LE04 Of Towers and Bridges

In a very interesting lecture today, we learned about creating systems in the organisations. These systems may be designed to perform tasks such as defining duties and responsibilities, or defining dos and don'ts or even defining the direction or the vision of the company.

The entire point of developing system is that individual opinions, judgements, prejudices or egos should not come in the way of interpreting the goal of the organisation. However, it is still a team effort. So  there will always be some personality influences, but the point is to minimise these and move forward. As it  was rightfully pointed to the class, we are all collectively smart but individually stupid.

The system thus created should defy human limitations. Earlier lectures have shown me that there is no limit to human potential. So the system should continuously push everyone to their limits. It is my personal belief that these systems are nothing more than thought process; extremely simple, extremely powerful.

The Human Tower

Two exercises were conducted in the class to demonstrate the objectives of  this lecture. We all were shown a picture of four people sitting in postures that enabled them to form a tower. Each one of us then visualised how that tower might be created.

This was followed by the actual creation of the tower. A lot of team effort was seen with everyone giving their suggestions and planning the creation.

We were able to sit four students to form a tower before it collapsed.

Learning:

Why did it collapse? One of the guys in the middle couldn't take the load and slipped. There will always be weak links in the chain, but it's not about removing the weak links. though it's important to convert the weaknesses into strenghts, this exercise showed us that it's even more important to ensure that the load is distributed in a manner so that no matter the individual strengths, the whole team is able to sustain the load, together. As the professor said in the class, it should not be painful for anybody.

In my exerience I have seen some booses who make it their duty to look for the weak links. While this should be the priority for any manager, it's very important what the manager does as the next step. I have learned now that before I try to work on the person, I must make sure that the load is distributed as per the strengths of the team members.

Crossing the bridge

This was the second exercise that was conducted. Three people had to cross a gap which was twice the distance between two consecutive members. They were all given a long rod with sufficient length. They attempted to cross the gap with everyone holding on to the rod. As soon as someone was on the gap, he would hang from the rod and the other two members would take his weight. This way they could all cross the gap. Here also it must be noted that load distribution was effectively managed. Also, the role of one will depend on the role of another. This is called "interlocking of roles". Interdependence is crucial and should be maximum.

The objective of both the exercises was to emphasize the importance of load distribution. The exercises also showed that a clear system is required to achieve any task. There are three stages to any task:

1.) Structuring the task: A clear procedure of accomplishing the objective is defined. A step by step process is established and it is made sure it is understood by everyone.

2.) Structuring team roles: Each role and resposibility is clearly defined and specific personnel identified for each. However, the roles must be similar but no same. There should not be too much of differentioation within the roles. In "Crossing the Bridge" activity, though the people were different, each person went through half hanging, full hanging and safe positions in turn.

3.) Preparation and Execution: This involves training people in the execution of the roles defined.

Designing Organization

• Work Planning: This defines the kind of work the person does. Making an earthen pot is craftsmanship while a worker working on an assembly line is a specialization.

• Authority Planning: This defines the centers of power. A worker working in a Toyota plant has the ability to stop production if he detects any quality faults. This is an example of decentralization. A VP of an organisation planning the financials of a distant plant is extreme for of centralization.

• Control Planning: This relates to the work-culture in an organisation. A supervisor barking orders on a shop floor would be an example of a formal heirarchy. A team working on a product in Google headquarters is an example of socialized heirarchy.

All these comparisons are not to say that one is superior over the other. There are successful organizations following both the systems.

The overall learning that I derived from this lecture was that there are extremely simple thought processes driving the most complex organisations. It's all a matter of common sense.

LE03 Theory X & Theory Y Managers

Employees are the biggest asset of an organisation. Apart from the employees working at the various levels of an organisation, there are managers who manage the various activities performed by these employees. Any person can be either lazy or active, depending on their willingness to achieve the set targets.

Based on such behaviour of and interaction between these two classes of people working in an organisation, four outcomes may be studied.

Situation 1: Lazy employees and Theory X manager

In this scenario it is given that the employees are lazy. In addition, the manager, being theory X manager, assumes that his employees are lazy. The growth of the organisation in this case is extremely limited. It is up to the manager to study the reasons for the lack of motivation within the organisation and take necessary measures hitting at the core issues.

Situation 2: Active employees and Theory X manager

In this scenario while the employees are active towards their work, the manager, in all his experience and wisdom, assumes that his employees are lazy. This would lead to the manager trying to micromanage the employees and taking measures which would cause the otherwise productive employees into resisting what they perceive to be negative. This would hurt the overall growth of the organisation, not to mention the morale and satisfaction of the employees. The successful resolution of this issue will require at least a change in management style and the way in which the employees are handled.

Situation 3: Lazy employees and Theory Y manager

In this scenario, the employees are generally lazy but the manager, being Theory Y manager, assumes that thee employees are generally productive. While this situation might seem negative, it has the potential improving the working processes of the employees, turning the organisation productive in the process. However, a lot would depend on the manager and his way of handling such employees. A good manager, by his sheer faith in his employees might be able to motivate them towards better productivity, while a not-so-good manager will only push the productivity downwards by trying to micro-manage the already lazy employees.

Situation 4: Active employees and Theory Y manager

This scenario presents a case where the employees are productive and the manager assumes the employees are productive. This is the best situation that can be achieved in an organisation where everybody is motivated and is treated by the managers as such. Such organisations are the pinnacle of growth and prosperity. These are the organisation which regularly feature in the Best Workplace surveys. Any challenge faced by an organisation is faced by its managers and employees working hand in hand so they come out stronger.

Learnings: 

The entire growth trajectory of the organisation would depend on the work culture of the organisation. A motivated employee will give his best to the organisation, but he deserves appreciation and reward from his managers, in the absence of which the motivation levels will go down. On the other hand, a motivated employee working with a Theory Y manager will form a self-feeding loop which will infinitely increase productivity. 

LE02 Goal Setting - The Tower Building Exercise

The second lecture focussed on the goal setting process applicable to an individual as well as an organisation.
To understand this concept better, a tower building exercise was carried out.

Exercise:

A situation was presented to the class wherein a student had to build a tower by placing one cube over the other until the tower fell over. The student was supposed to use only his left hand.
Before starting the exercise, all the students were asked to write the number of cubes they thought the tower could sustain.
At the end of the exercise, it was noted that the tower could sustain 17 cubes before falling over.


After the completion of the exercise, students were given a situation where the tower was being built by a student who was blindfolded and was receiving instructions from another student. Students were then asked to revise their estimates of the height of the tower.


Analysis:

Various estimates were made by the students ranging from 10 blocks to as many as 25 blocks. The estimates of the students show their idea of goals. When the exercise situation was modified, it was noticed that most of the students revised their estimates while some retained them. Following learnings could be derived from the exercise:

1) The students who lowered their targets showed the tendencies of restrictive managers (for want of a better word). The organisations must never revise their goals downwards no matter what hurdles they face. The only change that should occur is the increase in effort towards achieving the goals.

2) The students who retained their original targets were examples of the managers who believed in achieving the set goals no matter what hurdles present themselves on the way. 

3) There were very few students across the sections who increased their targets when the exercise was modified. These are the examples of Progressive Managers. There were companies that grew even in the times of recession. These companies saw this as an opportunity rather than a threat and made the most of it. 


Goal Setting:

When an individual or an organisation sets their performance goals, it will be in terms of answering four questions:

          - What is the potential?
          - What target should be set?
          - What might the actual performance be?
          - What is attainable?


The potential is always unlimited. Everyone is capable of great things. management is the art of bridging the gap between performance and potential.


The target that is set should be greater than the organisation's assessment of what might their actual performance will be. Only when the goal is higher than the current idea of the firm's capabilities will the managers put in an effort that is beyond the scope of their current perceived capabilities. This in turn will lead to an increase in capability, leading to an ever increasing limit of goals that can be set.


The attainable goals are the ones that can be achieved using current capabilities of the firm with minimal management. This should effectively be the lower limit of the firm's performance.
The above process becomes self feeding as it is followed wherein Goal Set > Actual Performance > Past Performance.