MY VIDEO CV

YOU CAN REACH MY VIDEO CV AT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzasAgCs02E&feature=youtu.be

Theory X & Theory Y

In this lecture Prof. T Prasad discussed about 2 types of manger and employee, Type X and Type Y. The combination can be explained through below table.

Manager Type	Employee Type	Condition Description
X	X	Employee is lazy and manager thinks that employee is lazy.
X	Y	Employee is good but manager think employee is lazy.
Y	X	Employee is lazy but manager think employee is good.
Y	Y	Employee is good and manager think employee is good.

Condition 1:- Employee is lazy and Manager assumes that employee is lazy. This is a condition where both effectiveness and efficiency is compromised. Manager doesn’t motivate employee or try to find the ways to improve employee’s productivity. This condition is degenerative for Organization. We can see this scenario in lot of govt. organizations and this has been major reason for low productivity among them.

Condition 2:- Employee is good but manager think employee is lazy.This condition is also not good. Employee is trying to do his best but he is getting no incentive for that. Manager is not providing proper appreciation and motivation to employee. This results in deteriorating performance by employee, inclining the organization to move towards Condition 1.

Condition 3:- Employee is lazy but manager still treat him like a good employee. He provides proper motivation and feed back to employee, which results in better performance by employee, inclining the organization to move towards Condition 2.This is like Pygmalion phenomenon. ‘Things happen when they are expected’. I have seen similar cases in my company where my manager believed in every employee having some positive quality and that’s the reason they are working in the organization. He provided employee full flexibility to work in the part of the project they were interested in. he also encouraged employee to inculcate other leadership activities via courses facilitated by him and giving employee chance to work in manager’s shoe.

Condition 4:- This is condition for very effective and efficient organization. Employee is good and he is getting proper motivation to strive for better. I had similar experience in my previous organization, where I saw many employee including me transforming in a better person and employee with the help of guidance provided by my manager.

The major learning is that if Manager is of type Y, Organization is bound to move towards excellence irrespective of employee being X or Y type. Though, if employee is of type Y, transition is faster. 

After three monks welcome three Idiots..

Sometimes a picture says more than words. When Dr. Prasad started discussing this picture in class, we had little idea that we can learn this much from this picture. We also simulated this activity in classroom. It was a funfilled exercise full of insights.

Organisations are made of Teams. Good Teamwork is essential for high performance in any business.

“Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships.” – Michael Jordan

Having a talented individual can produce results only partly. For a complete solution/success, we need strong teams. That is why Organisations prefer a Team worker to an individual contributor with no team spirit even if the latter one is much more talented. Even if one person is so capable that he can perform all the tasks individually, an Organisation should not let him, because it will reduce reliability, flexibility and sustainability. There may be cases when that particular person is unavailable, simulated by hanging man in valley crossing exercise. Suddenly there may be some huge workload (two person carrying weight of pole and 3^rd person) or a new work may come where the same person may not be competent enough.

Here, as we see in valley crossing exercise, 3 people have to cross a valley. It is wide enough that they can’t jump to other side. So, they form a Team. They get connected with the help of a pole (metaphor for an organisation). In the end, they are able to cross the valley. It looks simple, but it is not. When we started doing this activity in real, it needed a lot of iterations to complete it successfully. Let me list out the ingredients required for successful completion of this task. These are the same things required for a good team work.

Planning: - Suppose, we are 3 people. We are provided with a pole and we need to cross the valley. Our 1^st step will be to form a Team and formulate the plan. The plan should be focused on how we can leverage our strength as a team. Though, we have already seen the picture, plan was already  out.

Proper communication: - Communication is very important both in Planning and executing period. Everybody needs to understand their role clearly. There should be a smooth flow of communication even at the time of executing task. As, we saw during activity, assuming the solution to be simple, people didn’t allocate proper time to understand their role clearly. It resulted in bad co-ordination. One person moved one step ahead while other person stood at same place. People were hanging on pole in wrong sequence or at wrong time. Though, Task was finally completed with the help of proper communication at the execution time. There may be possibility that while formulating the plan people are not 100% clear about their role, though they think so. Effective initial communication can avoid this situation and proper communication during task performance will ensure a successful task even if there was some gap at 1^st stage.

Responsibility: - Everybody in Team needs to be accountable. Suppose, if one person either in front or back leaves the pole while 2^nd person is hanging in middle, both 2^nd and 3^rd person will not be able to cross the valley.

Trust: - As a Team member, we need to trust other team members. In the valley crossing exercise, if all three people do not trust each other, nobody will get ready to hang on pole in the valley with their life at stake. Trust is build over time and as a manager we must ensure to create an environment where one team member can trust other.

Coordination :- Coordination is the important factor in making the crossing successful. Every team member need to be equidistant. They must move step at same time. They also need to cover equal length in every step. They must be aware of timing when they need to put extra effort, also the amount of extra effort required. For good coordination,Team need to do proper planning, have good communication,take responsibility and trust each other.

Leadership

Definition
The WIKI says: 

Leadership has been described as “a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task". Other in-depth definitions of leadership have also emerged.

Leadership is "organizing a group of people to achieve a common goal". The leader may or may not have any formal authority. Studies of leadership have produced theories involving traits, situational interaction, function, behavior, power, vision and values,charisma, and intelligence, among others. Somebody whom

people follow: somebody who guides or directs others.

Corporate Leadership Styles

The organizations generally try to show some distinct style of leadership in order to distinguish themselves among peers. They can be focused on-

Quality

Cost

Profit

Market Share

Ethics

People

Sustainability

Innovation, etc.

to leverage their advantage.

TATAs cash on their ethics image (innovation with NANO too) . RIL uphelds their cut-throat persona. HCL has this employee first attitude. 

 Manager and a Leader

Manager and leader are two completely different roles, although we often use the terms interchangeably. Managers are facilitators of their team members’ success. They ensure that their people have everything they need to be productive and successful; that they’re well trained, happy and have minimal roadblocks in their path; that they’re being groomed for the next level; that they are recognized for great performance and coached through their challenges.

Conversely, a leader can be anyone on the team who has a particular talent, who is creatively thinking out of the box and has a great idea, who has experience in a certain aspect of the business or project that can prove useful to the manager and the team. A leader leads based on strengths, not titles.

The best managers consistently allow different leaders to emerge and inspire their teammates (and themselves!) to the next level.

Changing Leadership Styles

  Leadership can and should be situational, depending on the needs of the team.Sometimes a teammate needs a warm connect. Sometimes the team needs a visionary, a new style of coaching, someone to lead the way or even, on occasion, a kick in the bike shorts. For that reason, great leaders choose their leadership style like a golfer chooses his or her club, with a calculated analysis of the matter at hand, the end goal and the best tool for the job

Here are the six leadership styles Goleman uncovered among the managers he studied, as well as a brief analysis of the effects of each style on the corporate climate:

The pacesetting leader expects and models excellence and self-direction. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “Do as I do, now.” The pacesetting style works best when the team is already motivated and skilled, and the leader needs quick results. Used extensively, however, this style can overwhelm team members and squelch innovation.
The authoritative leader mobilizes the team toward a common vision and focuses on end goals, leaving the means up to each individual. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “Come with me.” The authoritative style works best when the team needs a new vision because circumstances have changed, or when explicit guidance is not required. Authoritative leaders inspire an entrepreneurial spirit and vibrant enthusiasm for the mission. It is not the best fit when the leader is working with a team of experts who know more than him or her  
 The affiliative leader works to create emotional bonds that bring a feeling of bonding and belonging to the organization. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “People come first.” The affiliative style works best in times of stress, when teammates need to heal from a trauma, or when the team needs to rebuild trust. This style should not be used exclusively, because a sole reliance on praise and nurturing can foster mediocre performance and a lack of direction.
The coaching leader develops people for the future. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “Try this.” The coaching style works best when the leader wants to help teammates build lasting personal strengths that make them more successful overall. It is least effective when teammates are defiant and unwilling to change or learn, or if the leader lacks proficiency.
The coercive leader demands immediate compliance. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “Do what I tell you.” The coercive style is most effective in times of crisis, such as in a company turnaround or a takeover attempt, or during an actual emergency like a tornado or a fire. This style can also help control a problem teammate when everything else has failed. However, it should be avoided in almost every other case because it can alienate people and stifle flexibility and inventiveness.
The democratic leader builds consensus through participation. If this style were summed up in one phrase, it would be “What do you think?” The democratic style is most effective when the leader needs the team to buy into or have ownership of a decision, plan, or goal, or if he or she is uncertain and needs fresh ideas from qualified teammates. It is not the best choice in an emergency situation, when time is of the essence for another reason or when teammates are not informed enough to offer sufficient guidance to the leader.

The Point is if you take two cups of authoritative leadership, one cup of democratic, coaching, and affiliative leadership, and a dash of pacesetting and coercive leadership “to taste,” and you lead based on need in a way that elevates and inspires your team, you’ve got an excellent recipe for long-term leadership success with every team in your life.

1. Sources: Wiki; Robyn Benicasa

Evolution of management theory

Disclaimer (In the beginning because I know you won't reach the end! ) : This blog is compilation of  different pages and section of wiki (mostly) at one place; I felt this need because even Dr Mandy's blog is silent on these 'mundane' details.


Scientific Management

Scientific management, also called Taylorism was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized workflows. Its main objective was improving economic efficiency, especially labor productivity. It was one of the earliest attempts to apply science to the engineering of processes and to management. Its development began with Frederick Winslow Taylor in the 1880s and 1890s within the manufacturing industries. Its peak of influence came in the 1910s; by the 1920s, it was still influential but had begun an era of competition and syncretism with opposing or complementary ideas. Although scientific management as a distinct theory or school of thought was obsolete by the 1930s, most of its themes are still important parts of industrial engineering and management today. These include analysis; synthesis; logic; rationality; empiricism; work ethic; efficiency and elimination of waste; standardization of best practices; disdain for tradition preserved merely for its own sake or merely to protect the social status of particular workers with particular skill sets; the transformation of craft production into mass production; and knowledge transfer between workers and from workers into tools, processes, and documentation.

Frederick Winslow Taylor (March 20, 1856 – March 21, 1915) was an American mechanical engineer who sought to improve industrial efficiency.He is regarded as the father of scientific management and was one of the first management consultants.Taylor was one of the intellectual leaders of the Efficiency Movement and his ideas, broadly conceived, were highly influential in the Progressive Era.

In Peter Drucker's description,

Frederick W. Taylor was the first man in recorded history who deemed work deserving of systematic observation and study. On Taylor's 'scientific management' rests, above all, the tremendous surge of affluence in the last seventy-five years which has lifted the working masses in the developed countries well above any level recorded before, even for the well-to-do. Taylor, though the Isaac Newton (or perhaps the Archimedes) of the science of work, laid only first foundations, however. Not much has been added to them since – even though he has been dead all of sixty years.

Drawbacks/Problems
Scientific management's application was contingent on a high level of managerial control over employee work practices. This necessitated a higher ratio of managerial workers to laborers than previous management methods. The great difficulty in accurately differentiating any such intelligent, detail-oriented management from mere misguided management also caused interpersonal friction between workers and managers.


 In today's management theory, Taylorism is sometimes called (or considered a subset of) the classical perspective (meaning a perspective that's still respected for its seminal influence although it is no longer state-of-the-art). Taylor's own early names for his approach included "shop management" and "process management". When Louis Brandeis popularized the term "scientific management" in 1910,Taylor recognized it as another good name for the concept, and he used it himself in his 1911 monograph.


Adminstrative management or Fayolism

Fayolism was a theory of management that analyzed and synthesized the role of management in organizations, developed around 1900 by the French management theorist Henri Fayol (1841–1925). It was through Fayol's work as a philosopher of administration that he contributed most widely to the theory and practice of organizational management.

Fayol believed by focusing on managerial practices he could minimize misunderstandings and increase efficiency in organizations. He enlightened managers on how to accomplish their managerial duties, and the practices in which they should engage. In his book General and Industrial Management (published in French in 1916, then published in English in 1949), Fayol outlined his theory of general management, which he believed could be applied to the administration of myriad industries. His concern was with the administrative apparatus (or functions of administration), and to that end he presented his administrative theory, that is, principles and elements of management.

Fayol's Elements of Management

Within his theory, Fayol outlined five elements of management that depict the kinds of behaviors managers should engage in so that the goals and objectives of an organization are effectively met. The five elements of management are:

1. Planning: creating a plan of action for the future, determining the stages of the plan and the technology necessary to implement it.
2. Organizing: Once a plan of action is designed, managers need to provide everything necessary to carry it out; including raw materials, tools, capital and human resources
3. Command: Managers need to implement the plan. They must have an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel.
4. Coordination: High-level managers must work to "harmonize" all the activities to facilitate organizational success. Communication is the prime coordinating mechanism.
5. Control: The final element of management involves the comparison of the activities of the personnel to the plan of action, it is the evaluation component of management.

Fayol vs. Frederick Taylor's Scientific Management

Fayol has been regarded by many as the father of the modern operational management theory, and his ideas have become a fundamental part of modern management concepts. Fayol is often compared to Frederick Winslow Taylor who developed Scientific Management. Taylor's Scientific Management deals with the efficient organization of production in the context of a competitive enterprise that is concerned with controlling its production costs. Taylor's system of scientific management is the cornerstone of classical theory. Fayol was also a classical theorist, and referred to Taylor in his writing and considered him to be a visionary and pioneer in the management of organizations.

According to Claude George (1968), a primary difference between Fayol and Taylor was that Taylor viewed management processes from the bottom up, while Fayol viewed it from the top down. In Fayol's book General and Industrial Management, Fayol wrote that "Taylor's approach differs from the one we have outlined in that he examines the firm from the bottom up." He starts with the most elemental units of activity—the workers' actions—then studies the effects of their actions on productivity, devises new methods for making them more efficient, and applies what he learns at lower levels to the hierarchy"...(Fayol, 1987, p. 43). He suggests that Taylor has staff analysts and advisors working with individuals at lower levels of the organization to identify the ways to improve efficiency. According to Fayol, the approach results in a "negation of the principle of unity of command". Fayol criticized Taylor’s functional management in this way. “… the most marked outward characteristics of functional management lies in the fact that each workman, instead of coming in direct contact with the management at one point only, … receives his daily orders and help from eight different bosses…"(Fayol, 1949, p. 68.) Those eight, Fayol said, were (1) route clerks, (2) instruction card men, (3) cost and time clerks, (4) gang bosses, (5) speed bosses, (6) inspectors, (7) repair bosses, and the (8) shop disciplinarian (p. 68). This, he said, was an unworkable situation, and that Taylor must have somehow reconciled the dichotomy in some way not described in Taylor's works.

Fayol's desire for teaching a generalized theory of management stemmed from the belief that each individual of an organization at one point or another takes on duties that involve managerial decisions. Unlike Taylor, however, who believed management activity was the exclusive duty of an organizations dominant class. Fayol's approach was more in sync with his idea of Authority, which stated, "that the right to give orders should not be considered without the acceptance and understanding of responsibility."

Noted as one of the early fathers of the Human Relations movements, Fayol expressed ideas and practices which differed from Taylor in that they showed flexibility and adaptation as well as stressed the importance of interpersonal interaction among employees.


Behavioral Theory of Management

As management research continued in the 20th century, questions began to come up regarding the interactions and motivations of the individual within organizations. Management principles developed during the classical period were simply not useful in dealing with many management situations and could not explain the behavior of individual employees. In short, classical theory ignored employee motivation and behavior. As a result, the behavioral school was a natural outgrowth of this revolutionary management experiment.

The behavioral management theory is often called the human relations movement because it addresses the human dimension of work. Behavioral theorists believed that a better understanding of human behavior at work, such as motivation, conflict, expectations, and group dynamics, improved productivity.

The theorists who contributed to this school viewed employees as individuals, resources, and assets to be developed and worked with — not as machines, as in the past. Several individuals and experiments contributed to this theory.

Elton Mayo's contributions came as part of the Hawthorne studies, a series of experiments that rigorously applied classical management theory only to reveal its shortcomings. The Hawthorne experiments consisted of two studies conducted at the Hawthorne Works of the Western Electric Company in Chicago from 1924 to 1932. The first study was conducted by a group of engineers seeking to determine the relationship of lighting levels to worker productivity. Surprisingly enough, they discovered that worker productivity increased as the lighting levels decreased — that is, until the employees were unable to see what they were doing, after which performance naturally declined.

Abraham Maslow, a practicing psychologist, developed one of the most widely recognized need theories, a theory of motivation based upon a consideration of human needs . His theory of human needs had three assumptions:

• Human needs are never completely satisfied.

• Human behavior is purposeful and is motivated by the need for satisfaction.

• Needs can be classified according to a hierarchical structure of importance, from the lowest to highest.

Maslow broke down the needs hierarchy into five specific areas:

• Physiological needs. Maslow grouped all physical needs necessary for maintaining basic human well‐being, such as food and drink, into this category. After the need is satisfied, however, it is no longer is a motivator.

• Safety needs. These needs include the need for basic security, stability, protection, and freedom from fear. A normal state exists for an individual to have all these needs generally satisfied. Otherwise, they become primary motivators.

• Belonging and love needs. After the physical and safety needs are satisfied and are no longer motivators, the need for belonging and love emerges as a primary motivator. The individual strives to establish meaningful relationships with significant others.

• Esteem needs. An individual must develop self‐confidence and wants to achieve status, reputation, fame, and glory.

• Self‐actualization needs. Assuming that all the previous needs in the hierarchy are satisfied, an individual feels a need to find himself.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory helped managers visualize employee motivation.

Douglas McGregor was heavily influenced by both the Hawthorne studies and Maslow. He believed that two basic kinds of managers exist. One type, the Theory X manager, has a negative view of employees and assumes that they are lazy, untrustworthy, and incapable of assuming responsibility. On the other hand, the Theory Y manager assumes that employees are not only trustworthy and capable of assuming responsibility, but also have high levels of motivation.

An important aspect of McGregor's idea was his belief that managers who hold either set of assumptions can create self‐fulfilling prophecies — that through their behavior, these managers create situations where subordinates act in ways that confirm the manager's original expectations.

As a group, these theorists discovered that people worked for inner satisfaction and not materialistic rewards, shifting the focus to the role of individuals in an organization's performance.

The three monks

When I first saw three monks I got nothing! Too many cooks spoil the food.. good animation.. just another MBA fad.. what? I saw the elaboration Dr Mandi gave in his blog. It was hard not to think what he said are not the take away from the story. His take on the video is here..
http://pomcourse2012.blogspot.in/2012_08_08_archive.html

I agree to him on most accounts. This video certainly emphasizes the role of processes in an organization. Coming after Pygmalion effect, this, seems a bit cynical, but the fact remains- a set of rules clearly need to be defined for an organization to start breathing.Going further, I think, only having the rules in place is not the sufficient condition, there has to be disincentives for those who break rules.In situations like this I think most set of people don't come up with clear rules not because they don't feel the need, but because they know enforcing them is clearly not possible.The organization solves this problem by hierarchy. I am no fan of hierarchy but my management style will certainly value performance and consequently discourage non performance.

Dr Mandy says, and I agree,  the video doesn't end here, it goes on to show how improved processes could increase productivity.He links monks doing different part of bringing-the-water chore to an assembly line. At some point Dr Mandi says create a system such that the non performers just come out in the open i.e. become visible. Assembly line is one such process. Coming up with such processes in other fields/industries will certainly improve productivity.

Whatever are the takeaways one thing is for sure- Management lies in the eye of the beholder. Only in this case, Dr Mandi is making sure that we see it too!

The Pygmalion Effect and the Goal Setting

Can reality be influenced by the expectation of others? Although it might get to your nerves sometimes, but when some body over-expects from you, the belief does push you to cover that extra mile, if for nothing than for that feeling which comes with success that's 'shared'. Wikipedia says: Robert Rosenthal and Lenore Jacobson (1968) report and discuss the Pygmalion effect in the classroom at length. In their study, they showed that if teachers were led to expect enhanced performance from some children, then the children did indeed show that enhancement. Going Further-  J. Sterling Livingston wrote in the article Pygmalion in Management in the September/October, 1988 Harvard Business Review. "The way managers treat their subordinates is subtly influenced by what they expect of them,"The Pygmalion effect enables staff to excel in response to the manager’s message that they are capable of success and expected to succeed. The Pygmalion effect can also undermine staff performance when the subtle communication from the manager tells them the opposite. These cues are often subtle. As an example, the supervisor fails to praise a staff person's performance as frequently as he praises others. The supervisor talks less to a particular employee.
Livingston went on to say about the supervisor, "If he is unskilled, he leaves scars on the careers of the young men (and women), cuts deeply into their self-esteem and distorts their image of themselves as human beings. But if he is skillful and has high expectations of his subordinates, their self-confidence will grow, their capabilities will develop and their productivity will be high. More often than he realizes, the manager is Pygmalion."

Goal setting is something which manifests itself  in so many ways in our lives. On a personal level, setting goals helps people work towards their own objectives—most commonly with financial or career-based goals.For Complex Organizations, Management by Objectives, or MBO , is a concept expressed by Peter Drucker more than 50 years ago. This strategy for managing people, which focuses on managing teams based on their ability to complete individual and team goals. Talking about the goals Drucker suggested that they should be SMART i.e. Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time bound.

Realistic is a very tricky word. Marketing theorists always suggest to 'delight' the customers, which they say, can be done by under promising and over delivering. Under promising in an organization can be cancerous. Deliberately setting a low target is the biggest crime against excellence. Your organization will always be burdened by a lack of inspiration which comes with such an act.

The Goal Setting is considered an “open” theory, so as new discoveries are made, it is modified. Numerous studies have shown that specific and ambitious goals lead to a higher level of performance, but some recent studies and research paper indicate different findings. In Goal Gone Wild , Lisa D. Ordóñez, Maurice E. Schweitzer, Adam D. Galinsky and Max H. Bazerman argue  that the beneficial effects of goal setting have been overstated and that systematic harm caused by goal setting has been largely ignored. They have  identified specific side effects associated with goal setting, including a narrow focus that neglects non-goal areas, a rise in unethical behavior, distorted risk preferences, corrosion of organizational culture, and reduced intrinsic motivation. Rather than dispensing goal setting as a benign, over-the-counter treatment for motivation, They say, managers and scholars need to conceptualize goal setting as a prescription-strength medication that requires careful dosing, consideration of harmful side effects, and close supervision." They further say," When we set goals, we're taught to make them specific and measurable and time-bound. But it turns out that those characteristics are precisely the reasons goals can backfire. A specific, measurable, time-bound goal drives behavior that's narrowly focused and often leads to either cheating or myopia. Yes, we often reach the goal, but at what cost?"

The role of SMART goals can't be over-emphasized, but, perhaps like everything in life, the inspiration is in striking the right balance.