Competition at Workplace may not deliver results associated with Free-market competition

Often market place innovations and ever improving customer service standards are attributed to free market environment and players’ need for one-upmanship.
Competition is assumed to be motivating force that pushes all players to do their best. Organizations often seek to rely on internal competition (practicing relative performance ranking) to provoke employees’ efforts and spur creativity. The process surely leads to categorization of employees into winners and losers, but does not necessarily enhances overall organization effectiveness or financial performance. Some of the gaps in the outcome can actually be explained in the difference between Work Place Competition and Market Place Competition. 
 

 

The contention is not to let go leveraging the benefits of competition, but to be conscious of its limitations. Create enough avenues for all well meaning employees to win and make it evident that collaboration and partnerships in the overall interest of organization also pays.

Reflect!!!

When did you review Management Processes last?

Mostly, I hear Organization Leaders involved in evaluation of business strategies, competitive positioning, financial plans, operational processes, technological assets and organization structure, but seldom undertaking conscious review of Management Processes. My contention is that well aligned and oiled Management Processes have far greater impact in achieving effectiveness of business strategies and efficiency gains of operational initiatives, then traditionally given attention to.

Three key Management Processes; Information Management process, Decision Making process, and Communication process are essential part of organization machinery and once established tend to have life of their own. Unless their robustness and alignment with overall business strategy and execution plan are ascertained, they have the potential to undermine other efforts of enhancing organization performance.


Technological Innovation and Gen-Y employees orientation demands and make possible complete reconfiguring of these Management Processes from the traditional way these were handled. Let us consider some questions that may help review each of these processes:

Information Management process:

Are we tapping all kind of internal and external sources of information that can help make sense of the complex world? How many of innovative ideas are coming from outside the company (say customers)?

Are we able to derive actionable insights/ foresights out of all the information that we have access to? How much of unstructured data on the web is mined to understand what our customers/ stakeholders liked about Company (products and pronouncements) last week?

Are we ensuring that all those who have to act, use the same set of information and the most recent one? How many customer interlocks across the organization are informed by unified understanding of customer preferences, and interaction history?

Decision Making process:

Are the decisions that are centralized, emerging out of conscious assessment of gains in the form of consistent and effective roll-out or out of power concentration or tradition? When was the debate (experiment) to decentralize some decisions undertaken last?

Are managers consciously selecting the right decision making process (collective or individual) based on context or one style in predominant as part of organization culture? How well understood are the accountability norms related to joint decision making?

Are leaders balancing the intuitive and insight (data backed) based decision making? How often intuitive decisions are betted for experimentation, then waiting for additional data backed evidence?

Communication process:

Are leaders across the organization only telling orders or explaining rationales as well, to facilitate execution? To what extent, leaders are open to questioning existing practices and ready to listen and debate from say new hires or interns?

To what extent, communication networks, formal and informal, are supportive of positive collaboration and partnering across silos? What percent of email traffic for middle managers are with colleagues other than immediate bosses or subordinates?

Are we using new channels of communication that are symbolic of interconnected social age? How strategically are we using twitters, blogs, web 2.0 technologies to connect, convey and correspond effectively and coherently across the stakeholder community?

Review of the Management processes facilitated by above questions will surely throw-up some areas that need to change. Change in Management processes require intervention design, comprising leadership sensitization & coaching, and creating new technological infrastructure besides sustained monitoring, till new processes become institutionalized. Not an easy task, but worth it.

Lets Reflect!!!

You can also visit the adjacent poll to express your opinion and see what others are thinking.

Being Creative by Design

Everyone agrees that we need to be more innovative in our recommendations to clients to create greater impact.  However, despite rightful intent and efforts, there seems to be great variation in the quality of outcomes.  Some practitioners by experience or intellect are able to provide wider perspectives than majority.  So what does the majority do besides blaming education, experience or IQ?

I believe that conscious and rigorous employing of seemingly contradicting perspectives on any context can help us widen the universal set of possibilities leading to potentially better advice.  This is what we reckon as “being creative by design”.

Listed below are some of the perspectives (about objectives, strategy and execution) put forward by gurus that although contrarian to established thinking seems to be true as well in specific contexts.

1.    Stakeholders get motivated differently

• What motivates a professional manager may not motivate the owner of the firm.  Economists have always insisted on goal alignment between owners and professional managers under principal-agent theory. There is considerable debate on whether shareholder wealth maximization or stakeholder value generation should be the key objective functions of an enterprise.
• Further, managers and employees may get motivated differently.  Even in the same group, individuals may stand at different levels on the Missionary- Mercenary Orientation Continuum. 
• Off-course, there is need for an overarching objective that collectively reflects the aspirations of all stakeholders. But, for the message to engage, it should be able to connect to individual level legitimate aspirations as well.

Implications : Do not assume! Ascertain that every stakeholder’s priorities and expendables are well understood and the look towards achievement of Pareto Optimality.

2.     Selective Strategic Views are standalone traps

• Strategy formulation is essentially a creative exercise, an art that is being continuously scientisized through different frameworks, each approach providing a specific view towards strategy formulation.
• Unconscious of single view limitations, consultants often pick specific approach (framework) as favorites and apply it in all situations limiting the options.
• Ansoff matrix provides a sufficient framework for us to explore both the competitive and innovation orientation, provided we do justice to all the quadrants.  Return Driven Strategy framework is another broad encompassing framework.  

 

Implications :  It pays to consciously apply different views of Strategy Formulation to a situation to come up with diverse solution set.

Click here to view the complete article

You may like to further add to this list. 

Right Diagnosis precedes Right Advice (Rapid Organization Diagnosis Aid)

Top Managers in several organizations often run to outdo each other in adapting latest management concepts and introducing new initiatives with a hope that these initiatives will help address performance gaps. These initiatives may fall in the areas of strategy redesign, restructuring, process reengineering or automation. Sometimes these initiatives deliver, and most often, not. And the fault may not exactly be with the initiative design or execution, but with the areas of intervention itself. Disillusioned by outcomes of internal initiatives, clients often look towards Consultants for advice.

With due respect to fellow consultants, they also often move towards providing advice based on inadequate diagnosis, that is more selective and biased towards building case for initiatives that consultants excel in. And organizations are no better off after initial euphoria of implementing Consultants’ recommendations wear off.  All this reiterates the need for having right diagnosis.

There are several management frameworks and models such as BLM, 7s, business excellence models, which provide guidelines on undertaking comprehensive review, encompassing all organizational dimensions and their linkages.  These frameworks require extensive data collection and are often time and resource intensive efforts, which may not be feasible in all cases. 

How about having a rapid diagnostic aide that helps identify problem areas fast- the typical physician way- using a set of questions, developed on most frequently observed organizational infirmities.

Rapid Organization Diagnosis Aid is based on the premise that successful firms are able to manage four key areas well.  These four key areas are:

1.     Establishment of Organization Fundamentals
2.     Alignment of Organization Elements
3.     Appropriateness of Apparatus
4.     Accountability for Performance

Accordingly, the problem identification process focuses on reviewing the state of these four areas within the organization. Based on experience here are a set of 19 questions that will help undertake RAPID and RIGHT diagnosis.  

The reality check would be best achieved by evaluating how effectively the organization is responding to the key questions under each of the four key areas. 

Click here to read the full article and view the complete set of questions