From Linked In discussion with Phill Johnson, Leadership Coach, MBL University.
http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&gid=37226&discussionID=1324661&sik=1233916339578&split_page=1&goback=%2Eana_37226_1233916339578_1&report%2Efailure=K-nc2ZXswQfu2hP3cI3E4qd8HdfXx-VhJaG9nWc7663fxwhU2M33KoV76lGWUwSUEUToVOTMKSK
I speak from my experience at different organizations, AB and XY (preserving anonymity). Interestingly i found both organization with multiple leaderships at multiple levels. AB as an organization had great people and possibly good leaders. But at the point of time i am speaking about AB was going througha rough patch. Unfortunately, the people leaders at different levels saw the problems differently and the response was their "level". "team", "function", "department" specific. Thus we had a sitaution where the "leadership motion" was brownian. Lot of moving, arguing, debating, thought , all for good purpose and yet not helping the organization move an inch. XY also had many leaders at different levels, but the strategic objectives were well laid, the "markers" had a specific direction. All decisions were oriented and influenced by the strategic direction and objectives. Even though the quality of leadership at XY was not as great as AB, they did well every time they were tested! Points i make are: 1. Multiple leadership in an organization is not just good, it is mandatory. Only the CEO leading cannot make a good organization. Every one in the organization has to influence his sphere of partners and stakeholders as a leader. 2. A well directed leadership creates a positive rub off and confidence. A "brownian motion" leadership leads to dissipation of energy. 3. The Values and Strategic objectives define the direction of leadership! 4. If you get your leadership direction right, you tend to do better and be ahead of the market. 5. Good leadership begets good leadership. This leads you to what i call the virtuous cycle of leadership and growth! Hope this satisfies your question
Friday, February 6, 2009
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Listen to what your employees are saying...
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.
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, 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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
