O70 - The Unsung Heroes

I was on business travel last week. I spent my weekend in Toronto, Canada and had planned to write a blog from my hotel room. But the weather was so excellent, that I did not want to miss the gorgeous view of the Niagara Falls. I ended up sight-seeing Niagara and Toronto Downtown. I did not want to miss penning this week's blog. So here goes ...

Come fourth quarter of the year, it is the time for performance appraisals. Given the positive sentiments in the market, I am hoping that there will be some pay-hike. So I chose to write in this blog about the "unsung heroes" who belong to the category O70 in the TNOB spectrum.

TNOB is a favorite acronymn in the world of performance management. Employees in an organisation are sorted into percentiles - Top10, Next10, Others70 and Bottom10. This is what makes up the TNOB acronym. This sorting is used during performance appraisal for creating differentiation in the pay. Pay the high performers more than the low performers. When an organisation is sorted in this manner, the management's attention is mostly on the T10 and B10 and the bulk of the organisation, categorised as O70, is usually ignored.

T10 folks are the cynosure of the group. They hog all the limelight. Their pay is highly differentiated when compared to the rest, that they are placed well above the market. It would be a curse to lose the T10 talent to competition because of compensation. Since they are the tourch bearers of the group, the management has to consciously work on their career growth to ensure they are promoted for higher responsibilities. T10 undeniably takes most of the management's attention.



B10 also get equal attention from management, but for opposite reasons. They are the problem to be dealt with. B10 have to be put on a performance improvement program with the hope that they improve their performance. If there is no significant improvement, they have to let them go. The management then has to hire fresh talent to replace the attrited B10 employees.

N10 gets some attention as they are the potential T10.

However the most ignored and the most populated group is the O70. This group constitutes 70% of the organisation and it is a pity that they do not get the necessary attention. They are the work horses for the group. They do the bulk of the work for the organisation. Without them, the group cannot meet its goals. Many unsung heros are part of this group. This group is the most vulnerable for attrition as well. So why does this group not get the attention it demands ? Is this group taken for granted?



I believe that the root of the problem lies in the performance management process used to come up with the composition of the people in TNOB. In a technology driven company, innovation and technical brilliance is given more weightage than the project execution traits (like meeting Ontime,Quality and process standards). Innovation is critical for an organisation to differentiate itself with the competition. But what is forgotten is that, good project execution is the key to productise this innovation. Good project execution skills do not get the necessary recognition they deserve.

Going by this process, an individual, who is innovative and technically brilliant, gets rated high even if he lacks project execution skills. On the other hand a person who is excellent in project execution skills is not rated high because he is not as innovative or technically brilliant like the other. The innovations and technical brilliance is more visible to public than the project execution skills. The innovator, by way of writing papers or filing patents, gets public acknowledgement of his traits.For the person who is good at execution, his accomplishments are hidden in the score-card of the project that does not have as much visibility in the public forum that the innovator has.This visibility gap is further widened by the management when they glorify the technical skills over the execution skills.This builds a bias in the organisation that is more favorable to the technical person and so during the performance rating process he becomes the undisputable T10.

The solution to this problem, is for the management to use the right and the same set of metrics that is critical for its success, to the performance evaluation of the individuals as well. If On-time execution is a critical metric for the organisation's success ,then the employees who execute projects well, should be rated high. The management should also make these individuals more visible in the organisation. When this is done, the work horses do not remain dark horses anymore. This would help the managment to motivate others in the group with similar skills. The management should devote attention to the O70 population to assess the further performance improvement expected out of them. These assessments should be clearly communicated to them by their respective supervisors. The supervisors should spend quality time setting stretch goals for the O70 people.They should provide means so that O70 people can excel. The supervisor should recognise the accomplishments made by the O70 people in the team meetings. All these management activities will pave way to create a middle ladder that is as visible as the technical ladder and the management ladder.

Have you ever noticed that a person who is considered T10 remains T10 for many years even when he moves up the rank? The management should be wary of the bias that is built around the T10 folks. Every year the management has to critically look at the T10 performers to assess if they have truly over-performed to retain their coveted ranking.They also need to consciously look for people who were in N10 and O70 last year to see if they deserve to be in T10 this year. A rigorous performance appraisal process and critical evaluation is key to ensure that the right people form the TNOB spectrum. This goes a long way to build a healthy and competitive organisation with lower attrition.

Happy Reading,
Ram

Silo Centricity

After my expatriate assignment, I came back to India to start a new group. The downturn did not help and I was resource-challenged. I did not have the critical mass in one particular function to execute the projects. Seeking help, from other teams during peak needs is one thing, but depending on them to fill your critical mass is an entirely different story. I have been steadily en-cashing on the goodwill (or the emotional bank account as Steven Covey would put it) I had already built with my peer managers, to support my team as best as I could. With these acts, I am now infamously known as the beggar who rides a Honda Civic. I feel that the root of my problem lies in the organizational structure. When an organization is vertically focused, the teams operate in silos that are impregnable like the Great Wall of China.

I believe that there is a reason why different types of organizational structures exist – vertical, horizontal, matrix. Any structure would work as long it is not overdone. Through this blog I make a case that silo structure is not a preferred structure for a remote site.

Talking of organizational structures, the most obvious analogy that comes to mind is the comparison between a joint-family and a nuclear family. In a joint family, resources like milk, groceries, gas are optimally utilized. During emergency (aka project deadlines) one can fall back on the other members of the family. Grooming (aka mentoring) of kids for good habits happens naturally. There is the head of the family (aka site head) who resolves issues inside the family and makes sure the sense of belongingness is high. When a new member (aka new-hire) joins the family the existing members of the family go beyond and help to make sure the new member of the family feels at home. Any new venture (aka incubating a new group) attempted by one family has the support from the other families.

While there are many of the advantages of a joint family (aka horizontal structure) it is not without issues. One of the key issues is the perceived lack of freedom or privacy (aka role clarity) in a joint family. For the family that is earning more, there is this complex that they are doing more for the joint family than others. The head of the family hogs all the limelight causing lack of visibility for others in the family. No system or structure is devoid of issues. One has to look at relative merits and demerits, and the context before the right structure is chosen.



Coming to the core issue of the blog, I strongly believe that for a remote site a silo structure is not a preferred one. A remote site needs teams to cooperate and work together to make the parent company and the remote site successful. Similar to patriotism, there is a sense of pride among the people working in the remote site to make their site successful. Teams working in silos do not help in this endeavor. The situation with silo structure becomes worse, if there is no direct reporting to the local site head. If the local site head cannot exercise control then he/she is not directly accountable for the success of the site. He merely ends up being a general management person taking care of administrative activities. As in the analogy of joint family, the head of the family has the responsibility and accountability to ensure that the entire family prospers. His responsibility includes resolving problems/issues (aka execution issues) within the family, to put the house in order. However in the silo structure the local site head loses the power to exercise control and do what is good for the parent company AND the remote site. To solve my resourcing issue in a silo structure, the site-head can, at best, influence the managers of the silos to help me out. As the silos directly report to the parent vertical, their first line of accountability is with them and not with the local site. If any of the silo team is reasonably large then they may have sufficient bandwidth to support my needs and, at the same time, manage the expectations of their parent vertical. This, however, depends on the willingness of the silo manager to help me. If each of the silo teams are small and have just enough bandwidth, then, on their own, they cannot help my needs. This is where a structure which is more horizontal than vertical, can leverage the pool of resources across various silos to come to my rescue.

The silo structure is not conducive for building credibility of the whole site and thus may not help in incubating new groups. Both of these are critical for the success of a remote site. One of the challenges I faced, starting this new group, was to re-establish the credibility of the team with the new vertical, despite the three of us having a combined industry experience of 28 years. We were being looked at as three individuals with independent accomplishments. In the case of a horizontal structure, the local site head can showcase credibility using the accomplishments of the whole site. The sponsor of the new group also has enough confidence in the existing talent infrastructure, to kick-start the group. Incubating new groups is easier in this structure, as the site manager can tap into the talent pool across the different silo groups. More importantly it provides career growth paths for different talents, spread between different silos.

In summary I feel that the organizational structure for a remote site should not be a silo structure until each silo has enough critical mass on its own to deliver results and also help incubating new groups.

Happy Reading,
Ram

Out of the BOX

This blog is a continuation of last week's blog on Self-Deception or being "In the BOX". I have received feedback from a few of my friends that the blog was "too heavy". To be honest, it was not an easy blog to write. I spent long hours just skimming the contents of the book in order to make it presentable.But nothing can replace a reading of this book "Leadership and Self Deception". I strongly recommend you read it. Luckily for Indians it is available for ~$5, thanks to Tata Mcgrawhill. For completness sake and for those who are curious on how to get out of the box, let my key-board take over ...

Self-betrayal causes people to go into their box and they see the world in a way that self-justifies their image. So how does this affect the work place? Whenever a person starts a job, he comes in, feeling capable and ready to do his best to help the company and his co-workers achieve results. But if one were to interview the same person a year later, his feelings would, usually, be very different. In a zeal to excel, he focuses more on himself than on achieving the results for the company. He views peers and others as threats. He generally doesn't feel that other people's results are as important as his own. People in the box start to withhold information and they try to control others, which provokes resistance and they feel the need to control all the more. So one person in an organisation, by being in the box and failing to focus on results, provokes his colleagues to fail to focus on results as well.Collusion spreads far and wide and the end result is that coworkers position themselves against coworkers and this does not help an organisation succeed.

This leads to the people problems in an organisation like lack of commitment, lack of engagement, lack of motivation, conflict, stress, poor teamwork, back biting/bad attitudes, misalignment, lack of trust, lack of accountability communication problems etc., When you go through all these people problems, you will be surprised that all these existed after they betrayed themselves but NOT before.

So how do we get out of the box ? The first and foremost thing, is to see a person not as an object but see them as they would see themselves, with similar needs and desires. As Bernard Shaw said "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you". Following this simple but profound philosophy would help you get out of the box. In the example I gave in the last blog, had I looked upon my wife as another person, with needs, hopes and worries as real and legitimate as my own - I would be out of the box.

But to continue to be 'out of the box', one has to get to the reason that caused you to get into the box in the first place. The box is a metaphor for how one is resisting others. In the example I gave in the previous blog to explain the process of self-betrayal, I resisted the suggestion to take the family out for dinner. I resisted the sense of what I should do for my wife, and in resisting that sense, I began to focus on myself and see her as being undeserving of help. The truth is, we change in the moment we cease resisting what is outside our box - others. We can stop betraying ourselves toward them- we can stop resisting them.

The immediate next question that begs an answer is "Does being out of the box means that one should always do everthing for others"? This may seem like a burdensome obligation. In order to stay out of the box, it is critical that we honor what our out-of-the-box sensibility tells us we should do for these people. However- and this important- this doesn't necessarily mean that we end up doing everything we feel would be ideal. For we have our own responsibilities and needs that require attention. This may mean that we can't help others as much as we would like to, or as early as we wish we could. But we do the best we can under the circumstances - and we do that because when we are out of the box, seeing others as people, that's what we want to do.

Next time you see someone overtake you in the traffic and cuts across you;instead of shouting at him and do the same trick he did to you;you can be out of the box and assume that the other driver has some real urgency and let go and forgive him for over taking.

Happy Reading
Ram