• About

Rajneesh Rastogi

Rajneesh Rastogi

Category Archives: Learning Organizations

What game do your managers play? Cricket or Football ?

06 Wednesday Jan 2021

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Agile Technology, Business Process Engineering, Culture, Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Management

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Agile Technology, Learning Organizations

Corporates of 90s play cricket and corporates of 2020 play football.

Cricket and Football, both are team games but are as different as Chalk and Cheese.

A Cricket team is collection of specialized skills, like bowling, batting or keeping wickets besides some general skills that everyone has, e.g. fielding and throwing a ball. Every player has a role and performs within the parameters set for it, to the best of his/her ability. For example, a bowler gets freedom to decide his field placing and how he would bowl. The captain has a key role and takes most of the decisions such as batting order, bowling changes and field placings. A captain who follows participative management style, may discuss with couple of his team mates, his seniors or his peers. Most members of the team may have some or limited say during team meetings when they may discuss strategies for various batsmen or bowlers. That is also a function of culture in the team. In some cases, only seniors join the discussions. Cricket also has different rewards, man of the match/tournament, batsman of the match/tournament or bowler of the match/tournament.

Football is a very different game. Most players have the basic skills related to ball control and passing such as dribbling. There are players who might have additional skills. Like cricket, football also has different roles such as goal keeper, striker, defender etc. but unlike cricket, the players often change their positions and take on different roles as per the need of the game. A striker may fall back to defend or in extreme situation, a goal keeper may go upfront to score a goal. Interesting thing is that in football, the captain does not direct or no one asks a captain before switching his role. There is fluidity and positions and roles change as per the need of the game. This is not to say, that the team does not meet prior to the game and has no strategy, but the strategy and tactics evolve or change during the game based on response from the opponent team. Football does not has individual rewards. Either the team wins or loses. Players may get rated for their performance, but there are no rewards for extraordinary performances or punishments for blunders. The biggest shame is facing your team or fans. It is collective win or loss. While a captain may get credit for win or blame for losing a match in Cricket, captains hardly find a mention in win or defeat in football. It is the coaches who are feted or blamed.

Corporate teams in 90s resembled cricket teams. People were drawn from different functional areas. Each person specialized in an area of knowledge. The team members were expected to contribute based on their knowledge and skill sets. The performance appraisal was that of individual with performance in the team as one of the criteria, it had no relationship with performance of the team as a whole. 

Football is very different. Every player understands the purpose of the team and has all information of the match. The person is able to take his own decisions and responds to the situation.  The business environment today resembles a football team. With advances in information technology, the information exchange is very fast and information asymmetry is minimal. The companies tend to lose any strategic advantage due to its innovations or strategic initiatives within a quarter or two. Market rewards companies that are nimble, responsive and can respond to tactical opportunities, like a football (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/what-corporate-managers-can-learn-from-football-teams/) .

The idea of structuring organizations and rewarding individuals is deeply ingrained. Unfortunately, most of the organizations have not been able to develop a culture of collaboration and cooperation and achieve the levels as seen in football. Besides appraisals systems, the organizations would have to change their work processes to empower teams that lead themselves ( https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/building-football-teams-at-work/)

Cricket or football, whatever your game is, give it your best and enjoy.

Can we cross the hump and grow from small to large?

19 Saturday Dec 2020

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Business Process Engineering, Learning Organizations, Management

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

SMEs

Last Friday, I was talking with a friend of mine who owns a paper manufacturing company. On Saturday, I attended a conference of Garment Exporters. There was data presented on how Garment Industry is stagnant in India while Exporters in other countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Vietnam are making merry by cornering all the growth in the market. There was also a presentation on a Sri Lankan company, that has grown to 2 Bn USD with hundred thousand employees in a segment that was new to Sri Lankan exporters, swim wear. It was an inspiring story and made me think on how come we in India have very few stories to tell. Why is that most founders of our companies are not able to break the glass ceiling and grow from small to big? The answer could be one or a mix of the following:

  1. Proactive Leadership – Building a good company is also a vision. The founders of Google, Facebook or MAS holdings had a vision that went beyond market opportunities. Just like they pushed their employees into delivering high quality products, they worked to deliver a high-quality company/ companies. That is, companies where people had a purpose, people learnt from other companies and industries and had a quest to improve, to work towards perfection.
  2. Flexible mindsets – The leaders need a flexible mindset to adopt change and technology. The assumptions that worked in yester years have to change. Instead of inward focussed, the founders and CEOs have to look outside the company and industry for inspirations and learnings.  Most importantly they have to change and lead the change. http://mentorsunlocked.com/business/getting-personal-about-change/
  3. Win-win situations – Most medium sized business owners still operate with assumptions of past. They see their business as zero sum game where they would make more money only by reducing costs. This results in very transactional relationships with vendors and employees instead of creating an environment of co-operation and collaboration. It could be employees collaborating with each other or vendors collaborating with the company or the company collaborating with its customers. The biggest casualty in transactional relationships is lack of experimentation and hence innovations. For example, employees are hesitant to try new things, lest they fail or told that they are going beyond their brief.
  4. Delegate and build teams – Most of the owners or founders of mid-sized companies are still hands-on. They are not able to make the transition from hands-on management to metrices driven management. Hence, they are not able to delegate and build teams, build a group of people who are empowered to take decisions, or who have high level of ownership etc, a group of people driven with purpose and not obeying commands.
  5.  Walk the talk – Invest money in vision of company. A company that is growing and ever-changing needs money. Business owners have to plan their investments needs. They need to divide the profits in four pockets that is,
    1. Reinvestment
    1. Contingency fund
    1. Distribute it amongst stake holders
      1. Share holders
      1. Employees

While all other steps are not difficult, the first one is where the journey has to start from. The business owners have to think themselves as business leaders-people with a vision, instead of business owners. This belief will automatically help them develop a vision and rest all will follow.

Empowered teams are the way to go

28 Friday Aug 2020

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Agile Technology, Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Teams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

empowered teams, Learning Organizations, Team Based Organizations

A major change eCommerce has brought to business is increased transparency. It has moved the markets closer to perfect markets by making information available at a click of button. Take sites like Trivago which make price comparisons so easy and help consumer choose best option at lowest price. People can compare brands and choose the best deal. The competitive market also ensures that companies are under tremendous cost pressure and hence cannot make super normal profits. The companies have to redesign and re-work on their strategies as mentioned earlier in https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/06/21/changing-management-paradigms/.

The classical management solutions will not help companies beat markets in this new age. The companies would need better products and cost-effective operations. More importantly the companies would not be able to beat the market using their strategic advantages but will also have to rely on making use of tactical or short-term opportunities in the markets. This would call for faster decision making. Many of the decision calls may not allow sufficient time for the people in the field to wait for while the information goes up and decision comes down. This makes a case for devolution of decision making to the people in the field. Since, teams collectively take better decisions than individuals, it would be better to delegate decision making to teams.

These self-managed teams would take responsibility for their performance and take their own decisions. The responsibility of the senior managers would be to provide conditions that facilitate such decision making. Some of the enablers for empowered teams are ( please also see https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/building-football-teams-at-work/)

  • Access to information  
  • Roles based teams with psychological safety
  • A performance appraisal system that supports collaboration and cooperation within team members instead of rewarding for meeting requirements of the role. (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/teams-and-performance-appraisal-systems/)
  • Acceptance of decisions taken by the team.

We are now seeing a trend where some of the companies have adopted this. Harvard Business Review in its recent edition has carried the story “Harnessing Everyday Genius” and explains how Jean-Michel Guillon, head of personnel department and Bertrand Ballarin worked together and launched their project MAPP (Autonomous management of performance and progress) in summer of 2012 with the aim of redistributing authority and creating empowered teams.  

Some of the other companies, mentioned in HBR are

  • Nucor: An American steel maker that allows operating crews to take responsibility for business development, capital planning, product innovation, process improvement etc.
  • Buurtzorg: Dutch health care service provider which is organized into more than 900 self- managing teams.
  • Svenska Handelsbanken:  A Swedish bank that treats each of its branches as standalone business. Branch teams take on decisions on credit, loan rates, deposits, customer communications and staffing levels.

Holacracy is another concept that operates with similar organizations. Lot of companies today are adopting Holacracy. Zappos is one of the largest companies to adopt Holacracy. Some other companies that have created self-managed teams are Morning Star, a ketchup manufacturing company and W.L. Gore, a material science company that specialises in PTFE (Teflon). The movement is now gathering critical mass and snow balling into a revolution.

Roman Empire teaches us importance of culture and values in building great companies

07 Sunday Jun 2020

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Culture, Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Management, Teams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Building Great Companies, Democractic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Organizational Culture

Roman Empire lasted some five centuries and at its height spanned from England to most of Europe, stretching from England to Greece, North Africa, West Asia. Romans dominated Mediterranean Sea. More importantly it was known as Empire without an end, that is neither the time nor space limited it. The empire became a role model for other empires and rulers. It changed the world. For example, Britain was a geography with multiple smaller kingdoms. Each group thought the piece (of land) that they had was their own. There was no political unity until Romans brought them under one rule. There by, in a way, Roman empire created Britain.
Interestingly we do have companies that have survived five hundred years but they are not widely known. The oldest one, Kongo Gumi, was setup in Japan in 578 A.D., within 100 years of decline of Roman Empire. Studying about Roman Empire made me realise importance of culture and its contribution in making companies great. Some of the cultural aspects that companies can adopt are:
1. Cultural Integration –
a. Governance structure and rules – Everywhere in Roman Empire the governance structures and rules were the same. The rules were inscribed on the walls of public buildings so that everyone could read them. Most companies today put their policies, processes and procedures on intranet for the same reason. To be consistent, the companies ensure that policies are interpreted the same way by everyone.
b. Architecture – Whole of Roman empire had distinctive architecture- grand community buildings such as amphitheatres, baths, forums, race tracks etc. These buildings fostered a feeling of being Roman. It would not be uncommon to find these buildings even in Algeria, part of which was once part of Roman Empire. While on one hand Romans built typical Roman buildings in acquired territories, they also replicated the best of what the acquired territory had to offer to Rome.
c. Citizenship Rights – All romans had same citizenship rights irrespective of which territory they came from. Hence a slave who was granted Roman citizenship, had same rights that any other citizen of Rome had. This is also important in companies especially now that we have multi-national companies with people of different religions, regions, colour and genders. Companies make HR policies for harassment and to prevent sexist or racist comments. But these are not inclusive actions, inclusiveness is attained by giving even minorities equal voice as Romans did.
2. Core Values
a. Inclusiveness – Romans did not force the territories to adopt their lifestyle or language. They adopted and included them, e.g.
i. Religion and Gods – Romans had multiple Gods. They included gods of acquired territories within fold of their Gods. At times, even giving them joint name for example Goddess Senua (of Britain) became Goddess Minerva Senua. The relationship with God was similar across the empire.
ii. Language – Though Roman and Greek were official languages, all the acquired territories were free to use their language.
3. Decisions made on Merit and Democracy – Romans had emperor but also had senate and four assemblies and local groups. The assemblies or different bodies met at Forum; a building built through out Roman empire. Candidates were selected by citizens who were allowed to vote. This promoted a system of merit since, as mentioned aforehand, Romans had strict and very defined rules on governance. This allowed even slaves to graduate and become Roman citizens. Similarly, anyone could become an Emperor. Their emperors did not come from Rome but from Spain, North Africa, Syria, Balkans etc. The citizenship to Roman Empire had to be earned. For example, soldiers could become citizens by completing twenty-five years of service or performing exemplary act of valour in the battlefield.
4. Role of women – Women played important role in Roman society not only in trade and craftmanship but also in royal household. For example, Livia, wife of Augustus, built buildings, organized religious festivals and reached out to other women. She was not an exception and many of the emperors had influential wives, mistresses, mothers and even mothers-in law. The companies are also now increasingly being gender conscious. More and more women managers are breaking glass ceilings.
If Roman Empire was great, it was because Romans developed a culture of discipline, inclusiveness, democracy and merit. One of the reasons for decline of Roman Empire was in-fighting between Romans over religious beliefs with advent of Christianity which believed in One God instead of multiple Gods (Core beliefs and values were being questioned). Today, when the work has become complex and inter-dependencies within roles has increased, when most companies are now promoting team work, these values (of inclusiveness, promoting merit, being democratic and discipline) have become even more important. The founders have to work on it from the day one. True to the saying, ‘Rome was not built in a day’, a company’s culture too cannot be developed in a year. It is a continuous process. Any IBMer would tell you that !( https://www.ibm.com/blogs/jobs/2018/12/20/i-think-therefore-i-am-an-ibmer/).

Reviews – are key to learning and success

15 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Agile Technology, Business Process Engineering, Learning Organizations, Management

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Business Systems, Learning Organizations, Management, Strategic Management

Most business owners are involved in all aspects of their business and know every small thing in their business. That’s like knowing the wood or in other words, knowing all trees intimately in a jungle. That’s why most business owners get flummoxed when told that they should conduct reviews. The typical response being, why do I need reviews when I already know everything in my business?

A review allows us an opportunity to detach ourselves from the business and look at it from a distance. While engaged in day to day operations, we are getting a 30 feet view of our business, a review helps us step backward and get a 30,000 feet view of our business. We are able to see the forest instead of trees. Hence we get a more holistic view of our business. For example, how our credit policy is affecting not only our sales but also our cash flow.

Periodic Reviews also help us gauge scale of movement and hence provide inputs in planning course correction(s) and in gauging impact of new initiative(s). For example, how costs have changed in last few years.

A review would typically start with a comparison. Mostly it is comparison of budget vs actuals. The review could also be a comparison of performance in current period with that of a past period. Most organizations use budget vs actuals for reviews. This helps them gauge progress against plan. It also allows companies to revisit assumptions that they made in their plans. The assumptions could be related to any aspect of sales or costs. For example, percentage bids won or lost, number of inquiries generated or average order size.  This allows companies to revise their assumptions and make course corrections.

Good planning processes and reviews allow managers to zero in on problem areas and move from 30,000 feet to 30 feet. This reduces there day to day involvement in operations and allows them to delegate.

Given the importance of reviews, it is important that they are conducted in a friendly and positive atmosphere, are scheduled on regular periodic intervals. Most importantly, they should be structured in a way that they help us learn and take action.

Some ground rules for review meeting

  1. Psychological safety – for a meaningful review, it is important that employees feel comfortable in speaking up. It is important that employer provides a psychological safety. As Amy Edmondson, Professor at Harvard says, “Psychological safety is a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns or mistakes.”
  2. Everyone has equal voice. Everyone can raise an issue and respond to an issue. Listen with an open mind and remember that everyone’s experience is valid.
  3. Don’t make it personal, don’t take it personally.
  4. Avoid blame game. Take learnings and think of improvements. Look forward and Think Positive

 

Structure of reviews

It is necessary to ask three questions in reviews

1 . What has worked for us?  What is it that we need to do more?

  1. What did not work for us? What is that we should change or avoid doing?
  2. What should be next steps? What should be our action plan with time frame?

Plan and review. Your business will go places.

Al Qaeda – Demonstrating team based organizations

03 Thursday Jan 2019

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Learning Organizations, Management, Teams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Learning Organizations, Management of Teams, Organization Structure, Team Based Organizations

With the advent of Information Technology, the business has become very competitive. Technology has led to disruption. Today aggregators like Uber, Zomato are disrupting markets for automobiles by taking away reasons to own a car. Competitors are quick to respond to strategic initiatives making everyone fight for tactical advantages. This requires a new way of structuring organisations, working and communications. The organisations of today are competing not only with their traditional competitors but also with start-ups. They are competing not only for customers but also to retain skills and talent. They have to work at speed with inter-dependencies. They cannot afford bureaucracy. The only way they can achieve this is by developing team based organizations. (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/team-based-on-organisations-a-new-organisation-structure/ )

Al Qaeda, though a terrorist organization, is a very good example of it. Organizations and management Gurus can learn from Al Qaeda on how to structure their operations and be effective.   Al Qaeda has functions similar to most corporates have. It has to raise funds, recruit zehadis (employees in another sense), induct and train its manpower, market itself and publicise its acts. Most importantly it has to carry out its work clandestinely so confidentiality is very important.

Al Qaeda, like most corporates, has a distributed structure with its operations across countries. It is continuously trying to increase its global footprint. It works across multiple languages and cultures. Its leadership is also distributed across countries. Al Qaeda is able to achieve its objectives due to its innovative structure and the fact that its recruits (or employees) are aligned with its purpose (however flawed it may be) and committed enough to lay their lives for the purpose (thanks to its recruitment, induction and training systems).

Structure of Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda is structured around teams and committees.  The leader of Al Qaeda consults and works with Shura, which means “Consultation” in Arabic. The Quran and Prophet Muhammad encourage Muslims to decide their affairs in consultation with those who will be affected by that decision. Consultation and decision making by consensus are the basic principles of democracy. Shura is committee of elders and all major decisions are taken in it.

Al Qaeda has committees for military operations, finance and information sharing. Its leaders communicate with its affiliates through these committees.  There are no hierarchical controls.  It works on system of role and responsibility and not hierarchy. An undated document, believed to have been written in the late 1980s or early 1990s, provides an extensive description of the roles and responsibilities of each of Al-Qaeda’s committees and sections. (https://www.hudson.org/research/14365-how-al-qaeda-works-the-jihadist-group-s-evolving-organizational-design).

Decision Making

Al Qaeda leaders are focussed on strategy and messaging or communications. The messages have to be consistent and aligned to strategy. The affiliates plan and execute their own operations. They do need to double check with central leadership before they carry out a large operation.

The affiliates adhere to its strategy, objectives and goals, but adopt tactical approach based on the local dynamics.

Al Qaeda is demonstrating how to operationalize key principles of team based structures:

  1. Operations delegated to teams with Board focussing on Purpose, Values, Strategy and Accountability
  2. Hierarchy and designations replaced by roles and responsibilities. Some roles could be more important than others.
  3. Tap on to entrepreneurship of its workforce by allowing them to take initiatives, fail and learn from their mistakes.
  4. Allow everyone (in team) to participate in discussions they feel are important for them. Give them a voice and a chance to shape those discussions.

We may not agree with the purpose of Al Qaeda and its acts. But we have to acknowledge that they have shown the way how the future organizations would be. That is Organizations where Boards will lay down the purpose, values and accountability structures while they would delegate operational responsibilities such as planning, implementation, monitoring and control to the teams.

Learning Organization: Structures that facilitate learning

18 Tuesday Dec 2018

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Agile Technology, Business Process Engineering, Learning Organizations, Management, Teams

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Human Resource Management, Learning Organizations, Organisation Structure, Strategic Management, Teams

There is an idiom in English language. “All good things must come to an end”. That is nothing great will last forever. And so it is with civilisations, countries and organizations including companies. Civilisations like Greek, Indian and Egypt have lost their status and so have countries like England, France and Germany. Tom Peters and Robert Waterman researched and put together a list of organizations that they said were excellent (Please refer to the book “In Search of Excellence”). They put together a list of companies they felt were great but by the end of 10 years, 7 out of 10 companies had lost their status. Companies like Nokia, Firestone and Toshiba which were industry leaders are now struggling to survive.

A key question that keeps on bugging us is that can we design Learning Organisations? Smart machines are machines that can think, that is they can process new data and adapt themselves based on the incoming data. Can we, human beings design organisations that change with time?

This should be feasible provided we can break “The Trap of Success”. Success is the biggest block to learning. Success reinforces our mind-sets and reinforces our beliefs. It makes us repeat what we did before in a changing environment while the competitors try new things and hence one day competitors overtake successful companies till the time, another company comes and changes the rules of the game. How can companies avoid this trap?

The key to avoiding trap of success is to keep on questioning our mind-sets especially the mental models that helped us win. We all are more comfortable with and like people who share our mental models. But this creates a trap. Its like everyone is looking in same direction and the group fails to watch its back. We all have blinders, a group with same set of blinders would fail to look at 360 degrees.

The easiest way to look at 360 degrees is by allowing a diverse group of people to challenge our mindsets. That is have teams of peers with no hierarchy so that people can challenge each other’s mindsets and the team would not only be taking optimal decisions but would also be creative or innovative. For this we need to structure an organization around teams (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/team-based-on-organisations-a-new-organisation-structure/ )

Teams allow us to develop an organisation without hierarchy and where people can question each other and challenge each other’s mindsets. This not only improves quality of decision making in the teams but also makes them more creative and innovative. Teams built around roles and without hierarchy would encourage people to take on roles of others just like in a game of football or basket- ball unlike Cricket where the captain takes all the decisions (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/building-football-teams-at-work/). An unlikely fallout of it is increased ownership of employees, which in a competitive market is a big advantage.

We can design a learning organization by designing an organization around teams and

  • building a culture where people affected by a decision or people taking a decision can participate in decision making. Decision making is by and large by consensus.
  • Providing psychological safety to staff and assuring them that they would not be punished for calling out if they are affected by a decision or in a discussion, and https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/indian-experience-with-democracy-2/
  • promoting diversity. Diversity not only in demographics but also diversity in thoughts.
  • Processes that facilitate team members to cooperate and collaborate and not compete with each other.

Is that all what we need to develop learning organizations? There is more to it but then teams is a good starting point.

Maslow’s Hierarchy: Use it to shape your Organization.

03 Wednesday Jan 2018

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Management, Teams

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Democracy, Human Resource Management, Learning Organizations, Management paradigms, Organisation Structure, Performance Appraisal, Strategic Management, Teams

Maslow was a psychologist who proposed a hierarchy of needs. He categorised the needs as, a) physical needs that consist of need for physical well-being like food, water, clothes for protection from heat or cold and physical safety such as house, etc. b) social, psychological and emotional needs, that is, need for social recognition, inclusion, love, etc. and c) self-actualization, that is, realizing one own’s potential. Maslow believed that all human beings want to achieve self-actualization; hence move up the hierarchy of needs, and before a person could move to higher level, he has to master/satisfy his needs in lower levels. The hierarchy is shown in the figure below.

His premise was that as basic needs would be met with, the person would grow and develop social needs and finally go in for self-actualization. Subliminally he was referring to different classes in the society. A daily wage worker would be more worried about fulfilling his physical needs than social needs or self-actualisation needs as compared to a billionaire who has left all the insecurities behind him and now can work on what he actually enjoys and would help him achieve his potential. One of the examples is so many workaholic billionaires who work not because they have to earn a living but because that’s all they enjoy or find meaning in their life.

In life, every person is a discreet individual with his own needs; these needs may cut across the hierarchy (as proposed by Maslow). The priorities and needs of a person may change over a period of time depending on age, income levels and personal growth. Our behaviour and desires may express multiple needs at the same time. For example, when a person eats at a Michelin Star restaurant, is he fulfilling his physical need to eat or his esteem need or his desire to eat delicious food? Similarly, what needs does Ferrari fulfil? A person can be seen as someone with multiple needs, and these needs overlap with each other.

Every person has all the needs but the intensity of needs may change. For example, level of physical needs changes with earning levels of a person. People get used to a lifestyle and may feel insecure if lack of money may lead to decline in standards of lifestyle. The definition of what is essential or necessary changes from a person to person.

As the person grows rich or in stature, his insecurities may reduce and make him aim for self-actualization while contrary to expectations a person may also give up money for self-actualization. India has seen many spiritual Gurus, e.g. Prince Siddhartha, also known as Gautam Budh and Lord Mahavira who, though born in royal households and destined to be kings, gave up everything to find true meaning of life.
Maslow’s assumption that everyone would want to move up the need triangle is debatable and has been questioned. But for HR teams, it can be a good framework to understand profile of its personnel. It would help them in following ways:
– In designing incentive systems
– To define the profile for recruitment, but most importantly
– To shape the culture of their organisation.

Most firms design an incentive schemes that are mix of cash and recognition. For example, incentives most organisations have cash rewards, ESOPs or cash bonuses for their employees. The top performers may be additionally incentivised or rewarded with CEO’s or President’s Award, paid holiday tours abroad etc. These awards address primarily the physical and social needs. Rewards and incentives for top performers are aimed at esteem needs.

A founder who wants to develop a software development team or an ad agency that delivers high quality work, may want to hire a bunch of passionate persons and give lot of autonomy to the team(s). Same will be true for a band of scientists say who are working in basic research or cutting edge technologies. An example of it is Academic world, where most people are internally motivated and are provided lot of autonomy. They set their own targets, determine their own research and in some cases also decide on their research associates or assistants. Academic institutions are also characterised by less inter-dependency and hence allows for individual excellence. Things change in business world, where a person is expected to work with others.

Some of the ways of developing work places where employees could aim for self- actualization could be
1. Remove hygiene factors. Presence of hygiene factors, takes people away from their work. It works as a road block in cultivating ownership amongst employees. Some of the key hygiene factors are
a. Money or Salary – The discontent in salary emanates from comparisons within and outside of the company. Most employees triangulate their salary based on their personal needs, salary levels in the industry and salary levels within the company especially within their own band. A mismatch in salary that the employee expects and the company provides becomes single most important reason for disgruntlement. A salary lower than what other colleagues are getting is seen as “I am being valued less”. This affects the esteem of the employee as well. We at Srijan followed Open Salaries to minimise this discord. (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/06/23/open-salaries/)
b. Democracy – Excluding people from decision making process or not being heard or grievances not being addressed is another reason for employees to feel less valued. Create an organisation where people can speak up if they have a problem or if they want to contribute. This would address the issue of hygiene factors. Create an environment where people can speak up without fear of losing job for criticising. Let them share their disagreements be it with strategy, colour of wall paper or the quality of coffee.

2. Recruitment and induction –
a. Hire passionate people-Let people come and work in the company for free for a week. See if they enjoy the work. Let them make an informed choice. Get a feedback from the colleagues on them.
b. The behaviour of people reflects their passion, their needs, their beliefs and assumptions. Most people are looking for jobs and careers but they stick to work places/ companies where most of their needs are met with. People may blame their bosses, lengthy or excessive work hours or lack of growth opportunities but the underlying cause would be unfulfilled needs or unhappiness with something. So the one week spent in office would also help colleagues understand the candidate/person. A feedback would help from the colleagues would help in understanding if the candidate would fit into the organisational culture.

3. Staff Interactions – HR/ Founders can design company in a way that allows/ facilitates interactions between staff to fulfill their social needs e.g. seating the whole team together in open work spaces without cabins and cubicles fulfils social needs such as need for inclusion. This also facilitates communication and reduces information asymmetry between team members. Structuring organisation around team would also help. (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/03/18/building-football-teams-at-work/ )

4. Allow people to experiment. Allow people to fail but do not tolerate mistakes – Most organizations are so focussed on success that they just build on their formula that made them successful. The managers and the company fail to experiment as they are afraid of failures. Let people experiment and learn. Takes failures in strides. The behavior in small and medium sized family owned companies is a good example. A father, who is grooming his child, is tolerant of Child’s failures. He would allow him to experiment and fail. But unfortunately he would not be as charitable with his employee. No wonder the son takes ownership, but the manager does not.

5. Devolve decision making to teams – One of the surest way of promoting ownership is devolve decision making. Responsibility without authority has no meaning. The senior management should devolve planning, implementation and control to lower rungs of management. This would give them autonomy and control over their operations. Teams develop their own sub-culture and help people bond, collaborate, cooperate and hence learn and grow. Essentially fulfill their social and self-actualization needs.

In a competitive world which is changing very fast, organizations need people who take pride in their work and own it. The traditional model of seeing employee costs as zero sum game is not going to be effective. HR departments will have to go beyond traditional roles and responsibilities and would have to add creating organizational culture to their job descriptions. Creating work spaces where people can achieve their full potential would be one of it.

Building football teams at work

18 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Management, Teams

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

Football, Human Resource Management, Organisation Structure, Teams

The world has become very complex and is moving to an age of artificial intelligence. Toffler would have defined it as the fourth wave. This age is characterized with quick dissemination of information, a globally connected world with services being provided digitally over the wire. The markets, including financial markets are interlinked, connected and inter-dependent. The orderly world, in which companies knew and understood their business environment, knew their competitors, could predict and prepare strategic plans has now given to a world where their business could be upstaged by a disruptive technology from a startup on the other side of the world. Competition is always on heels threatening to bite if pace slackens. Organizations can only survive by building teams that can respond to changes in environment, take decisions and implement them. These are teams that have the authority, responsibility and accountability for their decisions, something similar to football teams (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/what-corporate-managers-can-learn-from-football-teams/). With increasing complexity and increasing dependence of tasks, a person could be member of multiple teams that may run horizontally across functions or may run across vertically in a functional area. (https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/team-based-on-organisations-a-new-organisation-structure/). For example CFO in a country office would be member of senior executive team and also a member of finance team. The structure can be a strategic choice for the organizations to succeed.

The role of CXOs (CEOs, COOs, CMOs, CFOs etc) would be to build effective teams and build a culture with shared values that binds teams together. Effective teams are characterised by cooperation, collaboration and seamless interchangeability in roles. Teams, like Tribes, also have their own norms that all team members are expected to follow, and use peer pressure or social pressure to ensure compliance.
Organisations need to provide an enabling environment for teams to flourish and succeed. This would require changes in structures, policies and workflows. Some of my experiences are shared below

1. Recruitment is team’s responsibility. Interpersonal relationships are an important element of team success besides trust. Hence it is essential that primary responsibility for recruitment resides with the team. The team could recruit by building consensus amongst its members or giving each member a veto. At Srijan Technologies, a company I worked with, our philosophy was that recruitment is everyone’s responsibility. Beyond functional skills, it is attitude and other soft skills that are important but are difficult to gauge through questions. Attitudes and biases can be sensed by individuals. That is why we preferred in-person interviews over ones on skype or phone. While the immediate team got more weightage, the interviews also included extended teams or other stakeholders who would be working with that candidate. We once had a situation where a senior developer and the CEO had differing judgements on a business analyst candidate. We had an open discussion on the issue and finally went with the senior developer’s choice. Another instance I recollect is from CARE, an international NGO. We were interviewing for a project manager for a program with commercial sex workers (CSW). The project director included some CSW’s in the interview panel. His hypothesis was that if a candidate is not comfortable interviewing with a CSW then they would not be comfortable managing the project, and a CSW could best assess the candidate’s comfort. I would say the same logic extends to teams.

2. Successful teams sit and work together. Getting all the members to sit together is the most effective way to minimize information asymmetry within a team. Physical proximity promotes and encourages transparency. There are no barriers to communication such as inertia of lifting a phone or calling someone when s/he is busy. The team members can see each other’s availability and quickly resolve issues. One of the biggest advantages of such arrangement is the formation of deeper bonds within team members. Teams provide an emotional anchor especially to new members. The company does not have to run a mentorship program. The team members act as mentors and guides. Since the same cannot be done for Distributed teams – other tools and practices need to be adopted. For example, scheduling a daily team meeting; Tools like common folder with access rights to everyone. Thanks to tools like google docs, chatbots, etc., Distributed teams can collaborate effectively.
3. Democracy in organization and teams – One of the ways to improve decision making in teams is to encourage team to take decisions by consensus. This may seem like wastage of time, but it ensures ownership of decisions by all the team members. People understand democracy as decision making by voting or decisions of majority. But actually democracy is much more than that. ( https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/04/27/indian-experience-with-democracy/ ). At Srijan we encouraged teams to take decisions by consensus.

4. Team is the Boss. We delegated all operational decisions to the team such as negotiations with the customer, pacing the project, allocation of work to the team. Decisions on approval of leave or work from home was delegated to the team. A supervisor is supposed to monitor the work, but its peers or team members who can provide the best assessment of whether a person has turned in an honest day’s work or not. In my work life, I have come across situations where companies have multiple layers of authority delineation. In practice, I have seen managers trusting the teams or person on the ground and approving those requests without even simple questions. Organizations can cut down on decision making processes by delegating most of the approvals to the teams and also empowering teams by giving them authority but also hold them accountable.

5. Communication, Trust and feedback – It is essential to build trust and communication between the team members. This helps in reducing politics or charges of favouritism. At Srijan, we would even have 360 degree feedbacks with all the team members sitting together and providing feedback to each other. The rule was that anything that cannot be said in open should not be said. The fact that the organization was structured around roles and not positions also meant that there was no competition amongst team members. At the organization level, the company used to keep open books. We had sessions where the balance sheet and profit & loss account was shared with everyone. The most important behaviour that seniors have to demonstrate is to allow juniors to question them on their decisions. Give out a message that no subject is taboo and all conversations are welcome.

6. Abolish performance appraisal system and have Shared Goals and Shared rewards. Teams can only work when the team shares rewards and frustrations of defeat and no single person is singled out for either. It is no wonder that football (soccer in US) does not have man of the match award like cricket has ( https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2014/12/28/teams-and-performance-appraisal-systems/ ). A good team of learners who are motivated and enjoy their work would like quality output and ease out anyone who slows down the team. More often than not, the person would automatically move out. As Gen. Stanley McChrystal mentions in his book “Team of teams” most often repeated reason for dropping out of Seal’s training program BUD/S was that I cannot slow down the team. Rather be the weakest link in the chain, people move out.

Replace Performance appraisal with performance feedback and counselling. Use it to provide feedback to an employee. https://rajneeshrastogi.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/salaries-and-performance-appraisal/. We at Srijan used system of Salaries and performance bonus to reward performance during the year.

7. Define purpose of the organisation and teams. In this fast changing business environment, the companies will have to redefine their indices for growth. The inspiration to growth will come from purpose. What the organization plans to do and achieve. Similarly teams find meaning in their work if they identify with its purpose. If the team knows its purpose, it will also be more confident in moving away from established procedures to ensure that the purpose is met with.

8. Define values and hold teams and people accountable. The team has to fit in the larger organization and should share the same values and culture. Culture and values act as glue and bind the teams together. A very good example of it is Mckinsey that operates as distributed teams but come together as one company with one culture.

In a nutshell, if companies can create teams with diverse set of people, develop a culture of trust and decision making by consensus and are willing to share information with the teams, remove barriers to flow of information within the organization, then the organizations can create self-managed, self-learning teams

Indian experience with Democracy

15 Wednesday Mar 2017

Posted by Rajneesh Rastogi in Democratic Organizations, Learning Organizations, Management

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Democracy, Management

I took Organizational Learning and Development as one of my electives in MBA. The decision was more out of curiosity rather than interest at that point of time. The course kindled my interest in learning in organizations. Over a period of time, with my practical experience and after reading many books, I realized building a democratic organization was key to building a learning organization.

With that realization, I started searching for democratic organizations when I came across blog from Rahul at Srijan. He was trying to build a democratic organization. The first thing when I started talking with people was they do not want decision making by voting. Then I realized that most people associate democracy with decision making by casting of votes and hence as a corollary decision of majority. This definitely was not the intent of Greeks when they talked about democracy. Voting was just a tool to hear people’s decision and one of the stages in decision making process.

I researched on democracy and had to go back to Greeks, who invented Democracy. The motivation for Greeks to reform their political process was to provide more political power to middle and working class or basically empower them so that the power distribution in decision making is not loaded in favour of landlord or rich. That’s how they came up with concept of Demokratia, or democracy. Every member of ekkelesia had equal right to address political assemblies (isonomia). This provided a right to everyone who was affected to speak and influence decision making process. Basically it was a right to be heard. This was strengthened even more by Britishers by introducing “privilege”. Privilege is immunity granted to a member of parliament so that the person can speak his mind without fear of prosecution. Ofcourse this was before Indian MPs decided that it extended to watching porn and Indian Supreme Court decided that privilege extended to voting in exchange of money in parliament.

Is Indian Parliament a democratic institution? No, it is not. The MPs do not have right to dissent from their party’s view point. The members cannot vote against party position or party whip. This goes against the basic grain of democracy.
The main objective of democracy was decision making by consensus. The assumption was that democracy would bring together diverse set of people and provide them with a platform where they can discuss issues, challenge each other’s mindsets and take good decisions. The parliament would the place where they would be able to challenge the assumptions and hypothesis or other members, discuss and debate so that the country will have better laws.  Unfortunately, our democracy is characterized by more of personal attacks rather then discussions with key laws getting past with little or no discussion.

← Older posts

Subscribe

  • Entries (RSS)
  • Comments (RSS)

Archives

  • November 2022
  • August 2022
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • October 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • July 2018
  • May 2018
  • January 2018
  • June 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • March 2016
  • October 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • June 2014

Categories

  • Agile Technology
  • Business Process Engineering
  • Climate Change
  • Democratic Organizations
  • Development
  • Environment
  • Healthcare
  • Learning Organizations
  • Management
  • Relationships
  • Teams
  • Uncategorized
    • Culture

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in

Blog at WordPress.com.

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • Rajneesh Rastogi
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Rajneesh Rastogi
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...