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

In the BOX

Most parents believe that their children are wonderful and can do no wrong. When confronted by evidence of their son's or daughter’s wrongdoing, parents will often go to great lengths to discount the facts – that can’t be true “my son or daughter would never do something like that.”

When it comes to love and romance, the truth about one's close relationship is difficult to acknowledge.Many people actively deny the truth until they are forced to deal with it. We rarely see the world as it really is. Our perception of the world is biased, our memories betray us, and our true motives can remain hidden. For better or worse, we constantly convince ourselves of things that are not true. We kid ourselves about the most basic things in life: Who we are and what is going on around us. Most of the time we lie to ourselves in order to maintain a sense of control. After all, no one likes feeling vulnerable or helpless.

In both the above examples, the inability to see that one has a problem, is what is called as self-deception or being in the box.

George Orwell said " We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield"

Self-deception is likened to being in the box because it seems that you’re shut in a box with no other external stimulus coming in - except your own closed perspective. You may think that you’re committed, totally devoted and engaged in a project – giving it your all, forsaking holidays and special personal occasions for work – and yet, based on other people’s observations, you are NOT. Since you don’t and can’t see it from your point of view, it makes you take a defensive stance and even come to believe that other people are against you.

This inability to see that the problem lies within you, carries its weight into the relationship you have with your peers and ultimately translates itself on the performance of your group.You may think that your people skills are influencing your team members into producing great results. However, it may just be the other way around! In fact, it takes more than that to be effective in establishing a good rapport with your employees, co-workers and team members. Your success will come from a sincere desire to learn about them. People can detect even the slightest hint of hypocrisy and manipulation. Many leaders fail because they provoke the people to resist them by such behavior.

So how does one into get into the box ? It starts with what is called as self-betrayal. An act contrary to what one feels he should do for another is called an act of "self- betrayal". Self-betrayal is the most common thing in the world.

To elucidate this point, let me take a hypothetical case. Let's say one day I come home from office after a long tiring day expecting to have quick dinner and then hit the bed. My wife says that she was tired that day and did not want to make dinner. She wantes me to take the family out for dinner.I start arguing with her as to why she cannot find time to cook when she has time for watching her favorite tele-soaps and to do art work. I start to get into the box. I continue saying to my wife that I slog like crazy to earn and that she ends up spending it all (look, this arguement has no connection to the issue at hand). I say to her, if she can't cook a meal then she is better off working. Atleast it will increase the family income. I say to myself that it is cheaper to hire a cook for a lot less money than what she spends on her clothes every month. Being the sole bread-winner, I self-justify that I deserve better treatment. Adding salt to the wounds, I compare my wife with my sister-in-law who cooks tastier food for all three meals for my brother.In the end everyone goes to bed without having dinner.

This act of self-betrayal can go on and on, raking up past fights and quoting incidents totally unrelated to the issue at hand. The act of self-betrayal always leaves a bad residue.

In this case, I had two choices before me - Accept the fact that my wife is tired and use this opportunity to take the family out for dinner, thereby strengthening the relationship. The second choice is to go down the self-betrayal path and spoil the evening and rupture the relationship. I may have dramatised here a bit more than needed, but I hope you get the intent.

In the self-betrayal mode, How I start to see myself and How I start to see my wife makes an interesting comparison.

How I start to see myself	How I started to see my wife
VICTIM	LAZY
HARDWORKING	INCONSIDERATE
IMPORTANT	UNAPPRECIATIVE
FAIR	INSENSITIVE
SENSITIVE	FAKER
GOOD HUSBAND	LOUSY WIFE

When I betray myself, I begin to see the world in a way that justifies my self-betrayal. When I see a self-justifying world,my view of reality becomes distorted. So when I betray myself, I enter the box. I deceive myself while I inflate others' faults, inflate own virtue, inflate the value of things that justify my self-betrayal and start to blame others. Over time, certain boxes become characteristic of me, and I carry them with me.

We end up carrying self-justifying images with us into new situations. We enter the new situation, being already in the box.We do not see people straight forwardly as people, rather we see them interms of self-justifying images we have created. If they challenge the claim, then we see them as a threat.If they reinforce the claim then we see them as allies.

When I am in the box, I blame others. In order to counter this blame, each of us gets into a our own box and go into defensive mode. In short I provoke others to get into the box. Let us say your child comes home late. You start to see him as irresponsible and disrespectful. You discipline him harshly and criticise him openly. The child sees your act as dictatorial and unloving. This takes him further into his box. In the future he will ensure he gets home later. When two people are in their boxes, they invite mutual mistreatment and obtain mutual justification. They collude in giving each other reason to stay in the box.

I have more things to tell about the box problems and how to get out of the box. I will follow it in next week's blog. Till then ponder if you were/or in the box and try out means to get out of the box.

Mrinal Das replied to my earlier blog with the following:

"Where there is inaction, there is lost opportunity". Good one Mrinal Da.

p.s This blog gives the excerpts from the classic book "Leadership and Self-Deception" from Arbinger Institute.

Happy Reading
Ram

The Sleeping Fox catches no Poultry

The Tufts University submitted a report on global warming that examines the costs of inaction – the worsening damages that will result from allowing climate change to continue unabated. Economic models have estimated damages as great as US$74 trillion, but even these numbers fail to convey the multiple harm that lies in store for the world. The risk of a global catastrophe will increase rapidly as temperatures continue to rise. If nothing is done to slow the process of warming, the grandchildren of today's young adults will inherit a world crippled by food and water shortages, extreme and variable weather, extinctions and other ecosystem damages.Added to that, a growing danger of an even more severe catastrophe. While the magnitude of the cost of inaction is very evident in the case of global warming, the cost of inaction by an individual or an organisation, though smaller, still impacts the organisation and its business.



Look around and you will find many examples of inaction at every level of the organisation, starting with you. At an individual level, inaction can be seen in the form of procrastination of important things that you want to do. My friend wanted to get a master health check-up done but as he was a victim of inaction he did nothing. Recently he was diagnosed with a high level of cholesterol and is now a worried man. An organisation’s morale was low and the senior manager held many round-table discussions with groups of individuals and many actions were noted. However no action was taken later and as such the organisation’s morale drooped further. Does this sound familiar? One can find many such examples of inaction in every organisation. One of the tangible evidence of inaction can be seen in the execution of the project. Inaction by senior management, in not staffing the project with enough resources, causes delays to the project. The lost business opportunity, low team morale, and other sunk costs outweigh the cost of inaction by a long way. The cost of inaction increases exponentially when inaction affects a larger number of stakeholders. Americans across the country are demanding comprehensive health reform and cannot afford to wait any longer for Washington to act. Businesses and families are struggling as costs continue to skyrocket. More and more Americans find themselves uninsured. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have more than doubled in the last 9 years, a rate 3 times faster than cumulative wage increases. Health care costs add $1,525 to the price of every General Motors vehicle. The company spent $4.6 billion on health care in 2007, more than the cost of steel.







The Bhagavad- Gita is considered by eastern and western scholars alike to be among the greatest spiritual books the world has ever known. In the verse 2.47, Lord Krishna advises Arjuna ,beyond others, not to have attachment towards inaction.

KarmaNyaavadhikaarasthae maa phalaeshu kadaachana
Maa karmaphalahaethurbhoo: maa thae sangO(a)sthvakarmaNi

That translates to
You have a right over action alone; never over results.
May you not be the cause of the results of actions.
May you not have an attachment towards inaction.

Confucius said

"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."

Leonardo Da Vinci said

“ Just as iron rusts from disuse, even so does inaction spoil the intellect.”

As seen from time immemorial, many have spoken on the cost of inaction. So what is it that causes people not to act? Derek gives three reasons for inaction:

Diffusion of Responsibility – People are less likely to take ownership in large groups of people. This happens a lot in the business environment when there is lack of clarity in the roles and responsibilities of an individual or a group.

Fear of Failure – The fear of potential failure inhibits people from acting. They fail to understand that “One misses hundred percent of the shots one never takes”. Doing nothing is the most tiresome job in the world because you cannot quit and rest.

Procrastination- Sustained procrastination leads to inaction. The only thing worse than failing to accomplish a task is convincing yourself you’ll do it later and never do it.

So how does one go about beating the “Inaction” mania ? Simply follow Nike’s slogan “Just Do It”. The consequences of your inactions are far greater than the fear of making the wrong move. The only wrong move in business or your life is the one you never take. Inaction breeds indecision, inertia, lack of confidence, resignation, and above all - no future potential or possibilities. So ACT. There are no wrong decisions, only opportunities to learn, grow, unleash your potential, and succeed beyond your wildest dreams.

Thomas Watson Junior says

"Solve it. Solve it quickly, solve it right or wrong. If you solve it wrong, it will come back and slap you in the face, and then you can solve it right. Lying dead in the water and doing nothing is a comfortable alternative because it is without risk, but it is an absolutely fatal way to manage a business."

I would end this blog seeking an answer to the following question:

If for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

then

For every inaction __________________________________

Send in your entries as comments to the blog. The best entry will be acknowledged in the next blog.

Happy Reading
Ram

The Percentage Fallacy

Two siblings were fighting to get a fair share of the pizza . Seeing this, their mother asks the younger one to divide the pizza into two pieces so that each one can have one piece. The smart young one divides the pizza inequally. Then the mother asks the elder one to choose the piece he wants. The elder one chooses the larger piece and the younger one ends up with the smaller piece. While we can draw wisdom from this anecdote, the fact is that one finds the usage of percentages in many walks of life.

In a project execution, many times one has to work with resources who are not fully assigned to the project. It could be that this individual is working on two concurrent projects and cannot spend a 100% time on any one project. It could be that the person possesses a niche skill that has to be shared between many projects. But the most common case is that of a borrowed resource from a different project group, who is partly available. The sourcing project group does not want to let go this person fully, under the fear that it may affect their project schedules. On paper, going by the project management framework, simultaneous progress can be made by both the project teams using this shared resource. But in reality, it creates more uncertainties for both the project teams and more stress on the resource.



Humans are not wired to do two things at the same time for a longer period of time. As both the project teams expect continous progress on their project, the shared resource has to, either split his time every day between the projects or split the days in week between the projects. The former is extremely impractical as not much can be accomplished in half-day before he switches to the other project. Even the latter is not convenient. For example, if in the middle of the week, one is deeply into solving a problem in the first project, it will not make sense for him to switch to the other project without getting the problem to a proper conclusion. It will also, take some time for him to ramp up to the other project. This adds delay to the schedule and makes it unpredictable. The resource may end up spending more than 100% of his time trying to meet the commitments for both the groups. When this continues for a longer period of time, he becomes stressed out and may get demotivated.

If one of the project happens to be a support job then the whole week could be spent solving critical customer issues, leaving nothing for the other project. So working at a percentage effort causes more stress and unpredictable schedule for the project. For the project manager using a borrowed resource beyond the unpredictable schedule, there is also an uncertainty in how long the resource would be available. Given these uncertainities any schedule drafted would make little sense.

The percentage fallacy is more prominent when a resource transitions from one group to the other. The receiving group wants the person to soon come up to speed, so would expext this resource to work for some percentage time in the new group atleast before completely transitioning. The sourcing group wants to get as much done before the person moves to the new group. Caught between wanting to impress the new group and showing loyalty to the old group, the resource ends up spending more than 100% of time during the transition.



When the transition of a resource between groups is worked out based on meeting a milestone, the delays in meeting the milestone adds to the uncertainty of when the transition will be complete. The project manager making project plans based on such a resource would find it tough to meet the project milestones.

So what are the lessons one can learn from this percentage fallacy? If you are a project manager, try to get a dedicated resource. If not possible, factor the potential delay by adding buffers in the schedule. If you are a project manager of a group that is receiving the resource as part of transition, then plan the schedule on when the resource fully transitions into the group. Any percentage effort that the resource puts in the new group before the transition will only help make the schedule better.

Happy Reading.

-Ram

Is the grass greener on the other side of the fence?

Amar catches you ,the manager, in the corridor and wants to have an urgent chat. Immediately, your mind goes off on a wild goose-chase, wondering what the issue is and the short walk to the nearest team room seems a long way off. After the initial exchange of pleasantaries, Amar says he is not happy with the pay and that his friend in a different company is earning a LOT more than him. Hmmm,for Amar the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. Doesn't this situation sound common-place? May be you feel the same, but wearing a manager's cap in the current situation you do not have the luxury to share similar feelings. If you are a seasoned manager, you would have been in many such situations with the Amars, Akbars and Anthonys of the world. So how did you, as a manager, deal with such a situation?


The next set of crucial conversations you have with Amar, will determine whether you succeed in retaining him or not. It will also determine if he is still motivated enough, to continue working for his current employer. The worst thing to do, in this situation, is to go on the defensive and throw a bunch of numbers that you got from your HR to prove that what Amar is saying is not true. As far as Amar is concerned he has the real data and ,according to him, a good reference for comparison as well.

The recommended practise is to advise Amar to look at the compensation in total and not just the pay. You suggest that he look at the benefits, ESOPs, work culture etc., While this is the correct approach, some managers / organisation may go over-board to quantify the benefits and make the Total Compensation look very attractive.If Amar does not care about benefits then trying to convince him to look at the estimated benefits does not cut any ice. All he may care about is only the number credited to his bank account at the end of every month. I doubt anyone would dare to use ESOP as a retention tool when the market is bearish. Even when the market is bullish, one of the common mistakes done by the organisation is to quantify the money one can make on ESOP by looking at historic data.In reality, many uncertain factors like the company's performance, the timing of the ESOP exercise etc., determine the actual value of the stock one has. So do not try convincing Amar with the estimated returns of the ESOPs. If you are genuine and stick to facts, that potential gains are possible , but not quantify them, then you would atleast earn Amar's trust. Explain the total compensation philosophy and let Amar use his judgement to associate value to these extra benefits.



Sometimes the manager may make the mistake of suggesting that, the quality of work ,done at his current employer, is far superior to others and that Amar could miss the great learning opportunities if he moved to a different company. In my opinion it is not ethical to use good work as a retention tool.

Any company's biggest assets are its people(HR is being renamed as HA), so it has vested interests to take care of its employees. If this is true, then why would a manager in any company face issues like the one that Amar has brought on to the table? If you dig deeper you would notice a fundamental dichotomy - For Amar even one reference datum is sufficient, to feel that the grass on his side of the fence is not green enough. However a company cannot make policy decisions affecting people across the board based on one or few data points. If Amar is a top performer then the company can make exceptions by giving him either a reasonable hike or a retention bonus. But the compensation decisions that impact everyone is based on current market data. The companies base their compensation decision by comparing themselves with their competitors of reasonable size.



There is greater fairness in the compensation strategy when similar companies of similar size are compared. If a company has many different business units(BU), it may not be practical to compare each of its business unit with a different company doing similar work, especially if the business unit size is small. Given this, it may so happen that, some of the business units compensation need not be equitable to its direct competitor. Unless the business unit size becomes so large that it warrants its own compensation to be compared with the competitor, or if there is a significant attrition in the BU, the company need not take any action. These are the discrepancies one has to live with.

Few questions that can help tell if your company is competitive in its compensation policy are: How many competitor companies does it choose for comparison?. Where does it want to position itself vis-a-vis the market - at par or above par? To what degree does it want to compare itself with other companies ? Does it compare its employees at different responsibility levels with equivalent responsbility levels at other companies? Does it drive the compensation decisions based on the number of people and the responsibilities they have? How often does it participate in such surveys? Does it keep updating the competitor lists?

If your company does all, or many of these, then you can be sure that your company has a competitive compensation policy. However, remember that, percentage hikes, actual salaries, benefits that the company decides is an average number for each responsibility level. It cannot match the compensation for each individual vis-a-vis its competitor. In this sense the compensation data that the company deals with is statistical in nature.

But this still does not solve Amar's problem. If the company is fair in its compensation policy then the different business units or the groups within the company would get compensation budgets that track the market data. Amar's compensation would be based on Amar's performance ranking and the degree of performance differentiation that is done between the top performer and the bottom performer in his group. His relative performance, compared to others in his group ,determines his compensation. It is not done on his assessment of how valuable he is with respect to his friend in another company. There in lies the discrepancy. It is not humanly possible to make a 100% objective comparison of one individual's performance with another. Subjectivity, let alone nepotism, in the form of bias, perceptions, expectations play a role in the assessment which cannot be avoided. Even if it is possible to objectively compare Amar with his friend in a different group in the same company, his friend may still get a higher hike if his group has more poor performers than Amar's group. So it is a lost cause to compare one's compensation with another person.

So what can a manager do to address Amar's concern ? If Amar was an average performer, the manager could reinforce the compensation philosophy about how the company strives to be competitive in its employees compensation, how fair the rating/ranking process is. He should be courageous, honest and talk with facts. He can give a bonus/hike if it does not affect the equilibrium of the group. However, for the long term, he should challenge Amar to further improve his performance. He should also be prepared for potential attrition.

What can Amar do? He needs to understand that comparing his compensation with another person will always be a futile exercise. If he is convinced that the company is fair and competitive in its compensation practises, then he needs to work on improving his performance to get higher compensation. Before taking any decision he needs to compare the companies on parameters that matter to him - Pay, the benefits that matter to him, career growth opportunities, learning opportunites, typical hikes, long term stability of the company etc.,.

The grass that looks greener on the other side of the fence today may change color tomorrow, so before you jump over the fence make sure you think long term.



Happy Reading
-Ram

Role of Geometry in Management Science

My daughter is very animated when she speaks - shaking her hands vigorously,her face expressive, however the moment I hold her hands together she turns silent. Similarly I think the training consultants would be lost for words without the geometrical shapes they use to explain concepts. Long ago, as a young engineer attending training classes, I was bombarded with triangles, quadrants, circles and many other shapes by the trainer in his presentation. I felt he was using these to show-off his knowledge and impress young impressionable minds. Now, after many years of being part of the management, I truly appreciate the clarity these geometrical shapes bring to any organisational training presentation. I decided to explore the different shapes used in management science in todays blog.

Most of the content of this blog is courtesy "Google Images Search Engine". I searched for shapes in leadership and management. For example I typed "Triangle in Leadership" and it displayed many images. I picked a few to make my point. So this blog will have more pictures than words (After all a picture is worth 1000 words ,so you actually get a good deal :-)). This will also keep happy my friend and colleague who suggested that I add more pictures to the blog.

To build a structure to this blog, pause for a moment to think if some management concept can be explained by way of a line. Except for the Top-Line and the Bottom-Line that the management is concerned about, you would not find many uses of the geometrical figure "line" in any presentation. Unless, of course, it is a graph showing whether the manager took actions or not as given in the below picture:



The typical shape using two lines usually takes the form of an x-y axis. This creates four quadrants. Quadrants have been used extensively in management science. A popular example, of the usage of the quadrant, can be found in the book "7 habits of highly effective people" by Steven Covey as shown below:



This quadrant usage has become so popular, that people talk about doing more of 2Q activities when refering to doing important but not urgent tasks. Similarly we are advised to do effective time management to move Q3 activities to Q2. It would be difficult to appreciate these concepts without the use of quadrants.

Yet another example of the usage of quadrants is the situational leadership style.



One of the critical tools used for organisational development is the Performance Potential Matrix which is a 3 X 3 matrix. It is used for managing human capital and is an efficient way to find out who and where your high potentials and high performers are - A very good succession planning tool. Aim to get boxed into #9 box which is at the top right corner.



With three lines, we get the most used geometric shape in the management science - the Triangle. Any time you have three parameters and you want to emphasise the relationship between them, make a triangle and make each of the parameters a vertex. Below is an example of the leadership model. By having Strategic Vision, People and Communication as the three vertices, the author emphasises the relationship between these parameters. He very nicely maps the What,Why and How to these parameters and puts the "YOU" in the center.



But the most famous triangle model is seen in Project Management, to explain the tradeoff between Scope, Cost and Time:



The other famous shape used in the management science is the pyramid. The maslows hierarchy of needs is best described in the form of a pyramid. The basic physiological needs forms the base of the pyramid with the self esteem needs placed at the top of the pyramid.



Another self-explanatory example of the leadership pyramid is shown below



Circles too have a place in management science. Again, the most popular usage of circle comes from Steven Covey's book on "7 habits of highly effective people". "Habit 1: Be Proactive" is particularly useful when you feel powerless against life's forces. Covey recommends that you examine what you can do, instead of focusing on worries over which you have no real control. First notice all your concerns. Among those concerns, determine where you can take action.Think of ways to be more proactive (not aggressive) and address the things you can do something about. Your circle of influence will enlarge and your circle of concern shrink.Covey distinguishes between the have's ("If only I had...") and the be's ("I can be..."). Focusing on what you don't like is disempowering. Focusing on what you can do is proactive and empowering. "Be part of the solution," Covey suggests, "not part of the problem." Circles convey this profound concept very lucidly.



The Circlular shape is very effective when required to communicate many parameters or offerings. Like the wealth management solutions described below



Talking of circles, we cannot forget the Venn Diagrams. I could not find many examples on the Venn diagram being used in management science, but found one that is creative. It may be a good exercise for the readers to find out where they belong to in this venn diagram. Without doubt I can see Sachin Tendulkar in the "Hooray" region.



I was wondering if I would find some example for hexagon. To my surprise I hit upon Holland's hexagon.Dr. John Holland is a highly respected vocational psychologist who developed a popular system to help individuals identify vocational theme areas that best suit their unique personal profile.In the Holland framework, there are six vocational themes : Realistic, Social, Investigative, Enterprising, Artistic and Conventional. These themes can be arranged in a hexagon as presented below. The themes that are closest to each other are most similar; the themes that are opposite one another are the most different from one another. You may also identify with a second or possible third theme. Your combination of career interests can help you to understand what types of work and learning you would enjoy and do well.



Journal of Career and Technical Education had a research paper that constructed a visual model to provide greater understanding of the competencies and traits required of successful agricultural science teachers. Given that seven categories were identified (Instruction; Student Organization; Supervised Experience; Program Planning and Management; School and Community Relations; Personal Traits; and Professionalism), a heptagon was chosen for the general shape of the model (see below). The newly identified competency, “working with diverse groups” was deemed by the research team to transcend and interact with all seven categories. Thus, this competency was placed in the center of the heptagon with double arrows extending to each category.



Can you imagine a model which is a nonagon ? Tough isn't it ? But a very ancient tool for understanding ourselves and others is called ENNEAGRAM and it describes nine different personality types or ways of seeing the world. It helps us understand how each type has certain ways of filtering information so that attention returns in habitual ways to repeating patterns. By revealing these largely unconscious patterns that drive our personalities, the Enneagram provides a key for unlocking our capacity for greater choice, freedom, self-awareness and compassion.



If I continue searching,perhaps I would find models that use geometric shapes having ten or more sides.I guess I have made my point, with various examples, that geometry plays an important role in the science of management.

Happy Reading

-Ram