Reflections, Priorities and Resolutions

Hey there ! ABABABAB…. . Oh what I meant was “Long time no see (C)”. The past weekends have been very busy for me - travelling on business and taking care of personal chores. However, I did not want to end the year without a blog. So here it is.

This is that point of the year, when an organization reflects on the year gone-by; what are the few best practices to continue onto the next year. More importantly, what are the practices that they would NOT like to repeat. The usual practice is to have a “lessons learnt” session and reflect on what went right, what went wrong - at the end of each project. However the year-end reflection, is more to take stock of the health of the entire organization. Usually reflection session are done off-site and preferably with an external leadership consultant who can observe the dynamics of the session and give valuable unbiased feedback.

Landing up in an offsite without an agenda for this session, can sometimes veer the discussion away from the main theme and may not conclude the session. Please note that the participants will be emotionally charged and want to let the steam out on the issues that have been brewing over the past year.

A formal pre-work including a frame-work to collect feedback, prior to the session will go a long way in having a fruitful session. The leader of the group has to be clear and state the objective of the session and let the external consultant moderate the discussion. Having the leader of the group as a co-participant, adds more veracity to the whole discussion. When the burning issues are debated, the leader may be tempted to defend it. But it is better to restrain from it, so that people can open-up and express their feelings and opinion freely. Based on the pre-work, one can have the team form into few groups to have parallel break-out sessions and discuss critical issues. The leads of these groups can come back and present the gist of the discussions and the actions they would like to take. The external consultant can then present his observations. The leader and the group together can prioritise the key actions.

One of the common mistakes made at this juncture is to have a laundry list of actions. Given that the following year will always be busier than the current one, it is best to take top three actions. To bring more accountability, it is advised that volunteers are sought to own these actions. If none volunteers, the leader can volunteer the owners for the actions. It is critical that the session concludes with a clear action plan and respective owners identified.

Some fun games can be planned during the course of the session to relieve the tension, if any and use this opportunity to further enhance the teamwork. Everyone likes freebies. This is the perfect opportunity to buy a book, relevant to the issues that the group is facing.

One of the follow-up of these reflections, which is usually missed, is the communication to the rest of the team, on what was accomplished in the off-site meeting. Remember that the rest of team knows that the leaders of the group were off for an off-site. If they do not hear from the leaders about what was accomplished, then they can ridicule the off-site meeting and will not be serious in implementing some of the actions that could percolate to them.

The other most critical follow-up of the reflection meeting is to tie-in the actions from the meeting to the next year’s priorities. This ensures that learnings from one year feed into the actions for the next year.



Talking about priorities, every company sets priorities every year. Similar to the reflections of a group leading to the actions/priorities for next year, a company does the same exercise with the top bosses of the company to come up with the priorities for the next year. Usually the priorities of the company are deliberately kept generic – For example Growing Market Share, this gives a sense of direction where the company wants to head.

The different business units and the sub- business units will have their own set of tangible priorities that will be linked to the company’s priority.

For nerd engineers, priorities may seem like yet another management fad. The responsibility to educate and lay emphasis on the importance of the priorities, lies with the leaders. They need to clearly communicate them so that every employee is aware of the company’s priorities and the group’s priorities. Visits by senior management of the company and the business unit to the local site are a perfect time for communicating about the priorities and reinforcing the same.



At an individual level, the leader or the supervisor has to set the priorities for the employee and show how it is linked to the group’s priority and to the business unit and company’s priority. This is very important and the employee needs to unambiguous on how his actions help meet a company’s priority.



At the turn of the new year, people talk about resolutions. Many of them make no resolutions finding the excuse that resolutions are meant to be broken so why set one at all. In the life of a person, if one takes every new year as a milestone, then these are valuable opportunities that can be used to set one goal at a time and become a better human being. These resolutions need not be big ones that are difficult to stick to. Instead of resolving to quit smoking, a person can resolve to reduce the number of cigarattes he smokes a day. May be, over a few years this will lead him to quit smoking completely.

As the new year dawns, be clear on your priorities, group’s priorities and the company’s priorities. Make and meet your new year resolutions and become a better person. Last but not the least, spend time with your near and dear. Convey your greetings to near and distant friends and family.

Wishing you all Happy Holidays and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year.

Accountability

Accountability is currently the buzz word in the corridors of an organisation. In a bullish market, the pressure on the managers to meet the bottom-line is less. However when the chips are down, the manager is held more accountable for the results and the bottom-line. Various metrics are created to evaluate the performance of the organisation. Everyone, at every level of the organisation, is held accountable for the results. It is unfortunate that importance to accountability is given only during these downturn times. Had it been given enough importance during the good times, we wouldn't be seeing bad times.

Accountability and responsibility are often assumed to mean the same thing. In contrast with accountability, responsibility is defined as an obligation that arises from tasks we assume, to accept the consequences arising from the results of our decisions, actions, or inactions. Being responsible involves the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong and to act accordingly.



As per Wikipedia's definition: Accountability is the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain and be answerable for resulting consequences.

You often hear employees asking for more responsibility. What is less understood by people is that, with responsibility comes accountability. Being responsible is not just about getting the offical designation, but also delivering on it. If someone gives you a job to do, you can get it done by someone else, but you are still accountable for producing the results. If the job isn’t done right, the only person to blame is you, because - even though you’ve delegated the responsibility, you are still accountable.Unlike responsibility, accountability cannot be delegated or shared.



President Truman's famous quote, "The Buck Stops Here" is the most well-known statements of accountability ever made, and it leaves no doubt in anyone's mind as to where the ultimate responsibility lies. But, if you, even for a moment, blame any obstacles for your lack of success, then you've given up your accountability and you are "passing the buck".



Sometimes a very big deal is made in the organisation, when everyone talks about accountability. In my opinion,You are paid for the job you do, so it becomes your duty to deliver the expected results. Accountability in this sense is the basic expectation an organisation should have, from an indivudual. There is no shying away from it.

Stevel Covey says “Accountability breeds response-ability.” As an individual, you are accountable for making and meeting your commitments.You are accountable to abide by the values of the organisation. As a manager, you are accountable for delivering results of your team, for maintaining team work, for taking care of the aspirations of the employees. As a senior manager you are accountable for meeting customer demands, for meeting the expectations of the shareholders and stakeholders. There is no room for blame, excuses or "victim mentality" attitude.



Bringing out accountability in employees depends on the level of competence and commitments of the employees. The employees who are new in the organisation are very enthusiastic about the future and their own ability to deliver results. But they are low on competence. In such cases, the manager's approach should be directive. He should provide clear direction about tasks, expectations, responsibilities and simultaneously build a strong relationship with the employee.

Over time, the employee may become highly competent. Although competent, without commitment the employee often displays negativity and procrastination. The manager, in this case, should focus on rebuilding and restoring the relationship by using a "supportive" model of listening and engaging with the employee. The goal is to get the frustration out, so the energy can flow again.

Star employees bring experience and commitment to the job. They are able to set goals and deliver results. They are very self-motivated and self-directed.The manager, in this case, has to empower the star. Challenging goals should be identified and the employee should be given great latitude to design and develop his own approach. The manager only provides guidance when needed.

I would sign-off the blog with an excellent quote from Sir Josiah Stamp:

“It is easy to dodge our responsibilities, but we cannot dodge the consequences of dodging our responsibilities.“

Happy Reading
Ram

Managing Upwards

What comes to mind when you hear the the term "managing", is how to manage your subordinates. While, managing subordinates is the focus, most of the time, you should not ignore managing upwards. In the everchanging business environment and the re-organisations of management structures, managing yourself to work with your boss, is becoming even more critical. In the book "It Takes Two" Gene Boccialetti talks about three dimensions that make up a person's style.By knowing your style and your boss's style, you can manage yourself in the authority relationship. More important is to know the circumstances when your style works best, and when it is likely to fail you.

Boccialetti identifies three main factors that make up subordinate style: Deference, Distance and Divergence.

Deference asks the question: How important is it, that I hold onto a large share of power in relationship to my boss and try to exert influence in decision making?

Managers who are low in deference tend to push back, resist and counter argue everything that their bosses say. They want a large say in problem solving and decision making. They tend to be uncomfortable with implementing decisions that they did not have a hand in making, particularly where the reasoning behind the decision is unclear to them. They tend to thrust their own judgements and ideas at least, as much as they do the boss's. People with high educational credentials are generally associated with lower deference to authority. A common spectacle in the high technology R&D organisations. A common characteristic of low deference orientation is a discomfort with many of the customary trappings of authority, such as status symbols and other special privileges. In their view, deference means loss of dignity; the act of deference is equated with playing tactics and even so called kissing up.

Managers who are high in deference are content to let their bosses sort out priorities and solve problems. They may act as good soldiers and prefer to have their impact through action and implementation. They like the boss to be clear and provide structure and guidance.High deference managers are disproportionately represented in engineering, finance and accounting.



Distance asks the question: How important is it that I establish a person-to-person, not just a role-to-role, relationship with my bosses?

A manager who is oriented to a more personal relationship has a low-distance style.Such a manager believes that a boss and subordinate should establish more personal contact and engage in more personal disclosure in the course of business together. They argue that the such personal contact improves decision making, performance, and motivation. Having close relationship with the boss, gives them the feeling of confidence and security that the boss will be interested in their own development and advancement.People from human resources, sales and marketing are more oriented to personalizing relationships than those in accounting and engineering.



On the other hand, managers who prefer to maintain a more business-like or arm's-length approach to relationship, have a high-distance style. They believe that more work can be done because less time is consumed talking about things that are not immediately and obviously relevant, to the task at hand. They also feel less political vulnerability in this orientation, as there is less chance that personal information might be used against them.

Divergence asks the question: How important is it for me to protect myself? Should I assume our goals are aligned, our methods are alike, and my boss is my ally, not my competitor or even my adversary?

Subordinate managers with an orientation to low divergence assume there is a close alignment between themselves and their bosses over legitimate goals and the means for achieving those goals. The boss is seen as an ally who can be trusted.Many low-divergence subordinates see the big decisions being made at higher organisational levels and accept that their primary contributions are made by joining others to operationalise decisions.Government agencies, hospitals, military rank lowest in divergence.

Subordinate managers with an orientation to high divergence, on the other hand, tend to see the boss as a competitor or adversary and are likely to mistrust the boss.They see the relation to authority as one that is very likely to involve divergence over goals and over the means for achieving them. Rather than trying to directly influence the boss, high-divergence managers would generally chose other options like sabotaging thieir bosses' directives, independent action, finding allies and forming a coalition, leaving the organisation, or blowing the whistle.

Deference, Distance, and Divergence are the factors that make up subordinate style, but they do not occur in isolation. The varied degrees of each of these factors, combined in different ways, result in an individual style. You have to assess your style based on the above factors.



To be effective in managing upwards, you have to develop flexibility in your approach. You have to recognise the situation that would be better handled with a style, different from your usual and accustomed approach. If you are a person with low deference, you need to pay special attention to crisis situations. This is no time to push back and seek influence. It is time for action. Similarly, if you are a person with low distance style and realise confidences are not respected and you have clear data to support it, then be careful and selective in whom you confide.

Find out what your boss thinks of your effectiveness, as a pair. Find out how your boss judges this effectiveness. Find out how your boss sees you, on each of the three factors.Does your boss's view differ from your view of yourself? If so, find out why? Then, develop a plan to bring underused traits into play - if you lean towards accomodating the boss, then work at being more inner-directed - pushing for influence. Establish clear unambiguous behavioral indicators and monitor it.

Continually monitor, get feedback, adjust, evaluate and monitor again until new, variable patterns become reflexive and shifting your orientation becomes second nature.

Happy reading and good luck in identifying your style and managing upwards.

-Ram

The Effect of Expectation

For the past two weeks I was on travel and then celebrating Diwali, that I missed out on blogging. Having made decent progress on blogging this year, I feel an inherent pressure to continue blogging every week. BTW the visitor counter on my blog page rolled over 1000, a small milestone met. I imagine readers expecting more blogs. So what does expectation do to a person? How can expectation be used as a positive force? In this blog, I explore the effects of expectation. Yet again, I take a chapter from the book "Predictably Irrational" to emphasise this theme.


Expectation is a mighty power indeed—so much so that a doctor can take an inert pill and tell a patient that it is a powerful drug, and the patient will react as though the actual drug has been taken. This well-documented phenomenon is called the placebo effect. It might also be called the "expectation effect". Back in Hyderabad, we have a family doctor who has pills filled in different plastic bottles. All these bottles looked alike. Even the pills were white in color. Some of the bottles contained pills of different sizes. For any illness we report, we get some white pills from one of these bottles. Within a few days, we were cured. Sometimes, what I wonder is whether these pills actually cure our illness, or is it our expectation that the doctor is good and he can cure any illness. The more I think of it, the more I am convinced that the placebo effect was playing a big role in our getting cured.



Whenever we start something believing that it would be good ,it generally is. When we think it will be bad, it will be bad. Dan Ariely in the book "Predictably Irrational" shares the experiment he and his colleagues carried out. They did a beer experiment. They told a set of MIT students the presence of vinegar in the beer before they tasted the brew. To the other set they told about the presence of vinegar after the brew was tasted. As it turned out, the students who found about the vinegar after drinking the beer liked the beer much better than those who were told about the vinegar up front.Telling the participants about the vinegar at the outset actually reshaped their sensory perceptions to align with this knowledge and accordingly influenced their expectations.

A profound and irrefutable law of life is that what is expected, tends to be realized. It happens all the time. The most famous experiment about this in education happened in the '60's in San Francisco and you can read about it in "Pygmalion in the Classroom." In that study, a normal distribution of students increased their IQ's by 15 to 30 points in one year simply because the teachers believed they were the best teachers and that they were given the best students (neither of which was true).Expectations drive so much of what happens around us.


Expectation can influence nearly every aspect of our life. The other evening at a team dinner,given by my boss,I was intrigued by the exotic description - mint with lemon and sprite, of a mocktail. I ordered it in anticipation of its taste and when it arrived, I thoroughly enjoyed it. My colleague who just repeated my order without reading, did not enjoy it. Now you know why most of the upscale resturants have fancy names on their menus and give detailed exotic descriptions. They can effectively influence the taste of the customers with this pre-knowledge.

Dan explains experiments done by neuroscientists to compare consumer's preference to Coke or Pepsi. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging machine. It turned out that the brain activation of the participants was different depending on whether the name of the drink was revealed or not.The dorsolateral aspect of the prefrontal cortex of the brain, an area involved in higher human brain functions like higher-order cognitions and ideas, was also activated. This should be good news to any advertisement agency because it means that the bright red can, swirling script and myriad ad messages, that have come down over the years, are as much responsible for our love of Coke as the brown bubbly stuff itself.

Expectations also shape stereotypes. This is why we have the expectation that an elderly person will need help using computers, or a student in IIT will be intelligent, or a succesful businessman has to be a Gujarati, or the kirana stores are run only my marwadis etc. One can see these stereotypes, even at work. Consider, a team that is aggressive, innovative and delivering consistent results. The expectation is that, any person joining the group will already have the DNA of this group.



Sam Walton said "High expectations are the key to everything". When you lead a team, set high expectations for the team. The team will find ways to meet them. My new boss says that he never apologises for setting a high bar for his team. I found this statement very profound. The more successful the team becomes, the more they believe in themselves.They then become better at triggering the anticipated positive result of whatever event they are trying to bring about.Along with the team, as you grow into a better person, better begets better and you do indeed become better and better.



Karen Stephens on parenting exchange says :Clear expectations help kids behave. Be specific about expectations. Focus on what children can do, rather than what they can't do. Give children reasons for expectations. Communicate expectations, offer choices, and then move on without haggling. High expectations move children forward, even if they don't always succeed.

So never underestimate the power of your expectations—on the people around you—or on yourself! Raise the bar.

Michael Jordan quotes "You have to expect things of yourselves before you can do them".

Happy Reading

Mindsets - Nature vs Nurture

I am currently reading the book called “Mindset – The New Psychology of Success” by Carol Dweck. I was so influenced reading just the first few chapters, that I decided to share the learnings even before I completed the book. The author is a leading expert in motivation and personality psychology. Dweck has found that everyone has one of the two basic mindsets Fixed or Growth mindset. If you have the fixed mindset, you believe that your talents and abilities are set in stone – either you have them or you don’t. You must prove yourself over and over again, trying to look smart and talented, at all costs. This is the path of stagnation. However if you have a growth mindset, you know that talents can be developed and that great abilities are built over time. This is the path of opportunity – and success.

People with fixed mindsets believe their qualities are carved in stone. This mindset unfolds as early as childhood. Sometimes this mindset is stamped in by teachers, in the middle school, who believed that the student’s IQ score told the whole story about them. These students were given the best of the chores thereby creating a mindset in which everyone in the class has one consuming goal – look smart, don’t’ look dumb. Every situation calls for confirmation of their intelligence, personality or character. Every situation is evaluated: Will I succeed or fail? Will I look smart or dumb? Will I be accepted or rejected? Will I feel like a winner or loser?

There’s another mindset, in which the traits are not simply a hand that you’re dealt and have to live with, rather they are just the starting point for development. The growth mindset is based on the belief that, your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts. People may start with different temperaments and aptitudes, but it is clear that experience, training, and personal effort take you the rest of the way. For people with growth mindset it is not some fixed prior ability, but purposeful engagement.



People with fixed mindsets believe that they have to be smart to be successful. They always want to be seen as smart people. When a challenging opportunity arises they are afraid of not being smart enough for it. They reject the golden opportunity, of learning from the challenge. On the other hand, for people with growth mindset success is about stretching themselves and becoming better. They believe that intelligence is something you have to work for, it isn’t just given to you. Believing that success is about learning, the people with growth mindset seize the opportunities that come their way.

People with fixed mindset thrive when things are safely within their grasp. If things get too challenging – when they’re not feeling smart or talented- they lose interest. They want to avoid making mistakes and hence shy away from tougher challenges. People in a growth mindset don’t just seek challenge, they thrive on it. The bigger the challenge, the more they stretch. They think: If you only go through life doing stuff that’s easy, shame on you.

For people with fixed mindset it’s not enough just to succeed. It’s not enough to be smart and talented. They have to be pretty flawless. They do not believe in learning as they think their abilities will keep them in good stead. They opt for success over growth. They want to prove that they’re special. Tennis star John McEnroe had a fixed mindset. He believed that talent was all. He did not thrive on challenge.When the going got rough, he often folded. As a result, by his own admission, he did not fulfill his potential. For people with growth mindset it is not about immediate perfection. It’s about learning something over time: confronting a challenge and making progress. These people believe that “Becoming is better than being”. Michael Jordan – growth-minded athlete par excellence- is a man whose greatness is regularly proclaimed by the world. Only he knew how hard he had worked to develop his abilities. He was a person who had struggled and grown, not a person who was inherently better than others. The best pilots fly more than the others; that’s why they are the best.



With fixed mindset, people see failure not as an action – 'I failed'- but as an identity – 'I am a failure'. Failure means you lack competence or potential. Even in the growth mindset, failure can be a painful experience. But it doesn’t define the person. It’s a problem to be faced, dealt with, and learned from. If you make a mistake, you have to make it right. You aren’t a failure until you start to blame. You will be still in the process of learning from your mistakes until you begin to deny them.

From the point of view of the fixed mindset, effort is only for people with deficiencies. In their view, effort is for those who don’t have the ability. They tell us, “If you have to work at something, you must not be good at it." In the growth mindset, it’s almost inconceivable to want something badly, to think you have a chance to achieve it, and then, do nothing about it. These people give their best effort for the things they value.

People with fixed mindset are more depressed than people with growth mind-set. The more depressed they felt, the more they let things go, the less action they took to solve their problems. With the growth mindset people, the more depressed people felt, the more they took action to confront their problems, and the more they kept up with their lives.

Mindsets are an important part of your personality. Mindsets are just beliefs. They are powerful beliefs, but they’re just something in your mind, and you can change your mind. Just by knowing about the two mindsets, you can start thinking and reacting in new ways. Try to catch yourself when you are in the throes of the fixed mindset and try to switch into growth mindset. Believe that talents can be developed that allows to fulfill one’s potential. Value what you do more than getting fixated on the outcome. Remember failure is a better teacher than success is. It is an action not a trait. Be open to criticism and focus on learning and improving.

Mozart laboured for more than ten years before he produced any work that we admire today. Prior to that his compositions were not that original or interesting. Often they were patched-together chunks taken from other composers.

Happy Learning,

-Ram

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