a lot in the market. It was a different story this year. 6 months and a lot of reorganization later, the company had not delivered winners in the market. Mr CEO and his board were a worried lot. The first half performance being dismal meant incentives being paid out were modicum. That had an impact on the teams and the sales force. Mr CEO tried to maintain the composure by talking about glories and old battles and victories. Employee morale had been plummeting. They saw thru the stunt of Mr. CEO with inane displeasure and disinterest.
Market shares were iffy and nimbler players were throwing around knock out punches. Margins were under pressure, or rather profitability was a question mark for the first time in a long innings. Travel costs were cut. Employees were asked to video/voice conference. Each employee was given a VOIP to cut the costs. The messgae was austerity. Another 6 months or so, the company would probably be handing over pink slips. Employee incentives were dismal. There was discontent in the ranks.
In such times, came the policy. Each management team/board member above a certain rank, essentially the top bosses, were getting BMWs, Toyota Camry and Toyota Corollas as a token of appreciation! Hah Ha! Austerity, margin pressures, profitability took the convenient back seats for this one moment as the top bosses were dished out these very "humble" gifts.
Mr. CEO
- In the days of cost cuts, what examples are you setting?
- Did you consider the dissapointment in those managers and employees who would not get these "humble" gifts.
- Can you ill afford to take these costs on your balance sheet?
As an employees (much junior to the honchos) was quoted saying... i wish they had given us a Atlas Goldline Super (Bicycle) atleast.
The year had been hard. The market was not perforing as per expectations. the fluctuating oil prices, the rising inflation were just the beginnings. This year the company had not delivered any knock out products. Normally, each quarter, the company had a record of at least one product which did a lot in the market. It was a different story this year. 6 months and a lot of reorganization later, the company had not delivered winners in the market. Mr CEO and his board were a worried lot. The first half performance being dismal meant incentives being paid out were modicum. That had an impact on the teams and the sales force. Mr CEO tried to maintain the composure by talking about glories and old battles and victories. Employee morale had been plummeting. They saw thru the stunt of Mr. CEO with inane displeasure and disinterest.
Market shares were iffy and nimbler players were throwing around knock out punches. Margins were under pressure, or rather profitability was a question mark for the first time in a long innings. Travel costs were cut. Employees were asked to video/voice conference. Each employee was given a VOIP to cut the costs. The messgae was austerity. Another 6 months or so, the company would probably be handing over pink slips. Employee incentives were dismal. There was discontent in the ranks.
In such times, came the policy. Each management team/board member above a certain rank, essentially the top bosses, were getting BMWs, Toyota Camry and Toyota Corollas as a token of appreciation! Hah Ha! Austerity, margin pressures, profitability took the convenient back seats for this one moment as the top bosses were dished out these very "humble" gifts.
Mr. CEO
- In the days of cost cuts, what examples are you setting?
- Did you consider the dissapointment in those managers and employees who would not get these "humble" gifts.
- Can you ill afford to take these costs on your balance sheet?
As an employees (much junior to the honchos) was quoted saying... i wish they had given us a Atlas Goldline Super (Bicycle) atleast.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Self Destructive habits of Great Organizations III
In an earlier post, I had mentioned that the first signs of rot are visible in the middle level managers. Discontent, dissatisfaction and bad blood starts here. However, organizations are pre destined to see most of these middle level managers as disposable assets. Talent (at least in India) is available, a score in a penny. So, when somebody in that level leaves, chances are that the organization fills the space in some weeks. Sadly, amongst other things what goes missing is the experiential learning in the individual.It is difficult to put a metric to this.
On a top management level, what matters is not the indivual but the collective. This collective is measured by organizational surveys, posts or what-ever new fancy tools as applicable. What matters is the number, the score! Things that aggregate into that score are most of the times given a slip. Talk motivation, work environment, content, organizational uncertainities, most of this is left untouched, because, well it is difficult to understand and touch it.
The Dead Moose theory is again not an original idea. I assume it is a north American idiom/ phrase. I first heard it from a guest speaker in one of the classrooms. This guy goes by the name of Peter J Stark who is the Innovation and Strategy speaker at INSEAD.
Dead Moose theory
The other way of putting this is Organizational Myopia. It is the ability of the organization to talk and address most of the surrounding issues and not addressing the main issue in the same breath. Call it escaping reality or turning blind to the most important issue at hand. Organizations keep doing it to consumers, markets and its own employees with alarming regularity. More so in the case of successful organizations.
Figuratively, there is this Dead Moose on the table, and there are these people examining it. They marvel at its antlers. They comment on the hooves. It is a very well muscled animal, the prime in its species. Its coat is a brilliant coffee colour and this moose was undoubtably, the best looking in its tribe. This moose was the best as can happen in the forest.
The examiners examine every inch of the dead moose and come up with theories and stories, consensus, reports, and analysis (read org Paralysis in previous post).
At this time, there comes this attendant to serve drinks and snacks to the high level team. He cannot but overhear the conversation and his interest is drawn to the group. He watches the examiners rant on and on. “But Sir, your moose is dead!” Says he.
CEOs.CFOs, HR Managers, General Managers, Consultants some times have the strange god gifted ability to see everything but the truth.The blunt truth. The Moose is dead.
Did they fail to see the death? Did they plan for its survival? Did they do anything to the moose that would have helped it live? Did they kill it?
Hours and multiple man days of talk and discussion did not make your moose live a few more hours.
So, your markets and customers keep slipping (and there are reports and studies commissioned to understand the reasons), your employees slip fall and leave. Morale is down in dumps. And yet the writing on the wall is not visible!
How bad is that Mr.CEO? Are you still doing, your “dead moose” thing?
On a top management level, what matters is not the indivual but the collective. This collective is measured by organizational surveys, posts or what-ever new fancy tools as applicable. What matters is the number, the score! Things that aggregate into that score are most of the times given a slip. Talk motivation, work environment, content, organizational uncertainities, most of this is left untouched, because, well it is difficult to understand and touch it.
The Dead Moose theory is again not an original idea. I assume it is a north American idiom/ phrase. I first heard it from a guest speaker in one of the classrooms. This guy goes by the name of Peter J Stark who is the Innovation and Strategy speaker at INSEAD.
Dead Moose theory
The other way of putting this is Organizational Myopia. It is the ability of the organization to talk and address most of the surrounding issues and not addressing the main issue in the same breath. Call it escaping reality or turning blind to the most important issue at hand. Organizations keep doing it to consumers, markets and its own employees with alarming regularity. More so in the case of successful organizations.
Figuratively, there is this Dead Moose on the table, and there are these people examining it. They marvel at its antlers. They comment on the hooves. It is a very well muscled animal, the prime in its species. Its coat is a brilliant coffee colour and this moose was undoubtably, the best looking in its tribe. This moose was the best as can happen in the forest.
The examiners examine every inch of the dead moose and come up with theories and stories, consensus, reports, and analysis (read org Paralysis in previous post).
At this time, there comes this attendant to serve drinks and snacks to the high level team. He cannot but overhear the conversation and his interest is drawn to the group. He watches the examiners rant on and on. “But Sir, your moose is dead!” Says he.
CEOs.CFOs, HR Managers, General Managers, Consultants some times have the strange god gifted ability to see everything but the truth.The blunt truth. The Moose is dead.
Did they fail to see the death? Did they plan for its survival? Did they do anything to the moose that would have helped it live? Did they kill it?
Hours and multiple man days of talk and discussion did not make your moose live a few more hours.
So, your markets and customers keep slipping (and there are reports and studies commissioned to understand the reasons), your employees slip fall and leave. Morale is down in dumps. And yet the writing on the wall is not visible!
How bad is that Mr.CEO? Are you still doing, your “dead moose” thing?
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Self Destructive Habits of Great Organizations (Part II)
In my last post, i had spoken about the first tell tale signs of organization decay - The Grapevine going sour. The second in the series is as given
2.Organizational Paralysis
Great Organizations have great amounts of data. Great amounts to data is subjected to even greater amounts of Analysis. All this leads to nothing actually, a state of Paralysis. Thats only one part called data paralysis.
The second part is that a Great organization has a great ego. It believes in the profundity of it knowledge and data. They are very objective of the snapshot of the market which made them great. They forget the human elements in the picture, the subjective side of the consumer. That is where they make more mistakes. This part is called: I dont learn.
That folks, is game, set and Match for another competitor, another technology, another man.
Two examples to illustrate this:
I Dont Learn (alternatively listen,speak, do...)
Some time back, a friend of mine, a product manager, happened to show me a yet-unreleased product. He kept ranting about the product and the technology, the consumer offering, the greatness of the product. I saw the product (from a consumer lens) and it did not get me excited because it was very plain Jane in its looks (that is an understatement). I pointed it to the Product Manager. He did everything to refute me, convince me, confuse me and ultimately took umbrage to the fact that i had given a negative feedback. I did not wish to create angst and hence said nothing more. The product failed miserably after launch. While they spoke so much about the rational benefits (feature richness), they hadnot spoken anything about the emotional connect with the consumer. So a well researched, well meaning, everything-of-all-things product lost! Our invincible-nothing-wrong-with-my-product' product manager took a transfer to another role!!
Nothing-wrong-with-my-product was a philosophy deeply ingrained in the Organizational DNA. This organizational had won pitched battles in the market placed for years basis that philosophy/approach. But that was yesterday! Today the same features come dime a dozen and bundling features together does not make a new story. An emotional connect with the consumer does. The same rules that won the battle yesterday donot win it for them today. They had forgotten the consumer thru and thru today. If technology is good, then, intelligence is god.
Another day, another example, this product manager who really was the god-of-product-management was trumpeting his yet to be released product. I was one of the last and the least people who he would take time to sell his product to. Voluntarily i checked the product on his table and remarked how it looked very similar to a very not-so-well-done product that was launched an year back and was presently exactly half priced compared to the new product. The "God of Product Management" registered the point and gave a well rehearsed output and spoke about "comparatively" and "individually" and "features and the whole wide world". TtCH! How was i to disbelief the "god"? The fact was that at his elevated level, he was still missing the point. Incidentally, the same product was pitched against another competitive offering which though technically inferior had all the hooks that consumers wanted. I am awaiting the result of this bloodied battle, but the fact remains... They dont learn.
Data Paralysis
You can pretty much trash all the historical data sheets you got. Numbers in history teaches us nothing new about a market in present. A senior analyst once told us about a survey in the company, saying that there were 2.4 billion data points and yet, not enough learning, insights, understanding and action on them. All the more hilarious was another suggestion from one of the top bosses one the need for more analysis.
Simple reasons: With 2.4 billion data points, and the learned sages (The top management), everytime they had to take a decision, they stepped back into the past for decision making. It perhaps provides solace, where in something that worked in the past should also work in the future. Wish it did! Fact: It doesnot. And they are still NOT LEARNING.
Where does this learning happen?
Most of the learning is supposed to happen at market place and then actioned at the boardrooms and the corner rooms. Reality: The market doesnot teach you any new stuff, nor does the intellectualizing help. This is because of two things... Latent needs cannot be obvious. So a consumer may have a latent need which he cannot articulate. You would have to have different and perhaps extreme levels of engagement to understand those latent needs. You cant make a tour map to Ladakh by simply looking at the roadmaps of India. You have to drive through the entire lenght of 1800 kms to make your travellogue and hence the tour map.
Bottomline: A decaying organization looses touch with its raison' d etre, its consumer. While its ranks, are full of people, who will say, "well, we know that", you can be doubly sure that, it is anything but "knowing that". The other symptom of decay are the number of meetings and coffee cups that happen around data and action points. For every such meeting, action points and decisions, you can assign a grave to the whole of them...
The Self Destructive habits of Great Organizations (Part I)
I am aware that there is a book that goes by the same name and is a best seller. I havent read it, i intend to. Probably for the gyan and all but more so, because i want to see if there are concurrences and parallels in what the book explains and what i read and learn in my workplace.
Great organizations/brands happen to be a result of either of these things:
Persistence of a brand over time (Coke, GM, GE etc)
Individual/team genius (Bill Gates's Microsoft/ Sergey Brin's Google)
Ability to adapt businesses for the future (Nokia/IBM)
Interestingly there are stories of great organizations that have just fallen way side. There is this interesting statistic where companies that were in the Forbes Best list 20 years back dont exist anymore. And as far as i remember the numbers were unusually large and challenging.
This post will try capturing those tell tale signs within the organization, which speak of decline. I begin writing it as i see it happening in front of me in an organization which, not so long ago, was one of the best places and brands to work for. The tell tale signs are not tangibles, they are not results, they donot get captured in P&L statements, they donot emblazon ET Headlines. these tell tale signals are what flows through the veins of the organization: The People and The Processes. The first signs of rot happens there and stays there for a long time. It is not a gradual decay. It takes its time and at one point of time zooms up exponentially and becomes uncontrollable in time for the fall of the great edifice, our great organization.
Sign 1: Watch out for the pantry table discussions, the smoke break conversations, the grapevine*. The best indicator of how the organization is faring is those animated discussions and jibes. Employees are informal, unabashed, unashamed during these moments.There are tools like Organizational polls, those once a quarter Hello-How-are-you senior management-employee get togethers, those Development plans and discussions, those feedback sessions which are good in their own terms. However, what happens over in the chai-tapri, sutta-break is the real pulse of the organization. Hey Mr CEO! I hope you are radioed in to that... (Corollary to the self destructive habits of great organizations is another school of thought on the infallible CEO. I would probably put my view on that ome time.)
The discussions and the moods can be a serious indicator of how the employees feel about the organization. Everything from the office secretary to the industry strategy gets debated. These discussions have moods and swings, and can be entertaining, gyan, perspective giving or general hogwash. However, when these forums start having a general sense of dissapointment on organization or "organization and individual" issues, things are not as good ass they should be. Worse is when Salaries and Incentives and promotions gets discussed or people start bitching. Then starts the active sharing of job opportunities information, salary break ups etc. It takes a lot to dispel this negativity in the ssystem and worse is that this negativity also starts rubbing off on newly joined, not-so-dissatisfied junta by fueling their fears. It erodes credibility in a manner that can be very damaging to the organization. It actually works towards cutting the linkages between the employee and the organization. The CEOs corner office typically is the farthest both literally and figuratively from these discussion boards. The farther it is figuratively, the more the pain ,angst and dissatisfaction....
So one of the first tell tale signs of the fall is the Grapevine...
*:I first had a whiff of this thought from a book that i had read 3 year back, a book on shaping your careers by David D'Alessandro. I remember him mentioning about Grapevine. Grapevine wa the typical Chai,sutta break or the informal get together of employees and discussing work, lives, seniors, rumours and organization Over the next three years after having examined this theory around and across, i would certainly agree on the Grapevine being the most-effective-accurate-cheapest place to understand how the organization is doing.
(to be continued...)
Great organizations/brands happen to be a result of either of these things:
Persistence of a brand over time (Coke, GM, GE etc)
Individual/team genius (Bill Gates's Microsoft/ Sergey Brin's Google)
Ability to adapt businesses for the future (Nokia/IBM)
Interestingly there are stories of great organizations that have just fallen way side. There is this interesting statistic where companies that were in the Forbes Best list 20 years back dont exist anymore. And as far as i remember the numbers were unusually large and challenging.
This post will try capturing those tell tale signs within the organization, which speak of decline. I begin writing it as i see it happening in front of me in an organization which, not so long ago, was one of the best places and brands to work for. The tell tale signs are not tangibles, they are not results, they donot get captured in P&L statements, they donot emblazon ET Headlines. these tell tale signals are what flows through the veins of the organization: The People and The Processes. The first signs of rot happens there and stays there for a long time. It is not a gradual decay. It takes its time and at one point of time zooms up exponentially and becomes uncontrollable in time for the fall of the great edifice, our great organization.
Sign 1: Watch out for the pantry table discussions, the smoke break conversations, the grapevine*. The best indicator of how the organization is faring is those animated discussions and jibes. Employees are informal, unabashed, unashamed during these moments.There are tools like Organizational polls, those once a quarter Hello-How-are-you senior management-employee get togethers, those Development plans and discussions, those feedback sessions which are good in their own terms. However, what happens over in the chai-tapri, sutta-break is the real pulse of the organization. Hey Mr CEO! I hope you are radioed in to that... (Corollary to the self destructive habits of great organizations is another school of thought on the infallible CEO. I would probably put my view on that ome time.)
The discussions and the moods can be a serious indicator of how the employees feel about the organization. Everything from the office secretary to the industry strategy gets debated. These discussions have moods and swings, and can be entertaining, gyan, perspective giving or general hogwash. However, when these forums start having a general sense of dissapointment on organization or "organization and individual" issues, things are not as good ass they should be. Worse is when Salaries and Incentives and promotions gets discussed or people start bitching. Then starts the active sharing of job opportunities information, salary break ups etc. It takes a lot to dispel this negativity in the ssystem and worse is that this negativity also starts rubbing off on newly joined, not-so-dissatisfied junta by fueling their fears. It erodes credibility in a manner that can be very damaging to the organization. It actually works towards cutting the linkages between the employee and the organization. The CEOs corner office typically is the farthest both literally and figuratively from these discussion boards. The farther it is figuratively, the more the pain ,angst and dissatisfaction....
So one of the first tell tale signs of the fall is the Grapevine...
*:I first had a whiff of this thought from a book that i had read 3 year back, a book on shaping your careers by David D'Alessandro. I remember him mentioning about Grapevine. Grapevine wa the typical Chai,sutta break or the informal get together of employees and discussing work, lives, seniors, rumours and organization Over the next three years after having examined this theory around and across, i would certainly agree on the Grapevine being the most-effective-accurate-cheapest place to understand how the organization is doing.
(to be continued...)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
