Posted on

This flies in the face of Caribbean Practice

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.

Posted on

Study on Workplace Engagement

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:

  • Engagement — involving individuals in the decisions that affect them by asking their input and allowing them to refute the merits of one another’s ideas and assumptions
  • Explanation — everyone understands why final decisions are made as they are. All inputs were considered impartially in the interests of the company. This helps people accept the decision even if it runs counter to their own opinion.
  • Expectation clarity — once a decision is made, managers state clearly the new rules of the game. What are the news standards, and how are people to be judged?

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

  • Tools: resource allocation economic incentives, organizational structure
  • Attitude: Outcome satisfaction “I got what I deserved”
  • Behaviour: Compulsory cooperation “I’ll do what I’m told, or else”
  • Performance: Meets expectations


Model B

  • Tools: Fair Process (engagement, explanation, expectation clarity)
  • Attitude: Trust and commitment “I feel my opinion counts
  • Behaviour: Voluntary cooperation “I’ll go beyond the call of duty”
  • Performance: Exceed expectations (self initiated)

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.

Posted on

The Put-Down: A Guy Thing

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.

Posted on

Following the Lines of Trust

What is the most effective way to hire an executive in a different Caribbean country?

Is it a matter of finding the right newspaper to place the best advertisement in?

Or does it have something to do with finding the best online employment job board to use?

I have found myself giving a different kind of advice to different companies across the region.

The reason why an advertisement might work in-country is that there already exists a certain amount of trust between the reader and the company. The company that tries the same approach, however, will easily run into problems when they apply it to a different country.

What should be done?

My hypothesis is that Caribbean professionals change jobs when they believe they can trust the company, board and the executives that are doing the hiring. I think that there is a threshold of trust that must exist for a top executive to change jobs, and the better the executive, the higher the threshold.

The two exceptions are not attractive ones. A desperate executive might take an job that looks half-decent. A greedy one may take be willing to work for anyone who bids the highest.

(This is where Jamaica may be very different from Trinidad and Barbados, both now and in the foreseeable future. Both Barbados and Trinidad are virtually at full employment, and there is no shortage of executive opportunities given the barriers to entry that exist for professionals. Jamaica’s economy remains in the doldrums, yet it remains a relatively easy country to gain entry to work.)

I have been advising clients and colleagues who are engaging in job searches to conduct the search through warm channels, using people that they already know, and friends of friends. In other words, follow the lines of trust.

These lines of trust run through each of our countries, and in the smaller countries, they play an even more important role.

Perhaps hiring the right executive is all about following the lines of trust until they reach the right person.

Posted on

Why I Run from RFP’s

As a professional, I have always run away from RFP’s (Requests for Proposal.)

Only recently have I come to understand why my stomach churns and I politely demur, when I am told that several companies will be bidding on a solution.

An article on Allan Weiss — known as the consultant’s consultant — helps to point the way. He argues that a client that insists on taking charge of a selling process, and buying primarily on price is making a grave error. Click here for the article.

Also, Jeff Thull who wrote the recently release “Exceptional Selling” argues that winning an RFP is akin to winning the lottery, and is overly focused on the customer’s buying process rather than their decision process.

I agree with them both.

If I were about to have surgery, or hire a lawyer to represent me in a death penalty case in which I am the defendant, I would not think of creating an RFP.

The stakes are just too high for the decision to be made in this manner.

In like manner, an important consulting engagement cannot be reduced to simple to understand decision criteria, and the more important the stakes, the more complex the solution, and the less amenable it is to simple categories of comparison.

Given that my firm specializes in high-stake interventions, the presence of an RFP is an indicator that this job is probably not for me.

P.S.
The only exception I might make could be companies or governments that are restricted from doing business any other way by law. The same principles would apply however, and it’s not too hard to see where management treats the RFP as a smokescreen, rather than a necessary evil to be endured.

P.P.S. After wasting some more more on yet another RFP that went nowhere, I came across the following article:  Why You Should Ignore RFP’s.

Posted on

Structuring a Game

A few months ago I read the most interesting article that is still available on the internet on how to structure software apps by “Putting the Fun in Functional”.

It was one of the most insightful presentation I ever saw, and it only came to me via a friend of mine.

The presenter, Amy Jo Kim, talks about what makes video games, or any worthwhile experience, a sticky one — in the sense that the experience is one that people want to return to time and time again. She dissected the experience to distill the principles underlying the design of good online websites.

Here are the five principles:

  1. Collecting
    People like games that allow them to collect stuff, and show off their collections. Think of the attraction of baseball cards, stamps, coins, paintings, antique furniture, marathons. They particularly like the idea of completing sets, like doing a marathon in each of the 50 states, or all the stamps in a set. A complete set gains more bragging rights than individual pieces.

  2. Points
    People like an opportunity to gain points. They like the idea of being able to increase a score, and love it when they can redeem points for other gifts, and also to use points to compare with other people who are also collecting.

    Frequent flyer programs are classic point-based games.When points are assigned, it becomes possible to assign levels, such as different levels of frequent flyers.

  3. Feedback
    People like to receive feedback, and to find out whether they are on track or not. If system or a person can givem ongoing coaching on how close to they are to some target, the more they are likely to engage in it.

  4. Exchanges
    Sticky systems allow the members of the community to interface with each other either to create open conversation, share information, trade content, give gifts or acknowledge success.

  5. Customization
    When a user can customize their experience to suit their own tastes, they are quite likely to return to use it again and again. At times, the system does the customization for them (like telling them the time they last logged in, or by recommending books to read a la Amazon.)


I am trying to include as many of these ways of thinking into the design of the 2Time Management system.

Basically, the idea is a simple one. I believe that I can design a superstructure around 2Time that will allow a user to:

  1. Collect belts as they move from one level to another, along with a certificate and some other tangible award.

  2. Gain points as they add different skills, and move up from one belt level to another

  3. Gain feedback from a coach as they move up from one belt level to another. Also, as part of an online community, they will be able to gain feedback and ideas from others who are also a looking to improve their time management skills

  4. Exchange tips and celebrate accomplishments as users move from one belt level to another.

  5. This is one part I don’t know how to do. The entire 2Time Mgt system is based on the idea that each person’s needs are different, and that they must continuously be customizing their time management system. Perhaps that is all that is needed – a way to be recognized for having a unique system and a way to change it on an ongoing basis in a structured way.

    Maybe this customization can continue in their relationship with a coach and a community who understands their idiosyncrasies, and can look at a chart of their progress to date and help them to move from one level to another.

    One way that they can help to customize the course itself is by contributing to the design, by adding in their own experience, perhaps through a wiki, and certainly through the 2Time blog. Perhaps in exchange for a certain quality of input and involvement in improving the system, a user can gain points that helps them to advance to the highest level.


For those who might be interested in deep game mechanics, here is an excerpt from the lostgarden blog.

Game mechanics are rule based systems / simulations that facilitate and encourage a user to explore and learn the properties of their possibility space through the use of feedback mechanisms.

It is a simple definition, but it offers a good amount of insight into why games work and how we can make them better.

Feedback loops
Central to the model is the concept of feedback loops that encourage learning. Here is a diagram that should explain the concept in a more visual format:

(click to expand the diagram)

  • Player performs an action.
  • The action causes an effect within the simulated game world. The simulation contains public and private tokens and the causal rules that affect the states of the tokens. The player rarely knows all the rules and is highly unlikely to be able to instantly describe the complete possibility space described by the rules. The unknown portion of the simulation is a “black box” that the player must attempt to decipher.
  • The player receives feedback.
  • With new tools and information in hand, the player performs another action. Using what we’ve learned, we pursue additional pleasure.


Posted on

Surviving an Acquisition

In the news these past few weeks there have been some significant announcements related to acquisitions across the Caribbean region.

One major acquisition that was announced for the first time was that of Neal and Massy’s takeover of BS&T — Barbados’ biggest company.

Also in the news is the announcement that the principals of DB&G (which was acquired by Scotiabank) are leaving the company at the end of June.

Although the LIAT/Caribbean Star merger has not been in the news of late, the sale has still not been completed, although it has been scheduled to happen on June 15th.

The common factor between all three actions is that they were all announced as “mergers of equals.”

The result?

They are actually turning out to be acquisitions, and not mergers.

Lest anyone think that this is a strange occurrence, history is littered with examples of announced mergers that turned out to actually be acquisitions, including AOL-TimeWarner, Daimler-Chrysler, HewlettPackard/Compaq and Sports Authority/Gart.

The fact is that executives almost always start out using merger language in public, unless the takeover is hostile. In fact, they are undergoing acquisitions, especially with respect to the corporate cultures.

It is not too hard to tell who the cultural winner is — the executives of the company being acquired usually don’t last very long.

In a Framework article entitled “Merger of Equals? Equal Shmequal!” by Amie Devero, she argued that a merger is not possible, in cultural terms. (The article can be downloaded by sending email to fwc-equals@aweber.com.) Also, the recent April 2007 Harvard Business Review article entitled Human Due Diligence makes the point that companies often fail to recognize the “cultural acquirer” when undertaking these activities, to their detriment.

While these questions are certainly of issue to shareholders, it is the employees that bear the brunt of initial miscommunication.

They hear talk of “a merger of equals” “nothing will change,” “no layoffs, ” “business as usual” and “the same management will continue.” Given the public track record of mergers to date, they have every reason to be concerned.

Why?

When senior management insists that a merger of equals is underway it may be good for shareholders to hear and believe that the executives between the two companies are planning to harmoniously co-exist in some way. However, it is often a misleading statement for employees.

History shows that employees are much safer believing that a merger actually means that

  • each and every job function will be examined for possible overlaps, and that it is likely that at least some jobs will disappear
  • one company will be culturally dominant over the other
  • one set of executives will remain, while the other will depart
  • there will be major changes and new order will make itself known over time (after all, isn’t that the point of the exercise?)

This is not to say that these are bad outcomes — often they are the best things that can happen to the new, combined company. In the free market of management styles and approaches, let the best company and management team prevail.

However, the problem stems from the fact that most executives in both companies start out by mis-leading their people.

In the very way they announce the “merger” their own people can detect the lie.

It’s a little like a bad version of the Brady Bunch — each parent tell their children that a marriage is about to happen to join two families together, and… “by the way… in case you kids were wondering… nothing will change.”

Executives the world over leading acquisitions persist in painting an ultra-rosy picture of the future for their employees. Their inauthenticity is palpable.

It seems that often, they buy into their own “story,” an even in the colossal failures like AOL-TimeWarner and Daimler-Chrysler, they seem to be able to maintain a scary insistence that all is well, even when everyone in the real world knows that it is not.

What can executives do differently?

In a prior blog I wrote about what I called “High Tone Managers.” These managers focus on being relentlessly positive, to the point that their employees come to distrust everything they say because they are the ones saying it.

An executive leading an acquisition would do much better by being authentic and saying some version of the following, if true:

  • we are about to undergo a very difficult change
  • this is a friendly acquisition (if it is)
  • the odds are against us being successful
  • we think the risk is worth it
  • the culture that we intend to create will hopefully take the best of both companies
  • some jobs will be retrenched, but we are hoping that no people will be forced to leave the company
  • the reasons we are doing this is ….
  • it will take all of us working together to pull it off

The point here is that an acquisition is a shock, and that people will go through the changes they need to go through in order to adapt to it. It is not unlike the 5 phases of grief a survivor journeys through upon the death of a loved one, as defined by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross: Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

Employees need to be helped to go through these stages as quickly as possible, en masse. Their feelings at each point must be validated, acknowledged and given room to live, if even for an instant.

If executives do their job well, employees can be like soldiers rallying to a cause that is greater than themselves.

However, if the job is done poorly, as it usually is, the result is that employees feel like victims who need to protect themselves from something terrible, that their own parents are inflicting upon them for their own benefit.

In Caribbean companies, the employee mood doesn’t get much worse than this.