Chronicles from a Caribbean Cubicle
New Thinking from Framework Consulting
I found this great post in a blog from an Australian company that seems to be Framework’s lost twin.
It speaks to the need to restore trust by apologizing, an action that I implicitly reiterated in my post about cleaning up a company’s promisphere.
Click here to be taken to the blog.
I want to make a crazy estimate.
I am guessing that some 60-80% of Jamaicans are in jobs that they dislike.
I have no idea if this is a true estimate, but I think it might just be in the ball-park.
The reasons?
They all combine to create a mindset of scarcity in which a job becomes something to hold onto at all costs. People get stuck in careers and in positions for which they are ill-suited, by virtue of their lack of motivation or skill.
The effect on a company’s productivity is cumulatively disastrous, as is the effect on our economy.
I’d be interested in hearing what other opinions are on this topic, and what might be done about it.
I’m not sure how this fits in with books such as Kenneth Carter’s “Why Workers Won’t Work,” except to say that I think he was focused on studying rank and file workers.
(A copy of Framework’s 2-page summary of the book can be obtained by sending email to fwc-whyworkers@aweber.com or by visiting our website under the Ideas section.)
This Framework white paper from 2004 illustrates the reason why employees in Caribbean companies find themselves so divorced from the strategic thinking that occupies most executives’ time.
To obtain a copy, send email to fwc-exstrategy@aweber.com.
For a full list of our white papers, visit our website www.fwconsulting.com, under the item: Ideas.
This week’s edition of the Jamaica Gleaner’s JobSmart series: Staying in Touch.
Written by me.
An intervention is intended to target is what we call the “space” or environment that a group of participants happens to be in.
This space is not a physical space, however.
It is more of a mental/social/emotional space that exists around the individuals. It is more clear when they are physically together, but it exists even when they are apart.
Before an intervention starts, a team or group of participants is operating inside of a particular space, most of which they are generating sub-consciously.
The overall intervention is meant to shift the space not once but several times in the course of a meeting, event or interaction of some kind.
The end-result is defined by the Outcome – described in an earlier post.
Defining the intervention is a matter of figuring out the actions that will shift the space from the starting point, through several intermediate states, until the final Outcome is achieved.
For example, the most common space that all groups of Caribbean people start in when they don’t know each other is a space of “Who are you, and who are they, and do you know who I am?”
Once this question is addressed, the most common subsequent space is “Why are we here?”
This is often followed by “What role will I play?” which in turn leads into “What is the agenda and the time requirement?”
Once these are squared away, along with any other logistics, the next space is “What is the first step?”
At this point, the actions vary according to the Outcome wanted from the intervention.
P.S. I did a search for prior posts in this blog on the topic, and found one that I wrote on my wedding day 2 years ago. In that post I wrote about how my wife and I used an Outcome-based approach to design our wedding day.
(This article is the 7th in a free-wheeling series of ideas around Interventions as practiced by Framework Consulting. Click here to browse the series.)
Once the need for an intervention has been established, the first and perhaps most important step is to design what we call the Outcome.
This activity follow the principle of what Stephen Covey calls “Beginning with the End in Mind.”
In other words, when the intervention is complete what will the end result of all it look like and feel like? What frame of mind will the participants be in? What will they have experienced? What emotions will they be feeling? What will they have learned?
The purpose of an intervention is to cause a shift, or a change in the environment surrounding a group of people. It usually includes a critical call to action to make progress in some new direction.
An easy intervention might be one that involves creating a new set of goals for a well-functioning team.
A more difficult one might be to spur a team to resolve a problem that seems insurmountable, and the team-members have been avoiding.
But they all start with a stated Outcome.
An example, in the case of the easy intervention, might include the following lines:
“The goals created tap into every single member’s commitments”
In the case of the more difficult one it might be:
“The conversation is open and free, and allows all the upsets of the past to be addressed.”
Usually a full Outcome runs 3-5 sentences, addressing different aspects of the final result.
These Outcomes are the bedrock of the design, as they are used to inform the different actions that are taken at different points. This includes what is said, what is done, what information is shared, what exercises are done — everything down to how the facilitators are dressed is tailored to produce the outcome intended.
It operates as the guiding light for the entire exercise.
Defining the Outcomes takes a certain degree of rigorous thinking, as design team members share their views on what is usually a complex situation with no clear cut definitions.
I recently heard that a US$500 kilo of cocaine in Colombia can be sold for US$10,000 in Jamaica.
By the time it gets to the US, it fetches a price of US$30,000.
If it reaches the UK safely, that goes up to $35,000.
Given these prices, and our location right between Colombia and Miami, it does seem as if we have a problem of geographic proportions.
The following excerpt was used as the basis for an article to be published in next week’s issue of JobSmart: follow the link www.go-jamaica.com/jobsmart.
To add a comment on the JobSmart article, click on the link below this article saying “0,1,2… comments.”
From an article in HBR, August 2003, by Larry Summers, ex-President of Harvard University:
“But what is most special about the American research university is that it is a place where the authority of ideas, rather than the idea of authority, reigns supreme. At Harvard, we consider it an extremely important accomplishment when a 25-year old graduate student who has been here a mere 18 months makes a discovery that disproves the pet theory of a 55-year old professor who has been here 30 years. Indeed, the professor whose theory has been disproved might be the first to congratulate that graduate student.”
Hmm… food for thought, as this applies so far and wide in Caribbean societies — in business, academia, the church and elsewhere.
I found this study astounding, although not altogether surprising.
It was published in the 2003 HBR in an article entitled Fair Process: Managing in the Knowledge Economy, by authors Kim and Mauborgne.
Their central finding is that employees will commit to a manager’s decision — even one they disagree with — if they believe that the process the manager used to make the decision was fair.
In other words, employees care as much about the process used to derive the outcome, as they do about the actual outcome themselves. This says much about how Caribbean managers need to manage, in order to gain the buy-in that is needed to change behaviour and produce a positive culture.
For example, in the case of the Jamaican workforce, the book Why Workers Won’t Work as well as our project report from the Trinidadian Executive in Jamaica both describe the importance of respect in the local workplace. (A summary of the book can be downloaded by sending email to fwc-whyworkers@aweber.com, and the Trinidad report can be downloaded by sending email to fwc-triniexec@aweber.com.)
In coming to decisions in the Jamaican workplace, it is critical that managers go the extra mile to demonstrate a certain kind of respect for the workers. The following paragraph from the HBR article seems to fit in perfectly:
“Fair process responds to basic human needs. All of us, whatever our role in a company, want to be valued as human beings and not as “personnel” or “human assets.” We want others to respect our intelligence. We want our ideas to be taken seriously. And we want to understand the rationale behind specific decisions. People are sensitive to the signals conveyed through a company’s decision-making processes. Such processes can reveal a company’s willingness to trust people and seek their ideas – or they can signal the opposite.”
The authors mention 3 basic principles of fair process:
The authors also make the case for 2 psychological kinds of justice, distributive and procedural (which I will simply refer to as Model A and Model b.)
In Model A, the idea is that when people get what they deserve (compensation or promotion) they feel satisfied with that outcome. They will reciprocate by fulfilling their obligations to the company to the letter.
In Model B, trust and commitment are built, which produce voluntary cooperation, which in turn drives performance, leading people to go beyond the call of duty by sharing their knowledge and applying their creativity.
I remember a funny story told to me by a good friend of mine over 15 years ago, that illustrates the difference between the two (thank you Tom B.)
Some kids used to pass by an old man’s house that had a zinc roof on the way from school each day. It was the kind that made a very loud sound when it rained.
One day, they decided to pelt his roof just to hear the sound it made, and sure enough it was loud like gunshots!
The old man, who had a reputation for being crotchety, ran out, and shouted at them and waved his stick, looking quite upset. The kids ran away laughing.
The following day, they told their friends, and even more of them showed up to stone the old man’s roof, hear the loud sounds it made, wait for him to come out, watch him wave his stick and have a good laugh.
On the third day, even more showed up, and the same thing happened, except that the following morning, the old man woke up with an idea.
Once again, the kids showed up, but this time he was there waiting outside. He called them over, and told them that he would pay each of they $1 to pelt stones on his roof that day.
They cried with glee- was was not only crotchety, he was also insane!
They pelted, he paid up and they ran off happily.
The following day, they showed up again, and this time he apologized, as he only had a quarter for each of them. They pelted his roof, and took their money and ran.
The next day they came, he again apologized and said that no he had only pennies to give.
They refused — he couldn’t expect them to pelt stones on his roof for that little money! So they left in a huff, never to return.
In summary, the old man was able to manipulate the kids into adopting Model A, when they had in fact started out by using Model B. Once they moved to Model A, he could take control of their desires.
So it goes for many employees, who respond to their managers using Model A because their managers are using it themselves.
The authors presented the following summary in the form of a chart:
Model A
Model B
The authors make the point that fair process is rare in companies. When managers are asked for evidence that they are fair, they point to equitable treatment, authority and freedom given, resources provided and rewards earned.
The authors say that these answers confuse fair outcomes/results with fair process.
Most managers are loathe to get too much into engagement, explanation and expectation clarity for reasons that I find particularly pertinent to managers in the region.
The first reason has to do with power. Some keep the rules for success and failure vague as a way to keep control. Others use memos, speeches and purely one way communication to keep away direct challenges. For these managers, fair process is a threat to their authority.
The second reason comes from an unconscious belief that people will only care about what’s best for themselves in the very narrow, short- term sense. However, the research shows that people will go along with decisions they disagree with, and might impact them negatively as long as they perceive the process to be fair.
In other words, they can understand that short-term sacrifices are sometimes needed to advance long-term interests — if they trust the process.
N.B. The authors note that fair process is not the same as consensus, compromise or democracy.
I read the following excerpt of an article on humor from the 2003 Harvard Business Review that I find interesting.
“Female executives in this research consistently used more humor than their male counterparts, but men used more put-down humor. Women were more likely than men to use complimentary humor or humor that otherwise expressed caring, warmth, and support; they used significantly less humor that put down subordinates and marginally less that put down superiors.
Researchers have shown that in interpersonal relations, men tend to assert rather than downplay status differences, while women do the opposite.
Although people of both sexes use humor largely to build bridges, some organizational psychologists believe that for men, put-down humor may also be a way to establish and maintain hierarchical status.