Tag Archives: Culture

A key leadership challenge is to initiate and lead systemic changes that will set the organization up for success in future. Indeed, nothing else perhaps sums up why we need a leader in the first place. However, the odds are brutal – the pace of change is already furious and it only seems to be accelerating with each passing day, and that pace brings an ever-increasing amount of complexity and uncertainty. There are no guarantees that the chosen direction and pace will lead to a better situation, for the changes are too complex for any one to understand and discern, let alone predict and assure.

In this context, any change can basically be boiled down to individuals in the organization, for every other non-human change is simply a matter of updating processes, or bringing up new policies or introducing new technologies, etc. For example, a company might decide to replace manned customer care by introducing the latest chatbots, or might decide to introduce robotic manufacturing. The reasons behind this might go beyond the direct economic advantages – they could introduce consistency in quality, flexibility in deployment, and scalability in operations that might introduce new opportunities that are simply not possible today.

This leaves a leader to essentially lead the change among people. I consider all change to be ultimately human at the fundamental level, with very high social context. If a leader can’t excite and motivate her team members to embrace the change and play their part in making it happen, there is no way the leader can succeed by herself. In a 2015 article in Forbes, the author Mark Murphy shared the #1 reason why CEOs get fired is for “mismanaging change”. The #4 and #5 reasons were “denying reality” and “too much talk and not enough action” respectively, and they also seem very close to the #1 reason.

 

Surely, a leader might have power and thus control over the team members to make them accept the changes, but in today’s employee-centric market, there can’t be any such guarantees. The days of a CEO or a leader doing a town hall in a trendy city hotel or sending a nice email and hoping that the change would happen are over. With change, there is no such thing as autopilot. A leader must walk on the floor and get down into the trenches, and work with the rank and file to make the change happen.

However, how does an individual contribute to change? While everyone expects them to simply participate in the organizational change, we mostly fail to recognize why they would be motivated to participate and how can we influence them appropriately to see the change as something that helps their own careers? Should leaders simply insist on individuals delivering the results, or their charter should go beyond the mechanics and instead play the central role in enabling conditions where individuals rise to the occasion and proactively lead the change instead of simply participating in it?

In my experience, I have seen these five key behaviors that can set any individual into what I call as “individuals leading the change”. These are simple behavioral changes that any individual in the organization, irrespective of their role, can adopt without needing anyone’s permission or support, and not just improve his participation in the game but also eventually raise the game itself. They kind of build on top of each other, so I don’t recommend skipping any of these – you might benefit best by starting from the first and building the rest of those behaviors on top of it. So, here we go:

1. Growth Mindset

Why is it that some people remain content with what they know, and even developing an arrogance that whatever they know is the best and they don’t need to learn anything new or put in any further efforts to hone their skills? On the other hand, some people seem to be undaunted by their seeming lack of knowledge about a given area – they simply dedicate themselves to learning new things, never mind how many times they fail in that process?

The work by Carol Dweck on “Mindset” is perhaps the best explanation of these two types of mindsets – Fixed Mindset and Growth Mindset. People with fixed mindset almost deny any opportunity to improve themselves or get involved in exploring newer ideas, and eventually become a deadwood. However, people with growth mindset are constantly seeking new challenges that stretch their physical or cognitive skills, and even if they fail in their efforts in the short-term, they don’t seem to give up and ultimately develop a mindset of continuously reequipping themselves. Needless to say, those with growth mindset will find a great opportunity to participate in a change.

2. T-shaped skills

In a traditional team, each team member brings his or her strengths, which could be key knowledge, skills and capabilities about a given area. In a functional team, it might end up being a “birds of a feather” team thus creating a high-density of experts with similar skills, while in a cross-functional team, it might bring people with complementary skills that help accomplish a given project task better. However, a functional team might have limited effectiveness, as they must collaborate with other similar functional teams in other areas to complete a task, thus bloating up the overall team needed to own and execute a project task.

However a cross-functional team might be more effective in bringing together a small team of experts who can truly own a project task much more economically. Unfortunately, a cross-functional team composed of individual islands of excellence is simply a very weak and low-energy container with passive players. However, when individuals move away from their comfort zone and acquire capabilities in adjoining areas, they create shared competencies that allow them to operate with much higher shared empathy about other team members, and also improve their own problem-solving because they are thinking of additional aspects other than their own, and eventually allows the team members to collaborate much better. Acquiring growth mindset enables an individual to become a more well-rounded T-shaped individual who understand a much bigger picture, which allows them to help others.

3. Help others

Most organizations mimic the arena where the gladiators fight each other, and the only way for one to survive is to kill others! While this might seem like a very gory analogy of what seems like a nice innocuous workplace, our outdated performance management systems actually make us do just that. A bell curve for a team engaged in knowledge discovery will only end up destroying the team spirit. While an individual might not (yet!) have the clout to change the performance systems, the least they can do is to challenge the myth of competition by choosing to collaborate. Helping others would be a great way to get started.

Helping others also creates an obligation to reciprocate, which is a key weapon of influence per Robert Cialdini, the leading expert on this subject. When we help others, especially when that help is offered without being asked for, it builds an expectation on part of the receiving party to reciprocate the gesture in future. This sets a system of gifts and reciprocation, which is the essence of social relationships, and helps foster trust, respect and collaboration. This sets the foundation for winning teams.

4. Make the team win

Imagine you are part of a football team. Each player has been hired due to his skills – striker, defender, goalkeeper, etc. Based on the opponent team’s strengths and potential game plan, the coach might come up with field formation at the time of kick-off. However, as the game progresses, new facts will emerge that might invalidate some of the assumptions that the coach had about the best possible team formation. He might rotate players; he might even redeploy them in a different way. If the team members continue to play per their fixed role or position, can the team win?

While the team might be formed based on individual strengths and configured in a fixed formation, in the real world, a winning team would adapt itself by those very individuals playing in a fluid formation, i.e., play where the game is. Their T-shaped skills allow them to be useful to the team in more ways than one, and their trust and respect among each other enabled them to leave their fixed position and help play a winning game.

5. Take initiative

Each one of us is sitting on a treasure of strengths. Even we don’t know what we are capable of! We come up with hundreds of ideas everyday about making things better. However, most of these ideas die a silent death because we don’t take any initiative in making or validating them, or simply lack the courage to bring our ideas to life. In my experience, more people fail (and ultimately get fired) because of not taking initiative than because of making mistakes. When you have a great team that wins, it also builds the right environment where people are not afraid of taking initiative. They know that if they fail, their team members have their back. However, a big question invariably comes up – how do I know if I am taking enough initiative or not, and how can I improve it?

A few years back, I had blogged about a scale of initiative that was introduced to me in the 90s, and has served me well. Those interested could refer to the blog post “How do you measure Initiative” available at http://managewell.net/?p=1100.

Conclusions

In today’s world, a leader can’t simply demand change from her team. She must build the right conditions where team members are constantly encouraged to participate in changes in a non-intimidating environment, and build relationships that allow them to harness the social energy that is needed to make any change successful.

Also, a leader must change the mindset that individual are there simply to follow the change. If the leader recognizes that each individual has immense power to lead the change at their respective levels, the leader can not only lead to more successful change, but create a long-lasting and self-sustaining culture of participation, ownership and engagement.

(A shorter version of this article was originally published as an invited article in PMI’s Manage India magazine, and is available online at http://pmi.org.in/manageindia/volume6/issue12/invitation.html)

What’s the People factor in your Innovation equation?

Innovation is the hot new buzzword of our time. Everyone seems to be badly smitten by it. Going by the popular literature, those who don’t innovate are assured to perish sooner than later. Given that previous silver bullets Total Quality Management of 80s, Business Process Reengineering of 90s, and the most recent of them all – Outsourcing in early 21st century – have still left a LOT to be desired, there is clearly enough interest and expectation if Innovation can finally deliver! Coupled with a world still edgy after major Global Financial Crisis and an uncertain Euro zone, and we have perfect conditions to embrace Innovation in all shapes and forms – right from black magic to a holistic way of doing business – even if it still turns out to be a whimper.

Wait! Of course, it would be blasphemy to even as much as suggest that innovation could turn out to be a whimper! Like all of you good people, I too believe innovation is the key to sustainable competitive advantage in the increasingly uncertain and hyper-dynamic world. But, let’s just rollback to 80s for a moment – didn’t they say the same about TQM in those good old days? Or about BPR in 90s? Or about outsourcing until the last decade? Each generation came up with its own silver bullet fervently believing in its potent powers to slay the demons of poor corporate performance (in whatever metrics what you measure – be it topline revenue, or bottomline profits, or marketshare, or employee engagement and so on). And yet, history – the roughest of them all teachers – has reminded us time and again how naïve and wrong we were all along! All these management systems – well thought out and backed by years of irrefutable research and solid data – were heralded as the ultimate panacea in their heydays. However, they lasted only till the next crisis! The next sets of crises were much more powerful, much bigger and more ‘new’ than the previous ones, and like the stains of bacteria that grow resistant with each new antibiotics, they were invincible with the then start of art methods. Clearly something was amiss.

Here’s my take – all these systems were exactly that – just systems! They sought to fix the processes without really putting people in the middle of the equation – even though all the work was carried out by humans. I think we took Frederick Winslow Taylor a tad too seriously when he said, “in the past, the man has been first; in the future, the system must be first” in The Principles of Scientific Management back in 1911. Of course, we forgot to read the next two lines right after this sentence, “This in no sense, however, implies that great men are not needed. On the contrary, the first object of any good system must be that of developing first-class men; and under systemic management the best man rises to the top more certainly and more rapidly than ever before”. We simply delinked people from process and attacked the process performance problem without acknowledging that if people are not motivated enough, the performance improvement payoffs might either be short-lived and might not sustain at the same levels in the long run.

So, is Innovation is also going to meet similar fate and become another exhibit at the Museum of Management Systems? Maybe, or maybe not! Depends on how we change our strategy this time. If we continue to pay lip service to innovation as yet another management mantra, I am sure we will see another new management system in next few years. But if done right, we could certainly create better results that could last much longer than previous generations of management systems. Actually, there is just one thing that needs to be done right – get the people factor back into the equation.

Somewhere in mid-90s and beyond, we started throwing around the words ‘knowledge economy’ to represent the shift towards an economy that primarily dealt with ‘knowledge’ as opposed to, say, manufactured products. It signaled the Negraponte Switch from ‘atoms’ to ‘bits’. The term ‘knowledge’ worker’ came to be known as the move from blue-collar worker to white-collar worker  to pink-collar worker and finally to what I call as the ‘round-collar worker’ – someone who makes money from their ‘brain’ more than their predecessor cohorts of workers, and often have slightest regard for a formal workplace power structure and thrive in informal and empowered environment. They are on the top of their game, and don’t require any hierarchy to support them. Of course, the ’round-collar’ in their moniker comes from the quintessential round-collar tees that not just signify a more relaxed taste in dressing-down, but also brings a sense of confidence and swagger that typically comes from someone who knows their stuff.

Another less visible but far more important thing to note here is that in last couple of management systems, this is perhaps the first time that the worker has sprinted ahead of the system, and has become much more important – so much so that they has made the system redundant. And needless to say, the existing top crop has no clue how to deal with it!

Now let’s get back to the innovation story.

Imagine going back into a modern workplace, full of knowledge workers and telling that from tomorrow we have a new management system, and it is known as innovation. I will leave you to visualize rest of the conversation in your minds :).

So, how do we get it right? Unlike the previous generations of workers, where each of the management systems was imposed top-down, I don’t think this approach can work anymore in flat and egalitarian workplaces of today. Innovation process must be driven bottoms-up that unleashes individual human potential for creativity and challenging the status quo. So far, we hired and groomed professionals who ‘complied’ with our laid-down processes – we hired those who ‘fitted’ in our culture, we promoted those who furthered our existing thought process. Power hierarchy in those organizations was perfectly designed to promote compliance. There was hardly any place for non-believers, doubters, questioners, diagreers, dissenters or harbingers of change.

The current and upcoming generation is anything but that!

How are you going to channelize their talent and energy into something that works for you? How are going to enter the short-term vs. long-term battle? How are you going to embrace a higher risk/reward equation? How are you going to deal with the brash and young workforce that might give you maximum a few months as an employer before going out across the street and creating a new startup that might eventually buy you out a few years down the line?

By writing a new management system that once again puts checks and balances and builds a system of mistrust which saps their energies and stifles their creativity, or by trusting in their abilities and further liberating them? Depending on what approach you take, you will be deciding whether innovation is going to work for you, or will just end up becoming yet another exercise in futility. Eric Douglas has some thoughts on how leaders can make or break the people factor by how they comes across to people. Richard Branson places much higher premium on getting the right people for entrepreneurial success, which is perhaps strongest form of innovation, for nothing could be as audacious and risky as taking an idea and creating a business ground-up. I had blogged about some of the reasons why people don’t innovate in organisations (but rather end up leaving them and do it on their own!).

Goran Ekvall has identified ten innovation climate dimensions that could serve as a great starting point for organizations to self-assess how ready they are to embrace innovation:

  1. Challenge How challenged, emotionally involved,and committed are employees to the work?
  2. Freedom How free is the staff to decide how to do their job?
  3. Idea time Do employees have time to think things through before having to act?
  4. Dynamism the eventfulness of life in the organisation
  5. Idea support Are there resources to give new ideas a try?
  6. Trust and openness Do people feel safe speaking their minds and offering different points of view?
  7. Playfulness and humor How relaxed is the workplace-is it okay to have fun?
  8. Conflicts To what degree do people engage in interpersonal conflict or ‘warfare?”
  9. Debates To what degree do people engage in lively debates about the issues’
  10. Risk-taking Is it okay to fail?

There is enough literature, theory and evidence to suggest the people factor is core to the culture of innovation. Yet, I continue to be amazed that smart organizations tend to create an elaborate management system to ‘support’ and ‘control’ the innovation process. When I meet folks form industry and listen to presentations and papers, I am repeatedly shocked to discover how much focus is on process part of yet compared to how to really enable people and democratize the process of innovation! I hope that understand this can’t be yet another checklist item on their marketing brochure that can win them next contract – it is much deeper and bigger than that. It’s their future that they can’t afford to shortchange!

So, what’s the people factor in your innovation equation?

Are you solving the wrong project management problem ?

I just read a book titled “The eMedha Paradigm – A Project Manager’s Billion Dollar Odyssey” and felt terribly disappointed and shocked.

The author paints a make-believe world in which a sadist CEO does insider trading and makes his kith and kin richer, while his technically incompetent, control-freak and sexually-deprived project manager has a field day sinking the project. The team spirit is in tatters but because of the three-year job bond, they can’t leave their jobs just yet. Sales has promised to deliver the project in 1/3x time period, and now the customer is shouting from the rooftop on grand promises that remain grossly unmet. In short, all real-world ills happening in all permutations and combinations at the same time. While this might not be entirely implausible, I am yet to find such a worst-case view of real-world. This is such a picture-perfect scenario – can you think of anything else going wrong in this ?

The best is yet to come. An honest professional at the client side, Kalpana, with no significant credentials in getting a team out of such worst-case mess enters the scene, thanks to her scheming manager, and gets an anynomous mail from one of the team members on what all ails the project. While she is enroute India thinking about it at 40,000 feet mid-air, she has an encounter. Not a small encounter mind you, but The Encounter. God and his heavenly assistant (literally and figuratively, we are made to believe) Kamayani is an expert in some non-descript technique known as ‘eMedha’ that has the potential to transform any toddler into a veteran project manager. Even though these techniques are so obvious (or so the author would have us believe), for some reason our knight in the shining armor Kalpana doesn’t know these old tricks, and needs divine intervention to bestow that commonsense in her.

The endgame is not difficult to predict. Our legend-in-the-making hero goes with the newfound wisdom and changes everything in just two weeks. Bollywood style happy ending.

So, what’s wrong with this story. After all, isn’t this the cool stuff dreams are made of – a magic wand to wave and the magic mantra to chant, and lo and behold, the world becomes a great place to live. Instantly. Painlessly.

I think everything is wrong in it. For one, the author thinks most software development (still) happens a la ‘Modern Times’ – command and control, incompetent and indifferent management, helpless and desparate team members, lofty promises….the list goes on. I mean, I realize there are no perfect workplaces or perfect teams, and the reality often leaves much to imagination, but I would be greatly scandalized if such workplaces – as the one depicted in this story - exist in software industry. But, let’s for a moment accept that there is indeed one such workplace. Now, you have a oversimplified model that trivializes the entire solution into a series of checklist-style action items to fix this worst-case problem – all in under two weeks. No doubt those action items will give you great quick wins (especially since the situation is so bad, the team performance is at rock-bottom), the author gravely misunderstands low-hanging fruits with the real issues in software project management. It can also send a very wrong message that not only there is a one-size-fit-all solution, even a dummy can do it. When was the last time you were sold such snake-oil ?

The hygiene issues are very different from the fundamental issues of what software project management is all about. I don’t think there are too many workplaces and teams left in this world that have basic hygiene issues. To me, that sounds like coal mines or scrap yard in a developing country. And even there, I suspect workers would put up with such control crap. These are simply not the real problems that we know.

How about dealing with real issues of teams with highly technical, young, assertive, choosy, achievement-oriented and mobile workforce that is not shy of confronting its manager when he/she is not quite right, or pick the bags and leave when its talent and efforts is not respected? Workplace where team members don’t feel threatened but much rather enjoy working on problems that challenge and stretch them. A workplace that creates conducive atmosphere for teamwork. Customer who demands nothing less than a Noble Prize winning effort, and yet realizes that there are inherent complexities in the task that leads to unreliable delivery estimates. Technology that threatens to self-destruct itself every few months, only to lead the way to something new, hopefully better, and a little more complex than the last time. That is the real world, and the game of project management begins on this pedestal. How do you deliver a software project with so many moving parts?

To me it is clear that the bar has risen higher, much higher. All low-hanging fruits have been plucked away. There is no scope for shortcuts, nor any use of snake-oil. The success won’t come by applying quick-win suggestions. If hygiene is a problem, first fix that, and don’t confuse it with project management (even though, I must concede, those issues might be included in the all-inclusive ever-broadening definition of project management). With due humility, if hygiene comes across as a problem, it probably is the small tip of the giant iceberg known as ‘Culture’ and as we all know, cultures don’t change overnight. Yes, they can be influenced, even adapted in a small tribe, but never changed irreversibly by a local improvement action. I applaud all such efforts, but we must understand no amount of localized quick-win efforts will lead to radical changes. A project manager might be able to do only so much, but assuming that this is a scaleable process is like extrapolating from a single-point sample.

Are you solving the wrong project management problem ?

PS: I have nothing personal again the author of this book :). I just feel software development community has been taken on a royal ride with so many silver bullets, I look at every prescription with due suspicion and professional contempt. The purpose of my blog is to share ideas for people to think about what is being sold to them (and not to sell shrink wrap solutions, especially the one-size-fit-all types), and hence this constructive criticism.

Why do you Innovate ?

Last week, NASSCOM organized a talk on innovation by Rob Shelton, co-author of “Making Innovation Work“, followed by excellent presentations by two of the previous year’s winner of NASSCOM Innovation awards, Intel India and Sloka Telecom. It was good learning to sit in Rob’s audience and listen to his perspectives on innovation. I liked his (probably) favorite punchline (because he must have repeated it couple of times during his presentation): “How you innovate determines why you innovate“. I think this is a great way to sum up if an organization is undertaking innovation as a strategic differentiator or just to play catch-up on a tactical level.

In his view, the three building blocks of innovation are leadership, culture and process. His perspective is that innovation originates from business strategy could be either a technology innovation or a business model innovation. I think techies who spend a lot of time doing the ‘core’ tech stuff don’t easily recognize the presence or importance of a business innovation, but from a business perspective, it does make a lot of sense. What Apple did with iPhone might not be so much of a technology innovation (because neither the technology nor the MP3 player as a product were really new) but more of a business innovation, especially when you view the entire food chain of iPhone: iTunes allow a seamless integration of iPhone with the music stores and allow maintaining a music library and buying and downloading music as micropayments and choice at song-level (as opposed to the Music CD model of buying per CD even if you all you want is a single song).

When we consider these two factors as primary vehicles of delivery of an innovation, we can consider a 2×2 grid on how close is the change to its existing state. If both technology and business changes are brand-new, then we are talking of Radical Innovation. However in his view, Radical innovation is very infrequent, Breakthrough innovation leads to high growth and Incremental innovation leads to average growth. Breakthrough Innovation is when any one of the axis is new and the other factor is close to an existing one, and Incremental Innovation, as the name suggests, is very close everything exisiting.

I also like the emphasis Rob puts on innovation being a team activity. He calls it a team sport. Of course, if you only think of innovation as an individual sitting through long evenings and coming out with a new super way to do something, that might not conjure up images of innovation being a team sport, but I guess Rob is painting a picture where Innovation is a serious top-down activitiy undertaken at a strategic level, and hence requires the entire affected organization to work as a team.

Rob also talked about ‘Open Innovation’ and what is really meant was ‘opening up of Strategy, Organization and Culture and Practices and Capabilities to achieve best results for an organization. In his view, Open Innovation has a higher ROI. I want to read more on it.

The presentations by Intel and Sloka were awesome. Intel worked on Dunnington chip at its Bangalore centre and built its first chip for the world – a true accomplisment for any remote engineering centre and not just Intel India. Sloka is a 33-person 5-yearold startup that is doing some cool work in building low-footprint and low-cost base stations. Its founder Sujai spoke about how they faced every successive challange to build such world-class products from India without any serious VC money and purely on their talent and grit and determination. May their tribe prosper! 

If the presentation was enlightening and interesting, the Q&A was also lively and interactive. There was a question on when you call an idea ‘failure’ ? Interesting ideas to followup on.

Rob ended his presentation with answers to three questions he started the presentation with:

  1. Why can’t companies develop strong effective innovation ?
    • They are unwilling or unable to fix what is broken or underperforming
  2. Why do companies find it so hard to sustain robust levels of innovation ?
    • They use an outdated strategy or operational model for innovation
  3. How do leaders create meaningful levels of innovation ?
    • They manage innovation as if their future growth depends on it – because it does !

I think these are pretty important questions for an organization in these tough times.

I found Rob’s presentation addressing some core issues with very hard-hitting frankness. He puts the entire onus for an effective innovation strategy on leadership, and believes it can’t be a short-term tactical move just for some small gains. Of course, my favorite is still How you innovate determines why you innovate.

So, why do you Innovate ?

Top 3 reasons why you should encourage social networking at workplace

Yesterday, I had the wonderful opportunity to be invited to a CEO Roundtable breakfast meeting organized by EMC at IIM Bangalore. The topic of discussion was how relevant is social networking for organizations, and what are some of the organizations doing about it. The session was led by Jack Mollen, EMC’s EVP for Human Resources. It was nice to learn how large organizations like EMC were leveraging the power of social networking. He informed that EMC with some 45,000 employees has some 20,000 virtual communities ! Wow, that must be a cool way to get all people connected from any place within the company to any other place. Partha from Mindtree highly recommended reading about EMC’s social networking platform, and also informed that they have been experimenting with social networks for the last seven years now.

I shared some of my personal views on how social networking could be useful in the context of organizations, and here are My Top 3 reasons:

1. Dismantle hierarchy and improve employee participation

Since the times of Frederick Winslow Taylor‘s Scientific Management, each (well, most) successive generation has tried to bring ‘workers’ closer to ‘management’ and improved the worker participation in management and decision-making. Today’s workers are definitely smarter, a lot smarter, than yesterday’s management, and hence there should be no good reason to limit their contributions. An increased worker involvement brings fresh ideas, that might be often overlooked by a group of people where there is assymetric participation from the organization. It also brings openness and transparency into the discussion prior to a decision being made – something that is more important, IMHO, than the very decision itself. Finally, there is always an element of better buy-in with key opinion leaders being part of such employee participation done in open.

Now imagine, there was a company-wide Twitter or Facebook where anyone could send ideas or thoughts to just about anyone, including the CEO directly. Most companies claim that they promote such open communication (and probably do that as well), but try doing that in a non-trivial-sized company setup in multiple locations on a sustainable basis (not for a one-off case), and you can quickly appreciate the challenges, both technological and organizational. A modern social networking tool can really help dismantle such invisible yet firm boundaries and pulverize the hierarchies into a really flat world! This is a real mesh network where the very ability to reach out to anyone is far more important and liberating than the actual need or motivation to do so, and notwithstanding the occasional noise that will inevitably be part of such open channels of communications, the advantages far outweigh the distractions.

2. Multiple Trust Networks lead to higher employee engagement

Most of us tend to overlook the fact that people come to organizations not just to work but to also be part of a social network. This is a fundamental human need – to be part of the group, to be liked, to be treated respectfully – that attracts people to a given workplace or a network and stay loyal to it. We have always had such social networks at workplace – well, at least at good workplaces (and I would argue that such social networks have also existed at bad workplaces but for a different but perhaps right reasons :)) and with or without technology, they served the teams and individuals well. They were like the secret sauce to getting people from different walks of life to come together, sink their individual diffrences or preferences, and work for a common purpose. Today’s social networks are not a far cry from the earlier ones, just the medium has shifted to tech-savvy and allows a real-time, 24/7 medium that can be used for even better results. The fact that still hasn’t changed is that organizations that promote social networking at workplace are creating multiple touchpoints for their employees to stay connected at workplace.

I have long believed that if there is only one single reason for some to join a company (be it salary, or role, or company name, or location, or anything else), there is a very high risk in losing that employee because invariably that single source of motivation will become single point of failure. A far better approach would be to create multiple reasons for someone to join (and stay connected to) a company so that even if one of those factors goes down, as it invariably will, other factors will hold the employee from slipping down the abyss of disillusionment and eventual disengagement. So, things like Chess Club (what is there are just 3 members in it), or Nature Club (so what if the only thing they do is watch Discovery Channel together), Daredevils (the bikers gang !), etc. are there for a purpose – don’t frown on them as unproductive distractions that lower people’s productivity. On the contrary, they serve purposes that existing mechanism simply can’t, and make your job easier 🙂

3. Open discussions about company leads to clarification of values and stronger ethics

The strength of an organizational culture can be quite accurately known by how much public scrutiny and open debate it can survive, and what tolerance does the ‘management’ have for how much dirty linen can be washed in public. To begin with, if an important company issue is treated as a non-event by the employees, that could tell a lot about the workplace culture. On the other hand, if there are passionate groups lobbying hard or raising some fundamental questions, that could also mean a lot about the workplace. Normally, a company might not want to open up its discussion forum to a larger audience fearing either the situation might go out of control, or they might never reach a consensus. I think these are well-founded fears that will go away, slowly I must add, once you start and stay focused on your goals. If you trust that your employees are adult humans who are they to work for the company and the society, and you believe that as a company, you stand by your people, then I think there is nothing to worry about. Just dismantle all prejudices, and open up the public debate to large employee forum. Whatever the reaction of people, it will only indicate the culture of the organization – isn’t that a great reason to start it now ?

These would be my Top 3 reasons why you should actively promote social networking within your organization. I realize it is easier said than done, but hey, that could be said for anything worthwhile in life or business.

What are your Top 3 reasons ?

Do you know your Zenobia(s) ?

Zeonbia is a great book by Matthew Emmens and Beth Kephart that you can not only complete in under an hour, you probably want to read it once again right away – to get a better flavor of the simple yet powerful story of Moira who must find a way out of the chaos she encounters day one of her job and no one is quite willing to help her.

Zenobia is story of our times which is such a hard-hitting truth. I would say Moira is lucky (or rather willing to challenge status quo ?) in the sense she is able to see that there is a problem – a majority of us do not evey realize there is a problem at the workplace. Of course, of those sharp minds who are able to figure out there is indeed some problem, some try to find a solution, get ridiculed like Moira, and very few among us mortals really succeed like her. Of course, Moira is not a superwoman or a super-employee, if you will. She is a normal person, who is shocked at the ‘toxic energy’ (to borrow from FISH, another great book) at Zenobia and though not expecting such a state of affairs, nevertheless tries to do something about it. The fact that she succeeds eventually is not important, at least to me. What is important is to undertake every business opportunity as an adventure – as is rightly the theme of this fable.

The book also subtely revisits a long standing debate – when in deep crisis, are outsiders better or insiders. Outsiders come with no baggage, are immediately able to spot the issues and without any sentimental attachments to things around them, call the spade a spade. The insiders, though have obvious advantages in terms of knowing the system well, etc. are often found so much ‘in’ the system that they hardly can see what is wrong with it – just like the frog who gets slow-boiled to death in a pot of water without realizing that the water was getting hotter all the time, albeit too slowly for immediate discomfort.

That brings me to the question: do we know our own zenobias ? Is it possible that we are not even aware of what ails us ? In our hollow pride and ego, we mercilessly push ourselves (and our teams) to deliver business results when there might be deep scars under the surface threatening our own very existance because over the years, we have gotton used to do things in a certain way which worked once but doesn’t work anymore (more importantly, we don’t even know that it stopped working long back). Do we know, for example, our way of project management is causing more harm than good- for we are forever in planning mode ? Do we know if our software development sucks – for all we know, we are constantly spending more time fixing bugs than in writing features that sell ? Do we know if our workplace policies are actually helping people improve their motivation, productivity and teamwork or causing them more discomfort ? Do we know if our business is surviving because of what we do, or despite what we do ? I recommend this book if you have a funny feeling that something is not quite right – hunches are almost often right, despite whatever people might tell you.

The most important takeaway from the book is ‘invent your own future’ – but of course, you must know your Zenobia before you move on to that.

Do you know your Zenobia(s) ?