The financial crisis has significantly increased the complexity of doing business, owing mostly to greater expectations of customers and tighter regulations. Research from the Economist Intelligence Unit found that for 86% of firms, increasing complexity in their operating environment or organisational structure has become a bigger challenge over the past three years.
The report, titled “The Complexity Challenge: How Businesses are Bearing Up”, was commissioned by the Royal Bank of Scotland. Its findings are based on a survey of 300 senior executives worldwide was conducted from October to November last year.
According to the report, only 22% of senior executives think their organisations are well prepared to confront complexity in the future with more than one in four (26%) describing their firms as “complex and chaotic”. For 60% of top executives surveyed, their own firm’s organisational structure is making the situation worse. Almost half say it’s difficult to work out who is responsible for what in their companies and 39% say that, as a result of the lack of transparency, there is considerable duplication of effort.
The single most prominent reason for spiralling complexity highlighted by 38% of respondents, however, is the greater expectations of customers in a post-downturn world.
“It is clear from the research that complexity has become a constraint and a risk for firms,” says Abhik Sen, editor of the report. The study found that complexity has increased the risk of exposure for nearly one in five firms and the majority of survey respondents report that complexity is affecting their firms’ adaptability and hindering the introduction of new products and services.
Overall, businesses are turning to technological solutions to tackle complexity with most opting to simplify their information technology systems. An equally popular solution is to simplify or consolidate product and service portfolios.
“Some of the most successful companies today are the ones that are tackling this challenge head on by simplifying their organisations or business practices,” said Sen
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Why we have too many bosses and too few leaders
Truly great leaders are those who bring out the best in employees
Career paths are littered with many bosses, but few leaders.
“I have asked hundreds of people, in talks around the world, this question: ‘Of all the bosses in your career, how many would you rate as truly great leaders?’ and the answer is always zero to two,” said Rajeev Peshawaria, CEO of the ICLIF (International Centre for Leadership in Finance) Leadership & Governance Centre.
“A truly great leader is someone who brings out the best in you, someone you can learn from, who you can respect for who he is, and who genuinely cares about your success and growth,” said Rajeev during his presentation at the ICLIF Discovery Event on Jan 13.
He said the problem is that too many bosses base their leadership styles on flawed assumptions like “leadership comes from a position of power” and “leadership can be taught through competency models, role plays and formulas”.
“Let’s take Mahatma Gandhi for example, he had no position, no authority and probably never attended a single leadership course in his life. Yet he is acclaimed as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known.”
Rajeev, who is currently writing a book titled Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders which will be published this year, believes that there are only two prerequisites for leaders. “To be a leader, you must understand failure and you must feel deeply about current inadequacies and feel driven to do something about it,” he said.
“Howard Shultz, the founder of Starbucks, experienced failure when his father lost his job and with it the family’s medical insurance. He became driven to build a company that would care for all its employees, and so a leader was born,” continued Rajeev. “The first step to becoming a leader is to close your eyes and clearly see a better future.”
The next step is to “harness human energy” towards that better future.
“To do so, you need to find your source of leadership energy which is rooted in your purpose — the results you want to create — and your values, principles that will guide you when you’re tested,” said Rajeev.
Leaders aren’t lone wolves, they understand the need to enlist co-leaders and to galvanise the entire enterprise to work towards their goals, he added. “When a manager is promoted to a role of leadership, particularly one as high as CEO, that manager needs to move from ‘I’ to ‘we’. To stop trying to produce all the results themselves and create conditions for collective success,” said Rajeev. “Unfortunately, studies show that only one in four make this transition.”
“Most don’t understand that when you become a leader you have to become a net giver and not a net taker. A leader’s primary role is to build the ‘brains’, ‘bones’ and ‘nerves’ of the organisation and not to seek to create results themselves,” explained Rajeev. According to him, an organisation’s brains lie in the vision, strategy and unique capabilities set by its leaders. Its bones are its quality of talent, supporting systems and processes, roles and responsibilities, resource allocation, design and structure. While its nerves are its cultural philosophy, compensation and rewards, quality of leadership and its learning and renewal.
The power of a clear and compelling vision set by a leader is demonstrated in an American Express (Amex) case study, said Rajeev. “In the 1980s, Amex was the leader in credit cards. It became arrogant, so arrogant that customers dropped the brand and it lost market share. The board fired its CEO, James Robinson, in 1993 and brought in Harvey Golub who gave the company one vision statement no one every forgot. ‘To be the world’s most respected service brand’ which he communicated to every level and every department of the company. By the time Golub left Amex in 2001, the company’s share price had multiplied almost six times,” he said.
A company’s greatness doesn’t truly lie in its technology, which can be outdated; its innovation, which can be copied; or even its talent, which can be poached. Instead, the single thing you can create as a leader that is hardest to replicate is its culture, said Rajeev.
During former eBay CEO Meg Whitman’s tenure, she was on a work trip when 9/11 struck. Stranded in an airport, she was unable to get back to her company or contact anyone for hours. When she finally got in touch with her team she said, “First I want you to do three things. Make sure all employees are safe, make sure the servers are safe, and make sure an auction in aid of the victims is started as soon as possible.” Her team replied “Meg, the first two are done and the third is well underway.”
“Leadership is what your team does when you’re not around. The culture Whitman had created was so strong that even in her absence, in a time of crisis, her team knew exactly what to do. Too many bosses say one thing and do another which undermines the corporation’s culture,” said Rajeev.
“The difference between leaders and bosses in a nutshell, is that leaders set out to create a better future while bosses cling to the past and cope with the present. Which do you intend to be?” he concluded
Written by Emily Tan
Career paths are littered with many bosses, but few leaders.
“I have asked hundreds of people, in talks around the world, this question: ‘Of all the bosses in your career, how many would you rate as truly great leaders?’ and the answer is always zero to two,” said Rajeev Peshawaria, CEO of the ICLIF (International Centre for Leadership in Finance) Leadership & Governance Centre.
“A truly great leader is someone who brings out the best in you, someone you can learn from, who you can respect for who he is, and who genuinely cares about your success and growth,” said Rajeev during his presentation at the ICLIF Discovery Event on Jan 13.
He said the problem is that too many bosses base their leadership styles on flawed assumptions like “leadership comes from a position of power” and “leadership can be taught through competency models, role plays and formulas”.
“Let’s take Mahatma Gandhi for example, he had no position, no authority and probably never attended a single leadership course in his life. Yet he is acclaimed as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known.”
Rajeev, who is currently writing a book titled Too Many Bosses, Too Few Leaders which will be published this year, believes that there are only two prerequisites for leaders. “To be a leader, you must understand failure and you must feel deeply about current inadequacies and feel driven to do something about it,” he said.
“Howard Shultz, the founder of Starbucks, experienced failure when his father lost his job and with it the family’s medical insurance. He became driven to build a company that would care for all its employees, and so a leader was born,” continued Rajeev. “The first step to becoming a leader is to close your eyes and clearly see a better future.”
The next step is to “harness human energy” towards that better future.
“To do so, you need to find your source of leadership energy which is rooted in your purpose — the results you want to create — and your values, principles that will guide you when you’re tested,” said Rajeev.
Leaders aren’t lone wolves, they understand the need to enlist co-leaders and to galvanise the entire enterprise to work towards their goals, he added. “When a manager is promoted to a role of leadership, particularly one as high as CEO, that manager needs to move from ‘I’ to ‘we’. To stop trying to produce all the results themselves and create conditions for collective success,” said Rajeev. “Unfortunately, studies show that only one in four make this transition.”
“Most don’t understand that when you become a leader you have to become a net giver and not a net taker. A leader’s primary role is to build the ‘brains’, ‘bones’ and ‘nerves’ of the organisation and not to seek to create results themselves,” explained Rajeev. According to him, an organisation’s brains lie in the vision, strategy and unique capabilities set by its leaders. Its bones are its quality of talent, supporting systems and processes, roles and responsibilities, resource allocation, design and structure. While its nerves are its cultural philosophy, compensation and rewards, quality of leadership and its learning and renewal.
The power of a clear and compelling vision set by a leader is demonstrated in an American Express (Amex) case study, said Rajeev. “In the 1980s, Amex was the leader in credit cards. It became arrogant, so arrogant that customers dropped the brand and it lost market share. The board fired its CEO, James Robinson, in 1993 and brought in Harvey Golub who gave the company one vision statement no one every forgot. ‘To be the world’s most respected service brand’ which he communicated to every level and every department of the company. By the time Golub left Amex in 2001, the company’s share price had multiplied almost six times,” he said.
A company’s greatness doesn’t truly lie in its technology, which can be outdated; its innovation, which can be copied; or even its talent, which can be poached. Instead, the single thing you can create as a leader that is hardest to replicate is its culture, said Rajeev.
During former eBay CEO Meg Whitman’s tenure, she was on a work trip when 9/11 struck. Stranded in an airport, she was unable to get back to her company or contact anyone for hours. When she finally got in touch with her team she said, “First I want you to do three things. Make sure all employees are safe, make sure the servers are safe, and make sure an auction in aid of the victims is started as soon as possible.” Her team replied “Meg, the first two are done and the third is well underway.”
“Leadership is what your team does when you’re not around. The culture Whitman had created was so strong that even in her absence, in a time of crisis, her team knew exactly what to do. Too many bosses say one thing and do another which undermines the corporation’s culture,” said Rajeev.
“The difference between leaders and bosses in a nutshell, is that leaders set out to create a better future while bosses cling to the past and cope with the present. Which do you intend to be?” he concluded
Written by Emily Tan
It pays to perform
The majority of average performers in Malaysia should consider upping the ante at the workplace because it pays to be a top performer — twice as much, in fact.
According to the AonHewitt Salary Increase Survey 2010-2011, salary increases for high performers who “exceeded expectations” in Malaysia were about twice that of an average performer who only “met expectations”.
However, only a minority of Malaysian employees surveyed had exceeded expectations (29%) while more than half (58%) were deemed average performers.
“There is great potential for high performers”, said AonHewitt Consulting Southeast Asia broadbased compensation leader Madhvi Pande during the “HRevolution
Towards a High Income Nation” seminar in late October.
In Malaysia, only 10.6% of total employees working at the companies surveyed were considered “critical talent”, which was lower than the Asia-Pacific regional average of 13.5%.
The Hewitt Salary Increase Survey involved more than 3,000 companies in 23 markets across Asia-Pacific. Among the participating markets were Australia, Bahrain, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Variable pay plans continued to be popular in Asia-Pacific in 2010 with more than 90% of organisations surveyed having such plans in place. In Malaysia, 84% of the firms surveyed were employing variable pay plans, of which individual performance awards and special recognition awards were the most commonly used.
Regionally, most companies utilised individual performance awards, followed by long-term incentives and special recognition awards.
According to the Salary Increase Survey, businesses across the region showed steady improvement over the last two years, with growing optimism for 2011. In
terms of business outlook, 35.2% of businesses believed there was “slight improvement” this year while 45.1% of companies had a similar outlook for next year.
Only 5.3% of organisations saw “significant improvement” in business this year but 18.2% of respondents were optimistic that businesses would improve significantly in 2011. This year, 15.9% and 3.1% of businesses declined slightly and significantly, compared with only 4.1% and 0.5% of corporations who foresee a reoccurrence next year.
In Malaysia, more organisations indicated business improvement this year — either slightly (45.9%) or significantly (15.6%), compared with the 36.9% that
were “stabilising” and 1.6% that experienced a “slight decline”.
Findings showed that nearly all Asia-Pacific markets projected higher increases for 2011 than in 2010, while actual salary increases this year surpassed last year’s forecasts. The highest expected salary increases for 2011 were in China, India and Vietnam.
“Malaysia’s economy has experienced an accelerated growth in 2010 with its GDP growth expected to turn from -1.7% in 2009 to 7% in 2010. It is projected to grow a further 5% to 6% in 2011,” said Aon-Hewitt Southeast Asia Rewards Consultant Rachel Jaya Prakash, citing figures from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).
According to EIU figures, Malaysia’s inflation was expected to be at 1.7% this year and is forecast to be higher at 2.6% in 2011.
An improved business and economy outlook meant less salary freezes and salary cuts compared to 2009, said Prakash.
Last year, 40% of organisations employed salary freezes but the number had since dropped to 8.3% this year, with even less (2.3%) salary freezes expected in 2011. Only 5.8% of companies cut salaries in 2009, with almost none planning to do so this year and next.
However, while variable pay plans hold much promise for top performers, plans tend to fail because “employees believe that payouts are their entitlement”,
said Madhvi.
“There’s also poor communication of plan objectives and employees feel they have little ability to impact the results,” she said.
The success of these variable pay programmes was contingent upon the support of top management, the setting of realistic goals and targets, as well as clear communication.
Procter & Gamble Malaysia country HR manager for Singapore and Malaysia Surya Rai said goal-setting is important because “if people feel that targets are not achievable or if they have little impact on results, they will not want to achieve it”.
“At P&G, we believe in ‘No Surprises’. Employees value consistent employment experience and predictable outcomes. Outcomes need to be equitable so setting
the context and communicating that is key,” said Surya, speaking at the AonHewitt seminar.
Salary plans should be realtime and dynamic and led by the line managers, not HR. “Besides providing a historical perspective, team leaders can talk to each
other for a peer-to-peer context,” she added.
“Pay for performance is not a single conversation but series of conversations,” said Procter & Gamble Malaysia sales director Swadheen Sharma.
Swadheen says it is important to not just communicate performance ratings during one-on-ones but also to discuss the behaviours that contribute to the promotion and future steps for improvement.
“Place everything in context — performance, promotion and the economy,” he said.
First-time managers must be coached on how to handle communication of rewards scenarios.
“Invest time in first-time managers, the business can wait. The way we see it, any good quality recruit can be a CEO many years down the road,” said Swadheen
According to the AonHewitt Salary Increase Survey 2010-2011, salary increases for high performers who “exceeded expectations” in Malaysia were about twice that of an average performer who only “met expectations”.
However, only a minority of Malaysian employees surveyed had exceeded expectations (29%) while more than half (58%) were deemed average performers.
“There is great potential for high performers”, said AonHewitt Consulting Southeast Asia broadbased compensation leader Madhvi Pande during the “HRevolution
Towards a High Income Nation” seminar in late October.
In Malaysia, only 10.6% of total employees working at the companies surveyed were considered “critical talent”, which was lower than the Asia-Pacific regional average of 13.5%.
The Hewitt Salary Increase Survey involved more than 3,000 companies in 23 markets across Asia-Pacific. Among the participating markets were Australia, Bahrain, China, Egypt, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Kuwait, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Arab Emirates and Vietnam.
Variable pay plans continued to be popular in Asia-Pacific in 2010 with more than 90% of organisations surveyed having such plans in place. In Malaysia, 84% of the firms surveyed were employing variable pay plans, of which individual performance awards and special recognition awards were the most commonly used.
Regionally, most companies utilised individual performance awards, followed by long-term incentives and special recognition awards.
According to the Salary Increase Survey, businesses across the region showed steady improvement over the last two years, with growing optimism for 2011. In
terms of business outlook, 35.2% of businesses believed there was “slight improvement” this year while 45.1% of companies had a similar outlook for next year.
Only 5.3% of organisations saw “significant improvement” in business this year but 18.2% of respondents were optimistic that businesses would improve significantly in 2011. This year, 15.9% and 3.1% of businesses declined slightly and significantly, compared with only 4.1% and 0.5% of corporations who foresee a reoccurrence next year.
In Malaysia, more organisations indicated business improvement this year — either slightly (45.9%) or significantly (15.6%), compared with the 36.9% that
were “stabilising” and 1.6% that experienced a “slight decline”.
Findings showed that nearly all Asia-Pacific markets projected higher increases for 2011 than in 2010, while actual salary increases this year surpassed last year’s forecasts. The highest expected salary increases for 2011 were in China, India and Vietnam.
“Malaysia’s economy has experienced an accelerated growth in 2010 with its GDP growth expected to turn from -1.7% in 2009 to 7% in 2010. It is projected to grow a further 5% to 6% in 2011,” said Aon-Hewitt Southeast Asia Rewards Consultant Rachel Jaya Prakash, citing figures from the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU).
According to EIU figures, Malaysia’s inflation was expected to be at 1.7% this year and is forecast to be higher at 2.6% in 2011.
An improved business and economy outlook meant less salary freezes and salary cuts compared to 2009, said Prakash.
Last year, 40% of organisations employed salary freezes but the number had since dropped to 8.3% this year, with even less (2.3%) salary freezes expected in 2011. Only 5.8% of companies cut salaries in 2009, with almost none planning to do so this year and next.
However, while variable pay plans hold much promise for top performers, plans tend to fail because “employees believe that payouts are their entitlement”,
said Madhvi.
“There’s also poor communication of plan objectives and employees feel they have little ability to impact the results,” she said.
The success of these variable pay programmes was contingent upon the support of top management, the setting of realistic goals and targets, as well as clear communication.
Procter & Gamble Malaysia country HR manager for Singapore and Malaysia Surya Rai said goal-setting is important because “if people feel that targets are not achievable or if they have little impact on results, they will not want to achieve it”.
“At P&G, we believe in ‘No Surprises’. Employees value consistent employment experience and predictable outcomes. Outcomes need to be equitable so setting
the context and communicating that is key,” said Surya, speaking at the AonHewitt seminar.
Salary plans should be realtime and dynamic and led by the line managers, not HR. “Besides providing a historical perspective, team leaders can talk to each
other for a peer-to-peer context,” she added.
“Pay for performance is not a single conversation but series of conversations,” said Procter & Gamble Malaysia sales director Swadheen Sharma.
Swadheen says it is important to not just communicate performance ratings during one-on-ones but also to discuss the behaviours that contribute to the promotion and future steps for improvement.
“Place everything in context — performance, promotion and the economy,” he said.
First-time managers must be coached on how to handle communication of rewards scenarios.
“Invest time in first-time managers, the business can wait. The way we see it, any good quality recruit can be a CEO many years down the road,” said Swadheen
Malaysian job seekers prefer Western firms
Job seekers in Malaysia overwhelmingly prefer to work for Western rather than Asian companies. A survey by global human resource consultancy Aon Hewitt and online careers site Jobstreet.com found that 71% of Malaysians chose US companies as their employer of choice, followed by UK and Australian companies. Among Asian firms, Japanese firms emerged tops with 52% of Malaysian respondents saying they would pick these companies.
Conducted last October, the Jobseekers Preference Survey collected about 14,000 responses from job seekers in Asia, including 3,440 from Malaysia, on their perception of companies in the region. The survey spanned eight countries including Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and India.
The regional study found the results from Malaysia to be consistent with the rest of Asia. In general, job seekers in Asia prefer to work for Western firms, with 67% choosing western firms over Asian firms. At the other end of the spectrum, Indian and Chinese employers were ranked as the least preferred with preference ratings of 28% and 30%. In fact, 27% prefer not to work for Indian companies and 24% felt the same way about Chinese firms.
According to Aon Hewitt, the study indicated a substantial gap between Asian and Western companies in terms of their employer brand.
“What strikes us is how far behind the Asian companies are in terms of being the preferred employer. With a tight job market and a strong employment outlook for 2011 in the region, Asian companies would need to enhance their value proposition as an employer to attract the talent they want, both at home and around the region,” said Yusuke Higaki, country manager of Jobstreet.com Japan.
The reason for this difference is the perception that Western employers have better working environments than Asian employers. The study found that 95% of Malaysian respondents rated an “excellent working environment” as the most important factor when selecting an employer.
“Our analysis shows that the desire to work for a company with an excellent working environment is positively correlated with the desire to work for American or British companies but negatively correlated with the desire to work for an Asian company with the exception of Japanese companies,” said Rick Payne, Aon Hewitt’s regional practice leader for human capital.
Other key attraction factors were overseas training and development opportunities (75%) and the perception of the product or service quality of the company (68%). Least important was the nationality of local top management. Only 37% considered having local nationals as local top management to be either “extremely important” or “very important”.
For Malaysian companies looking to internationalise, one key talent challenge is turning the negative perception of their working environment to a positive one, observed the report. This negative perception could become a huge stumbling block for Asian companies looking to attract top talent in Malaysia, added Payne.
“If Asian companies want to compete for top talent in Malaysia and the region, they need to invest into building an attractive and sustainable employer brand,” he said.
Conducted last October, the Jobseekers Preference Survey collected about 14,000 responses from job seekers in Asia, including 3,440 from Malaysia, on their perception of companies in the region. The survey spanned eight countries including Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and India.
The regional study found the results from Malaysia to be consistent with the rest of Asia. In general, job seekers in Asia prefer to work for Western firms, with 67% choosing western firms over Asian firms. At the other end of the spectrum, Indian and Chinese employers were ranked as the least preferred with preference ratings of 28% and 30%. In fact, 27% prefer not to work for Indian companies and 24% felt the same way about Chinese firms.
According to Aon Hewitt, the study indicated a substantial gap between Asian and Western companies in terms of their employer brand.
“What strikes us is how far behind the Asian companies are in terms of being the preferred employer. With a tight job market and a strong employment outlook for 2011 in the region, Asian companies would need to enhance their value proposition as an employer to attract the talent they want, both at home and around the region,” said Yusuke Higaki, country manager of Jobstreet.com Japan.
The reason for this difference is the perception that Western employers have better working environments than Asian employers. The study found that 95% of Malaysian respondents rated an “excellent working environment” as the most important factor when selecting an employer.
“Our analysis shows that the desire to work for a company with an excellent working environment is positively correlated with the desire to work for American or British companies but negatively correlated with the desire to work for an Asian company with the exception of Japanese companies,” said Rick Payne, Aon Hewitt’s regional practice leader for human capital.
Other key attraction factors were overseas training and development opportunities (75%) and the perception of the product or service quality of the company (68%). Least important was the nationality of local top management. Only 37% considered having local nationals as local top management to be either “extremely important” or “very important”.
For Malaysian companies looking to internationalise, one key talent challenge is turning the negative perception of their working environment to a positive one, observed the report. This negative perception could become a huge stumbling block for Asian companies looking to attract top talent in Malaysia, added Payne.
“If Asian companies want to compete for top talent in Malaysia and the region, they need to invest into building an attractive and sustainable employer brand,” he said.
10 management lessons from the dabbawalas
1. Build your organisation around people
Much of the dabbawala organisation’s success is due to their human resource system, in the way they hire, develop, manage and reward people, says Stefan Thomke, William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. “It’s an organisation built around people, not around technology.”
2. Commitment and attitude trump qualifications
Although the dabbawalas are semi-literate, they are “suitably educated” for their jobs because they believe in serving the customer above all else. “We couldn’t hire MBAs,” says Manish Tripathi, founder and chairman of the Dabbawala Foundation.
3. Give employees a sense of purpose and value
The dedication of the dabbawalas can be partly attributed to the value they place on the work they do. “Our dabbawalas view their work as worship. They are grateful to have work, and to serve others by delivering food is to serve God,” says Manish. As a result, he says, everyone in Mumbai respects the dabbawalas for the work they do.
4. Stay true to your core purpose
While the dabbawala organisation has received suggestions to branch out into other business lines, such as cooking the food instead of merely supplying it, it has stayed true to its century-old purpose. “We focus on delivering dabbas to our customers as best as we can,” says Manish.
5. Recruit carefully
New dabbawalas go through a strict six-month probationary period and are hired from only the villages around Pune, so they suit the working culture. “We are all one family, from the Vakari sect. We eat lunch together and we pray together,” says Manish.
6. Don’t be too lean, build in buffers“Each dabbawala is capable of collecting up to 20 dabbas a day – but this is the maximum. Usually, in a group, each dabbawala will collect less so that if a dabbawala is sick the others can compensate. New dabbawalas are hired only to replace a member or when there are too many new customers in an area,” says Manish.
7. Encourage self-discipline
The dabbawalas are self-motivated to be disciplined, not because they have a superior telling them what to do, says Manish. “They work right because it’s the right thing to do. Self-discipline is the way to make an organisation great.”
8. Create a sense of ownership
The dabbawala organisation has no employees because every member is a shareholder, says Manish. “So if one member does less work and earns less money, he’s also hurting himself.”
9. Maintain a flat organisation
Harvard Business School’s case study notes that the dabbawala organisation has evolved into a flat organisational structure to enable quick decision-making.
10. Abandon bad customers“One customer should not cause thousands to suffer. If a Mumbai housewife is late with the dabba for more than one week, we no longer serve that customer,” says Manish
Written by Emily Tan
Note:
Mumbai dabbawalas
Most of their workers are illiterate and the last major upgrade the 125 year-old organisation made to its delivery chain was the bicycle. Yet the Mumbai dabbawalas deliver and return 130,000 dabbas, or tiffins, every day. According to Forbes magazine, they have a Six Sigma rating of 99.999999, which means less than one out of every six million deliveries goes amiss.
Since the publication of the article in Forbes in 1998, the dabbawalas have been the darlings of the international media scene. They have been visited by Prince Charles and Richard Branson, who worked as a dabbawala for a day. They have also been studied by management schools around the world, all keen to learn just how they do it.
A cooperative of 5,000 members, the dabbawalas of Mumbai collect the filled dabbas from homes all across Mumbai and deliver them to the requisite offices by lunchtime, which is 12.30pm, traversing the length of Mumbai via the train system. At 2pm they retrieve the now-empty dabbas and return them to their originating households, completing an estimated 260,000 transactions in a city of 10.5 million people, accurately and on time
Much of the dabbawala organisation’s success is due to their human resource system, in the way they hire, develop, manage and reward people, says Stefan Thomke, William Barclay Harding Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School. “It’s an organisation built around people, not around technology.”
2. Commitment and attitude trump qualifications
Although the dabbawalas are semi-literate, they are “suitably educated” for their jobs because they believe in serving the customer above all else. “We couldn’t hire MBAs,” says Manish Tripathi, founder and chairman of the Dabbawala Foundation.
3. Give employees a sense of purpose and value
The dedication of the dabbawalas can be partly attributed to the value they place on the work they do. “Our dabbawalas view their work as worship. They are grateful to have work, and to serve others by delivering food is to serve God,” says Manish. As a result, he says, everyone in Mumbai respects the dabbawalas for the work they do.
4. Stay true to your core purpose
While the dabbawala organisation has received suggestions to branch out into other business lines, such as cooking the food instead of merely supplying it, it has stayed true to its century-old purpose. “We focus on delivering dabbas to our customers as best as we can,” says Manish.
5. Recruit carefully
New dabbawalas go through a strict six-month probationary period and are hired from only the villages around Pune, so they suit the working culture. “We are all one family, from the Vakari sect. We eat lunch together and we pray together,” says Manish.
6. Don’t be too lean, build in buffers“Each dabbawala is capable of collecting up to 20 dabbas a day – but this is the maximum. Usually, in a group, each dabbawala will collect less so that if a dabbawala is sick the others can compensate. New dabbawalas are hired only to replace a member or when there are too many new customers in an area,” says Manish.
7. Encourage self-discipline
The dabbawalas are self-motivated to be disciplined, not because they have a superior telling them what to do, says Manish. “They work right because it’s the right thing to do. Self-discipline is the way to make an organisation great.”
8. Create a sense of ownership
The dabbawala organisation has no employees because every member is a shareholder, says Manish. “So if one member does less work and earns less money, he’s also hurting himself.”
9. Maintain a flat organisation
Harvard Business School’s case study notes that the dabbawala organisation has evolved into a flat organisational structure to enable quick decision-making.
10. Abandon bad customers“One customer should not cause thousands to suffer. If a Mumbai housewife is late with the dabba for more than one week, we no longer serve that customer,” says Manish
Written by Emily Tan
Note:
Mumbai dabbawalas
Most of their workers are illiterate and the last major upgrade the 125 year-old organisation made to its delivery chain was the bicycle. Yet the Mumbai dabbawalas deliver and return 130,000 dabbas, or tiffins, every day. According to Forbes magazine, they have a Six Sigma rating of 99.999999, which means less than one out of every six million deliveries goes amiss.
Since the publication of the article in Forbes in 1998, the dabbawalas have been the darlings of the international media scene. They have been visited by Prince Charles and Richard Branson, who worked as a dabbawala for a day. They have also been studied by management schools around the world, all keen to learn just how they do it.
A cooperative of 5,000 members, the dabbawalas of Mumbai collect the filled dabbas from homes all across Mumbai and deliver them to the requisite offices by lunchtime, which is 12.30pm, traversing the length of Mumbai via the train system. At 2pm they retrieve the now-empty dabbas and return them to their originating households, completing an estimated 260,000 transactions in a city of 10.5 million people, accurately and on time
Safeguarding corporate reputation before it’s too late
The saying pride comes before a fall rings true for many companies that do not include measures to protect their corporate reputation, especially when a crisis hits.
“A lot of companies think, ‘This could never happen to us’. So they’ll make investment decisions on projects and activities but do not consider the downside risk in terms of reputation,” said Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) director of branding Ray Perry.
Perry said findings from CIMA’s corporate reputation report launched in November showed that most companies do not plan around reputation when they’re setting strategies or looking five years ahead. The report titled “Reputation: Why it matters and how you can manage it” was based on global case studies between July and September 2010.
Most firms had key performance indicators (KPIs) or business drivers but rarely included any based on reputation.
“At the strategic level, there should be a focus on reputation. If you’re going to create an oil rig, you’ve got to not just work out the construction costs and potential revenue streams but also take into account the costs should something go wrong,” said Perry who was in Kuala Lumpur in November in conjunction with the World Congress of Accountants.
He said what a company does within the first 24 hours after its reputation had been threatened is especially crucial. “The model role of the CEO is not just managing books and keeping a company moving along but knowing what to do when the reputation is at stake,” said Perry.
Perry likened a corporate reputation to a deposit account and a corporate brand to a current account. “The reputation sets deep in the business and is the foundation on which everything else is built. You can build your brand through marketing activities but you can’t just alter your reputation overnight — it’s a long-term game,” he said.
For companies like Enron, their corporate reputation was beyond redemption, he said.
Perry said many companies did not give much thought to their corporate reputation because the CEO himself does not understand the business he is in. “(The late management guru) Peter Drucker once said that the first thing you should ask any CEO is ‘what business are you in’. If they can’t answer quickly what their business stands for, they probably don’t understand their own business. And if they don’t know, what more the employees and supply chain?” he said.
In times of crisis, Perry believes that the CEO should not only be at the forefront of corporate strategy but should also be held responsible when the company’s reputation is in crisis.
“There are many reasons for being fired as CEO. Among the most common is not producing the profitable returns that shareholders expect but equally valid is undermining the value of business and affecting share price,” he said.
Corporate reputation makes business sense as the higher the reputational damage, the more difficult it would be to borrow money at the most effective rate.
The time to be planning for a crisis is when there isn’t one, said Perry. “No good starting to plan when it happens. You’ve got to assume the worst, be aware of the strategic risk and know what to do in the worst situation.”
While it is not impossible to rebuild one’s corporate reputation, failure to manage it earlier is costly, he said, citing Enron as an example. “Rebuilding reputation takes time and money. In Enron’s case, they could not recover and filed for bankruptcy because they could not secure investments. Nobody trusted them anymore,” said Perry.
Perry said that companies should look at whether they had KPIs and reward mechanisms in place to support and encourage employees to uphold the company’s values and reputation.
Training is another way of inculcating the culture of upholding a company’s reputation. “When you join a company and are undergoing induction, does the leader tell you what their companies stand for? Many people tell you about product and price points but not what they’re about.”
A company’s reputation can be measured in various ways, said Perry. “To what extent would you recommend this to a friend, on a scale of one to 10? Many MNCs that use this reputational metric view a ranking of eight to nine as excellent. And if 80% or more people say your reputation is good, then you’re world-class,” he said
“A lot of companies think, ‘This could never happen to us’. So they’ll make investment decisions on projects and activities but do not consider the downside risk in terms of reputation,” said Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA) director of branding Ray Perry.
Perry said findings from CIMA’s corporate reputation report launched in November showed that most companies do not plan around reputation when they’re setting strategies or looking five years ahead. The report titled “Reputation: Why it matters and how you can manage it” was based on global case studies between July and September 2010.
Most firms had key performance indicators (KPIs) or business drivers but rarely included any based on reputation.
“At the strategic level, there should be a focus on reputation. If you’re going to create an oil rig, you’ve got to not just work out the construction costs and potential revenue streams but also take into account the costs should something go wrong,” said Perry who was in Kuala Lumpur in November in conjunction with the World Congress of Accountants.
He said what a company does within the first 24 hours after its reputation had been threatened is especially crucial. “The model role of the CEO is not just managing books and keeping a company moving along but knowing what to do when the reputation is at stake,” said Perry.
Perry likened a corporate reputation to a deposit account and a corporate brand to a current account. “The reputation sets deep in the business and is the foundation on which everything else is built. You can build your brand through marketing activities but you can’t just alter your reputation overnight — it’s a long-term game,” he said.
For companies like Enron, their corporate reputation was beyond redemption, he said.
Perry said many companies did not give much thought to their corporate reputation because the CEO himself does not understand the business he is in. “(The late management guru) Peter Drucker once said that the first thing you should ask any CEO is ‘what business are you in’. If they can’t answer quickly what their business stands for, they probably don’t understand their own business. And if they don’t know, what more the employees and supply chain?” he said.
In times of crisis, Perry believes that the CEO should not only be at the forefront of corporate strategy but should also be held responsible when the company’s reputation is in crisis.
“There are many reasons for being fired as CEO. Among the most common is not producing the profitable returns that shareholders expect but equally valid is undermining the value of business and affecting share price,” he said.
Corporate reputation makes business sense as the higher the reputational damage, the more difficult it would be to borrow money at the most effective rate.
The time to be planning for a crisis is when there isn’t one, said Perry. “No good starting to plan when it happens. You’ve got to assume the worst, be aware of the strategic risk and know what to do in the worst situation.”
While it is not impossible to rebuild one’s corporate reputation, failure to manage it earlier is costly, he said, citing Enron as an example. “Rebuilding reputation takes time and money. In Enron’s case, they could not recover and filed for bankruptcy because they could not secure investments. Nobody trusted them anymore,” said Perry.
Perry said that companies should look at whether they had KPIs and reward mechanisms in place to support and encourage employees to uphold the company’s values and reputation.
Training is another way of inculcating the culture of upholding a company’s reputation. “When you join a company and are undergoing induction, does the leader tell you what their companies stand for? Many people tell you about product and price points but not what they’re about.”
A company’s reputation can be measured in various ways, said Perry. “To what extent would you recommend this to a friend, on a scale of one to 10? Many MNCs that use this reputational metric view a ranking of eight to nine as excellent. And if 80% or more people say your reputation is good, then you’re world-class,” he said
Common sense management is still uncommon
After over a decade of research, Stanford University School of Business Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Dr Jeffrey Pfeffer, is no longer surprised that top level managers persist in making foolish decisions based on “gut”, the latest management fad, or obsolete practices that are proven to have failed time and again.
“You would think that making decisions based on facts and evidence, and to revisit old ideas based on new facts and evidence, is common sense management. But it really isn’t — not for most companies and definitely not by many governments,” says Pfeffer.
Pfeffer is the author and co-author of 13 management books. Two of these — Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (2006) and What Were They Thinking? Unconventional Wisdom About Management (2007) — address the concept of evidence-based management.
“Evidence-based management is not much different from evidence-based medicine. The idea is simple. Instead of making decisions based on what other companies do or past performance, make decisions based on facts derived from studies and controlled experiments,” explains Pfeffer.
Pfeffer's latest book Power: Why Some People Have It - And Others Don't, published last September, is about surviving and succeeding in organisations
The idea, says Pfeffer, is to turn the practice of management from an art into a science. “Companies like to base decisions on intuition and beliefs. It’s as if they feel that if they have to make decisions based on facts, they lose power. This is actually understandable. After all, evidence-based medicine took 200 years to develop,” he says with an exasperated sigh.
“Take US firms for example. Despite the fact that research has proven that layoffs hurt companies and the economy, conventional wisdom still advocates downsizing to drive a company’s stock price higher and increase profitability. So during the credit crisis, US companies downsized,” says Pfeffer.
In an article Pfeffer wrote for Newsweek’s cover in February last year titled “Lay off the layoffs”, he points to a study of 1,445 downsizing announcements between 1990 and 1998 which also reported that downsizing had a negative effect on stock-market returns. “Not to mention the detrimental effects to the morale and health of both the unemployed and the overworked employed. Layoffs, literally, kill people.”
“On the other side, there’s proof that not downsizing works. In the wake of 9/11 the airline industry announced tens of thousands of layoffs. Today, the only airline that didn’t cut staff, Southwest, is the largest domestic US airline and has a market capitalisation bigger than all its competitors combined,” says Pfeffer. “And yet, this downturn, the airlines, besides Southwest, downsized again.”
Companies also have a tendency to take a liking to an idea and immediately implement it everywhere, continues Pfeffer.
“Why not apply it on a smaller scale and collect data objectively to test its effectiveness?” he asks.
The key, he adds, is objectivity. “There is a danger that people will see what they expect, or want, to see. The data must be collected in a way that is as objective and as unbiased as possible.”
Again, paying attention to the facts is not as simple as it sounds. Falling back on the field of medicine again, Pfeffer points to Ignaz Semmelweis, an Austrian obstetrician who discovered the germ theory of disease in 1847. “He noted that the death rate of mothers who delivered in his hospital was 20%, compared with a 1% death rate for those delivering at home. He implemented hand washing with chlorine bleach and the death rate in his hospital fell to 1%. When he presented the facts to his superiors, he was fired. In fact, it took 30 years before germ theory was accepted.”
When presented with facts that conflict with internal beliefs, people tend to either ignore the facts or twist them to suit those beliefs, says Pfeffer. “Managers love the idea of a ‘lean and mean’ organisation and they persist in believing it works. Never mind that no one wants to work for a mean organisation and being too lean leads to overwork. Overwork, in turn leads to tired workers who are less creative and make more mistakes.”
Achieving a system of evidence-based management is achieving wisdom, says Pfeffer with a chuckle. “The idea of wisdom, dating back to Plato and Socrates, is to know what you don’t know. By understanding the limits of your knowledge, you will have less trouble facing unpleasant facts. Too many leaders like to surround themselves with ‘happy talk’ and discourage truth-telling,” he explains.
Leadership, says Pfeffer, is less about making decisions in a prophet-like fashion than about creating the right environment where others are better able to make good decisions. “As a professor, my job is not to take everyone’s tests for them, but to teach them to analyse and think so they can perform well. Leaders should be in the business of teaching people how to think.”
A leader who leads based on evidence has the ability to say ‘I don’t know’, encourages dissent and independent thought and allows employees to learn from mistakes, says Pfeffer. “Also, don’t shoot the messenger, encourage employees to bring problems and issues to the light.”
“You would think that making decisions based on facts and evidence, and to revisit old ideas based on new facts and evidence, is common sense management. But it really isn’t — not for most companies and definitely not by many governments,” says Pfeffer.
Pfeffer is the author and co-author of 13 management books. Two of these — Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (2006) and What Were They Thinking? Unconventional Wisdom About Management (2007) — address the concept of evidence-based management.
“Evidence-based management is not much different from evidence-based medicine. The idea is simple. Instead of making decisions based on what other companies do or past performance, make decisions based on facts derived from studies and controlled experiments,” explains Pfeffer.
Pfeffer's latest book Power: Why Some People Have It - And Others Don't, published last September, is about surviving and succeeding in organisations
The idea, says Pfeffer, is to turn the practice of management from an art into a science. “Companies like to base decisions on intuition and beliefs. It’s as if they feel that if they have to make decisions based on facts, they lose power. This is actually understandable. After all, evidence-based medicine took 200 years to develop,” he says with an exasperated sigh.
“Take US firms for example. Despite the fact that research has proven that layoffs hurt companies and the economy, conventional wisdom still advocates downsizing to drive a company’s stock price higher and increase profitability. So during the credit crisis, US companies downsized,” says Pfeffer.
In an article Pfeffer wrote for Newsweek’s cover in February last year titled “Lay off the layoffs”, he points to a study of 1,445 downsizing announcements between 1990 and 1998 which also reported that downsizing had a negative effect on stock-market returns. “Not to mention the detrimental effects to the morale and health of both the unemployed and the overworked employed. Layoffs, literally, kill people.”
“On the other side, there’s proof that not downsizing works. In the wake of 9/11 the airline industry announced tens of thousands of layoffs. Today, the only airline that didn’t cut staff, Southwest, is the largest domestic US airline and has a market capitalisation bigger than all its competitors combined,” says Pfeffer. “And yet, this downturn, the airlines, besides Southwest, downsized again.”
Companies also have a tendency to take a liking to an idea and immediately implement it everywhere, continues Pfeffer.
“Why not apply it on a smaller scale and collect data objectively to test its effectiveness?” he asks.
The key, he adds, is objectivity. “There is a danger that people will see what they expect, or want, to see. The data must be collected in a way that is as objective and as unbiased as possible.”
Again, paying attention to the facts is not as simple as it sounds. Falling back on the field of medicine again, Pfeffer points to Ignaz Semmelweis, an Austrian obstetrician who discovered the germ theory of disease in 1847. “He noted that the death rate of mothers who delivered in his hospital was 20%, compared with a 1% death rate for those delivering at home. He implemented hand washing with chlorine bleach and the death rate in his hospital fell to 1%. When he presented the facts to his superiors, he was fired. In fact, it took 30 years before germ theory was accepted.”
When presented with facts that conflict with internal beliefs, people tend to either ignore the facts or twist them to suit those beliefs, says Pfeffer. “Managers love the idea of a ‘lean and mean’ organisation and they persist in believing it works. Never mind that no one wants to work for a mean organisation and being too lean leads to overwork. Overwork, in turn leads to tired workers who are less creative and make more mistakes.”
Achieving a system of evidence-based management is achieving wisdom, says Pfeffer with a chuckle. “The idea of wisdom, dating back to Plato and Socrates, is to know what you don’t know. By understanding the limits of your knowledge, you will have less trouble facing unpleasant facts. Too many leaders like to surround themselves with ‘happy talk’ and discourage truth-telling,” he explains.
Leadership, says Pfeffer, is less about making decisions in a prophet-like fashion than about creating the right environment where others are better able to make good decisions. “As a professor, my job is not to take everyone’s tests for them, but to teach them to analyse and think so they can perform well. Leaders should be in the business of teaching people how to think.”
A leader who leads based on evidence has the ability to say ‘I don’t know’, encourages dissent and independent thought and allows employees to learn from mistakes, says Pfeffer. “Also, don’t shoot the messenger, encourage employees to bring problems and issues to the light.”
Saturday, May 14, 2011
learn from the ‘monk’
Waking up at 5am every day isn’t what most people are willing to do, no matter how hungry for success they are. Not unless you’re Robin Sharma, author of best-selling book The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari. Before dawn, the Canadian gets on the treadmill, listens to podcasts while he’s at it, writes in his journal and then has his breakfast at 6am.
Sounds pretty intense, but Sharma believes this daily routine has kept him healthy. “It’s not the sexiest of tips, but it’s practical. Just do this for 30 days and watch what happens to your energy level,” he told the 400-strong audience during his talk titled “How the best win in business — The new essentials of leadership and exceptional performance” on May 6.
Being physically fit is especially important for leaders to win during times of turbulence, he says. Robin himself has not fallen sick once even though he travels extensively — in the past one year he has travelled to 53 countries.
On the day of the interview itself, which was a day before the talk, he had just flown in from Singapore in the morning. He appeared slightly tired but it didn’t show once he started to talk about leadership.
“I believe the old model of leadership is dead. The old model, in which only the managing director shows leadership, is obsolete. Look at what happened with Lehman Brothers; look at what’s happened with Wall Street right now. I think with all the disruption, old and outdated companies are being washed away,” says Sharma.
“The new model of leadership [says that] whether you work in the office or boardroom, you can show leadership in your work. It’s about innovation, passion, excellence, wowing customers and so on,” he says. In March this year, Sharma published a book titled The Leader Who Had No Title. Until today, the former lawyer has written 10 best-selling books on leadership and personal development.
“Regardless of what you do, you can lead without a title. So whether you drive a taxi, whether you’re a manager in an organisation, or whether you work in a restaurant, you can do your work like Mozart composed music, like how Picasso painted, or how Beckham bends the ball. The leader who has no title is about being extraordinary in your work and in your life,” he says.
Having worked with the best companies in the world such as General Electric, Microsoft, Nike and FedEx, Robin shared with the audience how these organisations became the leaders in their industry.
To be the best in your field, you need to do what the best of the best do, he says. According to him, Anders Ericsson, a psychology professor at Florida State University in the US, said that the best of the best are not geniuses, they just do things differently.
“David Beckham’s father said that when his son was young, he practised so much that he told people his son lived at the football field. Mozart had played 3,500 hours of music by the time he was six years old and Warren Buffett sold his first Coke with margins when he was six years old,” he says.
Famous award-winning comedian and actor Steve Martin said you need to be so good that no one can ignore you, Sharma told the audience.
Just as performers wow the audience, businesses need to wow their customers — they need to be “merchants of wow”. Sharma himself has reverted to the fable format he used in his first book for his latest book because he wants the book to take people on a roller coaster ride — the way a good movie does.
“I think if you can entertain people, engage people and give them a sense of fun while they are learning, the learning will be much more powerful,” he says.
According to Sharma, one of Warren Buffett’s principles is value creation versus ego gratification. He cited the successful investor saying, “Stop worrying about accolades or whether people are going to like you. Do great work for the customer.”
The best companies in the world innovate — they take what is working and make it better. “Cirque du Soleil debriefs after each show and ask themselves how they can make it better,” says Sharma.
“Regardless of what you do, you are paid to ‘wow’. You need to see your work as a craft,” he adds.
Apart from wowing customers, companies must not forget the business of relationship. “We live in an age where businesses have forgotten about business relationships, for example, customer intimacy,” says Robin.
“People do business with those who make them feel special. Starbucks grew too quickly and this diluted their culture. Howard Schultz came back and it became great again. They treat every moment of customer interaction as a moment of truth,” he adds.
Great companies know how to stick to their values. One of the key values practised by Google Inc is to be brutally efficient. If an opportunity that arises doesn’t allow you to follow a company’s values, don’t do it, says Sharma. He quotes business guru Peter Drucker who said that the primary duty of a leader is to know the business you’re in.
“Get your business down to one line, know your purpose. Some businesses say ‘yes’ to too many good opportunities. They become everything to everyone and scatter all their resources,” says Sharma.
The same principle applies to individuals. “If you don’t know what you stand for, you’re living your life by accident or by default,” he says.
Leaders should also be able to put the right people in the right job, and this does not only apply to senior positions, says Sharma.
“You should build up the leadership capabilities of everyone around you. You’re only as strong your weakest link; the orchestra is only as good as the weakest player. I’m not saying get rid of that person. You should develop and coach them. Imagine what your organisation would look like if everyone was a leader with no title,” Sharma says.
No matter how good a leader you are, you need to focus on life as well, just like Buffet, says Sharma. According to him, the third richest man in the world is very humble, has been living in the same house since 1948 and only changes cars every eight years.
“I thought success was about money, cars and recognition. I had all of those but I was the least happiest person. I started to study happy and successful people [like Buffett] and what I wrote in my first book [The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari] was the result of my struggle,” he says, recalling the days when he was a litigation lawyer.
These days, Sharma is making a case for what he believes in. “I’m making a case that you can lead without a title; I’m making a case that you can stand for excellence in your work, regardless of what you do. I’m making a case that in this world of disruption where people are walking around in a state of disorientation, you can actually seize opportunities to build an even better business and lead a more exceptional life,” he says.
During his free time, the leadership guru likes to ski, watch movies and spend time with his two children — Colby and Bianca. To Sharma, parents should take time to enjoy their children and not let childhood slip by.
When Sharma took his son Colby for a weekend father-son trip to New York City, Colby said the best part of the trip was when they had hot dogs and spent the time just talking. “All they want to do is spend time with you,” says Sharma.
“It’s okay to want nice things, but don’t get owned by it. Life is not just about business. Measure your life by an inner, and not an outer, scorecard,” Sharma says
Sounds pretty intense, but Sharma believes this daily routine has kept him healthy. “It’s not the sexiest of tips, but it’s practical. Just do this for 30 days and watch what happens to your energy level,” he told the 400-strong audience during his talk titled “How the best win in business — The new essentials of leadership and exceptional performance” on May 6.
Being physically fit is especially important for leaders to win during times of turbulence, he says. Robin himself has not fallen sick once even though he travels extensively — in the past one year he has travelled to 53 countries.
On the day of the interview itself, which was a day before the talk, he had just flown in from Singapore in the morning. He appeared slightly tired but it didn’t show once he started to talk about leadership.
“I believe the old model of leadership is dead. The old model, in which only the managing director shows leadership, is obsolete. Look at what happened with Lehman Brothers; look at what’s happened with Wall Street right now. I think with all the disruption, old and outdated companies are being washed away,” says Sharma.
“The new model of leadership [says that] whether you work in the office or boardroom, you can show leadership in your work. It’s about innovation, passion, excellence, wowing customers and so on,” he says. In March this year, Sharma published a book titled The Leader Who Had No Title. Until today, the former lawyer has written 10 best-selling books on leadership and personal development.
“Regardless of what you do, you can lead without a title. So whether you drive a taxi, whether you’re a manager in an organisation, or whether you work in a restaurant, you can do your work like Mozart composed music, like how Picasso painted, or how Beckham bends the ball. The leader who has no title is about being extraordinary in your work and in your life,” he says.
Having worked with the best companies in the world such as General Electric, Microsoft, Nike and FedEx, Robin shared with the audience how these organisations became the leaders in their industry.
To be the best in your field, you need to do what the best of the best do, he says. According to him, Anders Ericsson, a psychology professor at Florida State University in the US, said that the best of the best are not geniuses, they just do things differently.
“David Beckham’s father said that when his son was young, he practised so much that he told people his son lived at the football field. Mozart had played 3,500 hours of music by the time he was six years old and Warren Buffett sold his first Coke with margins when he was six years old,” he says.
Famous award-winning comedian and actor Steve Martin said you need to be so good that no one can ignore you, Sharma told the audience.
Just as performers wow the audience, businesses need to wow their customers — they need to be “merchants of wow”. Sharma himself has reverted to the fable format he used in his first book for his latest book because he wants the book to take people on a roller coaster ride — the way a good movie does.
“I think if you can entertain people, engage people and give them a sense of fun while they are learning, the learning will be much more powerful,” he says.
According to Sharma, one of Warren Buffett’s principles is value creation versus ego gratification. He cited the successful investor saying, “Stop worrying about accolades or whether people are going to like you. Do great work for the customer.”
The best companies in the world innovate — they take what is working and make it better. “Cirque du Soleil debriefs after each show and ask themselves how they can make it better,” says Sharma.
“Regardless of what you do, you are paid to ‘wow’. You need to see your work as a craft,” he adds.
Apart from wowing customers, companies must not forget the business of relationship. “We live in an age where businesses have forgotten about business relationships, for example, customer intimacy,” says Robin.
“People do business with those who make them feel special. Starbucks grew too quickly and this diluted their culture. Howard Schultz came back and it became great again. They treat every moment of customer interaction as a moment of truth,” he adds.
Great companies know how to stick to their values. One of the key values practised by Google Inc is to be brutally efficient. If an opportunity that arises doesn’t allow you to follow a company’s values, don’t do it, says Sharma. He quotes business guru Peter Drucker who said that the primary duty of a leader is to know the business you’re in.
“Get your business down to one line, know your purpose. Some businesses say ‘yes’ to too many good opportunities. They become everything to everyone and scatter all their resources,” says Sharma.
The same principle applies to individuals. “If you don’t know what you stand for, you’re living your life by accident or by default,” he says.
Leaders should also be able to put the right people in the right job, and this does not only apply to senior positions, says Sharma.
“You should build up the leadership capabilities of everyone around you. You’re only as strong your weakest link; the orchestra is only as good as the weakest player. I’m not saying get rid of that person. You should develop and coach them. Imagine what your organisation would look like if everyone was a leader with no title,” Sharma says.
No matter how good a leader you are, you need to focus on life as well, just like Buffet, says Sharma. According to him, the third richest man in the world is very humble, has been living in the same house since 1948 and only changes cars every eight years.
“I thought success was about money, cars and recognition. I had all of those but I was the least happiest person. I started to study happy and successful people [like Buffett] and what I wrote in my first book [The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari] was the result of my struggle,” he says, recalling the days when he was a litigation lawyer.
These days, Sharma is making a case for what he believes in. “I’m making a case that you can lead without a title; I’m making a case that you can stand for excellence in your work, regardless of what you do. I’m making a case that in this world of disruption where people are walking around in a state of disorientation, you can actually seize opportunities to build an even better business and lead a more exceptional life,” he says.
During his free time, the leadership guru likes to ski, watch movies and spend time with his two children — Colby and Bianca. To Sharma, parents should take time to enjoy their children and not let childhood slip by.
When Sharma took his son Colby for a weekend father-son trip to New York City, Colby said the best part of the trip was when they had hot dogs and spent the time just talking. “All they want to do is spend time with you,” says Sharma.
“It’s okay to want nice things, but don’t get owned by it. Life is not just about business. Measure your life by an inner, and not an outer, scorecard,” Sharma says
Competitive advantage through people
Basic strategy once taught us that the road to success was through differentiation and that differentiation could be based on cost competitiveness, occupying a niche or having a particular business focus. That, of course, is all very well. However, what is the key to, firstly, selecting the right strategy and, secondly, executing it (bearing in mind that most strategies fail due to poor execution)?
The CEO of one of the world’s largest media companies takes this further — in his view, people (or talent) are the ultimate differentiators. They will deliver the high levels of customer service, innovation and be the ambassadors of your brand. This is the reality. The right people is what it takes to execute strategy — great strategic plans are simply a starting point.
Talent management is the means of recruiting, developing and retaining those people with high potential who will not only help develop strategy, but more importantly, execute it. In its simplest form, it is how organisations align the skills they need with people around strategic objectives.
ACCA conducted a survey of talent management in 2006 and later in 2010. The results for Malaysia in 2010 were very revealing. Of those surveyed 99% thought it was quite or very important, even after a severe economic downturn. Indeed the vast majority of people clearly recognise the positive impact talent management will have on developing future leaders, making sure people have the right skills, and in succession planning. In addition, 83% thought it was important or very important in keeping staff engaged and morale high and the same percentage see it as important or very important to achieve organisational strategy.
The case for positive business impact therefore seems to be clear. However, it does seem that there are issues around the availability of talent management and the effectiveness of some current practices.
While a majority of people see talent management as being more important post-crisis, it is recognised that some tough decisions had to be made during it. For instance, in Malaysia, on average, 63% of organisations either put recruitment on hold, scaled back programmes, used agencies less or reduced their training budgets. We don’t yet know what the impact of this will be, but generally lower investment tends to result in slower growth.
More positively, more than 60% of organisations have a talent management programme in place. The issues however tend to be how those programmes are managed. Generally, they are not coordinated across the organisation, with each department doing its own thing. Therefore the organisation doesn’t benefit from economies of scale or the cross fertilisation of talent. Additionally, access to programmes is often limited to those at senior levels and this does not necessarily prepare the next generation of managers and leaders.
The research also indicates that the levels of investment have increased since 2006, with there being good access to training courses, conferences, mentoring and coaching programmes. Interestingly though, in Malaysia (and elsewhere), the majority of investment is in training courses even when the intended beneficiaries state that coaching and mentoring would be a more effective method of development (and probably more cost effective too). There is a lesson, therefore, around reconsidering how we allocate training and development budgets — in good times and bad.
The results of talent programmes suggest that less than 50% of people see them as having achieved success in terms of supporting organisational change, meeting future skills requirements and delivering the organisational strategy. Talent management can deliver those things, but not the way we are currently practising it.
Other than a more efficient allocation of resources, there are other reasons why these programmes may not always succeed or proceed. Understandably over the last 12 to 18 months, organisations felt they had other priorities and therefore talent management was not a focus for them. This lack of focus may have meant that the programmes have languished without support from the top. Another reason is some questioning (by less than 20% of the companies surveyed) on the cost of running a talent programme while not being clear on what the ROI is and how to measure it.
Going forward, expect things to be different. Over the next 12 months, as the economy improves and organisations grow, there will be more pressure to ensure we have people with the right capabilities. Competition for talent and staff turnover will increase while it becomes more important but more difficult to recruit.
This brings us full circle to where we started — effective talent management programmes. We have seen that access to talent programmes will need to be increased to more junior management levels and there will need to be a greater focus on using the more effective methods of coaching and mentoring. Talent programmes prosper when there is support from the top and when they are seen as one of the organisational priorities. Where possible, they should be coordinated centrally and provide opportunities for cross fertilisation of people with different skills and technical abilities. On the whole great strides have been made in the four years since 2006 particularly given that there has been a very serious economic crisis. One can only imagine how much further we might have come without it.
by Tony Osude is the head of Professional Development Global at ACCA. Based in London, he specialises in developing and delivering training-related products and services to employers, members and accountancy trainees.
The CEO of one of the world’s largest media companies takes this further — in his view, people (or talent) are the ultimate differentiators. They will deliver the high levels of customer service, innovation and be the ambassadors of your brand. This is the reality. The right people is what it takes to execute strategy — great strategic plans are simply a starting point.
Talent management is the means of recruiting, developing and retaining those people with high potential who will not only help develop strategy, but more importantly, execute it. In its simplest form, it is how organisations align the skills they need with people around strategic objectives.
ACCA conducted a survey of talent management in 2006 and later in 2010. The results for Malaysia in 2010 were very revealing. Of those surveyed 99% thought it was quite or very important, even after a severe economic downturn. Indeed the vast majority of people clearly recognise the positive impact talent management will have on developing future leaders, making sure people have the right skills, and in succession planning. In addition, 83% thought it was important or very important in keeping staff engaged and morale high and the same percentage see it as important or very important to achieve organisational strategy.
The case for positive business impact therefore seems to be clear. However, it does seem that there are issues around the availability of talent management and the effectiveness of some current practices.
While a majority of people see talent management as being more important post-crisis, it is recognised that some tough decisions had to be made during it. For instance, in Malaysia, on average, 63% of organisations either put recruitment on hold, scaled back programmes, used agencies less or reduced their training budgets. We don’t yet know what the impact of this will be, but generally lower investment tends to result in slower growth.
More positively, more than 60% of organisations have a talent management programme in place. The issues however tend to be how those programmes are managed. Generally, they are not coordinated across the organisation, with each department doing its own thing. Therefore the organisation doesn’t benefit from economies of scale or the cross fertilisation of talent. Additionally, access to programmes is often limited to those at senior levels and this does not necessarily prepare the next generation of managers and leaders.
The research also indicates that the levels of investment have increased since 2006, with there being good access to training courses, conferences, mentoring and coaching programmes. Interestingly though, in Malaysia (and elsewhere), the majority of investment is in training courses even when the intended beneficiaries state that coaching and mentoring would be a more effective method of development (and probably more cost effective too). There is a lesson, therefore, around reconsidering how we allocate training and development budgets — in good times and bad.
The results of talent programmes suggest that less than 50% of people see them as having achieved success in terms of supporting organisational change, meeting future skills requirements and delivering the organisational strategy. Talent management can deliver those things, but not the way we are currently practising it.
Other than a more efficient allocation of resources, there are other reasons why these programmes may not always succeed or proceed. Understandably over the last 12 to 18 months, organisations felt they had other priorities and therefore talent management was not a focus for them. This lack of focus may have meant that the programmes have languished without support from the top. Another reason is some questioning (by less than 20% of the companies surveyed) on the cost of running a talent programme while not being clear on what the ROI is and how to measure it.
Going forward, expect things to be different. Over the next 12 months, as the economy improves and organisations grow, there will be more pressure to ensure we have people with the right capabilities. Competition for talent and staff turnover will increase while it becomes more important but more difficult to recruit.
This brings us full circle to where we started — effective talent management programmes. We have seen that access to talent programmes will need to be increased to more junior management levels and there will need to be a greater focus on using the more effective methods of coaching and mentoring. Talent programmes prosper when there is support from the top and when they are seen as one of the organisational priorities. Where possible, they should be coordinated centrally and provide opportunities for cross fertilisation of people with different skills and technical abilities. On the whole great strides have been made in the four years since 2006 particularly given that there has been a very serious economic crisis. One can only imagine how much further we might have come without it.
by Tony Osude is the head of Professional Development Global at ACCA. Based in London, he specialises in developing and delivering training-related products and services to employers, members and accountancy trainees.
Top body language mistakes to avoid in a job interview
Job seekers with shifty eyes, reluctant smiles or fidgety limbs may be hurting their chances of landing a job.
A survey by market research firm Harris Interactive on behalf of human capital solutions provider Career Builder of over 2,500 hiring managers in the US reveals that not making eye contact (67%) is the deadliest sin a potential candidate can make. Not smiling (38%) and fidgeting too much (33%) are the next two major no-nos, according to the survey conducted between May and June.
Hiring managers also really dislike bad posture (33%), weak handshakes (26%), and the defensive posture of crossing your arms over your chest (21%). Job candidates who betray nervousness by playing with their hair or touching their faces too much will turn off a further 21% of hiring managers. Finally, over-gesticulating puts off 9% of hiring managers.
“In a highly competitive job market, job seekers need to set themselves apart in the interview stage,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice-president of human resources for CareerBuilder in the survey released July 28. “All that pressure, though, may have some job seekers making body language mistakes that don’t convey a confident message. To avoid these faux pas, and ensure you’re remembered for the right reasons, try practising ahead of time in front of a mirror, or with family and friends,” she added.
Written by Emily Tan
A survey by market research firm Harris Interactive on behalf of human capital solutions provider Career Builder of over 2,500 hiring managers in the US reveals that not making eye contact (67%) is the deadliest sin a potential candidate can make. Not smiling (38%) and fidgeting too much (33%) are the next two major no-nos, according to the survey conducted between May and June.
Hiring managers also really dislike bad posture (33%), weak handshakes (26%), and the defensive posture of crossing your arms over your chest (21%). Job candidates who betray nervousness by playing with their hair or touching their faces too much will turn off a further 21% of hiring managers. Finally, over-gesticulating puts off 9% of hiring managers.
“In a highly competitive job market, job seekers need to set themselves apart in the interview stage,” said Rosemary Haefner, vice-president of human resources for CareerBuilder in the survey released July 28. “All that pressure, though, may have some job seekers making body language mistakes that don’t convey a confident message. To avoid these faux pas, and ensure you’re remembered for the right reasons, try practising ahead of time in front of a mirror, or with family and friends,” she added.
Written by Emily Tan
Best employers channel their energies right
BusinessDictionary.com defines entropy as “the measure of the level of disorder in a closed but changing system”. The concept of entropy originated in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, it says, but it has found applications in subjects as diverse as economics and music.
Cultural entropy is defined as a measure of dysfunction — the degree of non-productive or destructive energy in an organisation such as blame, manipulation, internal competition and corruption, said Hewitt Associates Southeast Asia talent management lead Eileen Keng. She was speaking at the launch of the Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011.
Keng said the lower the level of cultural entropy in a company, the higher its employee engagement levels will be.
The Hewitt Best Employers Study in 2009 showed a strong correlation between cultural entropy and engagement, with Hewitt Best Employers winners having a stronger cultural alignment (84%) and lower entropy (8%). In contrast, underperforming organisations with significantly lower engagement levels (37%) had higher entropy (17%). A healthy level of entropy is below 10%. In Asia, the entropy factors include long working hours, bureaucracy, caution, confusion, control and blame.
Organisations with a culture of low entropy produce better results as engaged employees strove for performance and productivity, said Keng.
More than 13,000 employees from 60 organisations across 14 industries in Malaysia participated in the 2009 study. The Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011 Study forms part of the Hewitt Best Employers in APAC 2011 study, which provides benchmarks and insights into how organisations drive business results through people. It also identifies a shortlist of Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011.
Firms that ranked tops in Hewitt’s Best Employers’ 2009 Study built organisational cultures focusing on achievement and accountability, aligned their current organisational culture with their desired goals and had leaders who led the execution of people strategies, said Hewitt Southeast Asia client delivery centre consultant Lim Kiung Hua.
Citing Intel Technology Sdn Bhd as an example, Lim said that the company holds its leaders accountable by getting feedback from staff on their managers or leaders’ competencies. Leaders also have monthly one-on-one sessions with their staff, said Lim.
One way of creating a strong organisational alignment to a company’s desired culture is to share employee stories so employees can learn about the firm’s cultures and best practices, said Lim.
“At Ritz Carlton, the heads of departments will share a ‘Wow Story’ or an employee success story, which would be published in the internal newsletter, posted on the notice board and on the corporate website,” she said. Ritz Carlton was the top ranked company in the Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia survey last year while Intel Technology Sdn Bhd was ranked eighth.
Another trait of a Hewitt Best Employer was a differentiated high performance culture, where top talents were rewarded, said Keng. High performers at American Express get to bid for the best working shifts during “shift bids”, said American Express Malaysia head of human resource Ari Krishnan. The global servicing hub ranked second in Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2009 survey.
Ari said it was the leadership principles, change management principles and employee flexibility options that made the difference for American Express Malaysia as a top employer. Employees are given the option to work from home or a “compressed week” option, where they could work longer but fewer days in a week. “Flexibility allows us the efficient use of resources as we can harness cross skill-ing and inter-department job sharing,” he said.
Recruitment is not just about fulfilling a HR shortage but a strategic approach, he said. “You have to look at what do you need from the operations, tactical and strategic level before you bring in people to achieve these strategies. Hire people who match what your company wants to achieve. Out of 10 people, only three may be what you want to take the company further,” said Ari.
Leadership is also crucial in the making of a Hewitt Best Employer, said Hewitt’s Lim. “The leaders of Best Employer firms focus on three things — providing the vision and communicating it, driving people engagement by understanding the capabilities and issues, as well as aligning the organisational values throughout the company,” she said.
“For the person at the top to lead the change, he has to change himself,” said Lim. adding that Gordon Cairns, the former CEO of Australian alcoholic beverage company Lion Nathan, was one such leader. In 1997, Cairns — who was CEO from 1997 to 2004 — was among the leaders of Lion Nathan who attended change and development workshops as part of the firm’s organisational restructuring. Cairns found that his leadership style was perceived by employees negatively as competitive, coercive and low on people-orientation, and sought to change it to set an example for other leaders and employees at Lion Nathan.
“Leaders must be involved, sponsoring and know what’s happening — we don’t start anything without the involvement of our leaders,” said American Express’ Ari.
Cultural entropy is defined as a measure of dysfunction — the degree of non-productive or destructive energy in an organisation such as blame, manipulation, internal competition and corruption, said Hewitt Associates Southeast Asia talent management lead Eileen Keng. She was speaking at the launch of the Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011.
Keng said the lower the level of cultural entropy in a company, the higher its employee engagement levels will be.
The Hewitt Best Employers Study in 2009 showed a strong correlation between cultural entropy and engagement, with Hewitt Best Employers winners having a stronger cultural alignment (84%) and lower entropy (8%). In contrast, underperforming organisations with significantly lower engagement levels (37%) had higher entropy (17%). A healthy level of entropy is below 10%. In Asia, the entropy factors include long working hours, bureaucracy, caution, confusion, control and blame.
Organisations with a culture of low entropy produce better results as engaged employees strove for performance and productivity, said Keng.
More than 13,000 employees from 60 organisations across 14 industries in Malaysia participated in the 2009 study. The Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011 Study forms part of the Hewitt Best Employers in APAC 2011 study, which provides benchmarks and insights into how organisations drive business results through people. It also identifies a shortlist of Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2011.
Firms that ranked tops in Hewitt’s Best Employers’ 2009 Study built organisational cultures focusing on achievement and accountability, aligned their current organisational culture with their desired goals and had leaders who led the execution of people strategies, said Hewitt Southeast Asia client delivery centre consultant Lim Kiung Hua.
Citing Intel Technology Sdn Bhd as an example, Lim said that the company holds its leaders accountable by getting feedback from staff on their managers or leaders’ competencies. Leaders also have monthly one-on-one sessions with their staff, said Lim.
One way of creating a strong organisational alignment to a company’s desired culture is to share employee stories so employees can learn about the firm’s cultures and best practices, said Lim.
“At Ritz Carlton, the heads of departments will share a ‘Wow Story’ or an employee success story, which would be published in the internal newsletter, posted on the notice board and on the corporate website,” she said. Ritz Carlton was the top ranked company in the Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia survey last year while Intel Technology Sdn Bhd was ranked eighth.
Another trait of a Hewitt Best Employer was a differentiated high performance culture, where top talents were rewarded, said Keng. High performers at American Express get to bid for the best working shifts during “shift bids”, said American Express Malaysia head of human resource Ari Krishnan. The global servicing hub ranked second in Hewitt Best Employers in Malaysia 2009 survey.
Ari said it was the leadership principles, change management principles and employee flexibility options that made the difference for American Express Malaysia as a top employer. Employees are given the option to work from home or a “compressed week” option, where they could work longer but fewer days in a week. “Flexibility allows us the efficient use of resources as we can harness cross skill-ing and inter-department job sharing,” he said.
Recruitment is not just about fulfilling a HR shortage but a strategic approach, he said. “You have to look at what do you need from the operations, tactical and strategic level before you bring in people to achieve these strategies. Hire people who match what your company wants to achieve. Out of 10 people, only three may be what you want to take the company further,” said Ari.
Leadership is also crucial in the making of a Hewitt Best Employer, said Hewitt’s Lim. “The leaders of Best Employer firms focus on three things — providing the vision and communicating it, driving people engagement by understanding the capabilities and issues, as well as aligning the organisational values throughout the company,” she said.
“For the person at the top to lead the change, he has to change himself,” said Lim. adding that Gordon Cairns, the former CEO of Australian alcoholic beverage company Lion Nathan, was one such leader. In 1997, Cairns — who was CEO from 1997 to 2004 — was among the leaders of Lion Nathan who attended change and development workshops as part of the firm’s organisational restructuring. Cairns found that his leadership style was perceived by employees negatively as competitive, coercive and low on people-orientation, and sought to change it to set an example for other leaders and employees at Lion Nathan.
“Leaders must be involved, sponsoring and know what’s happening — we don’t start anything without the involvement of our leaders,” said American Express’ Ari.
Master art of public speaking
FOUR years ago, I hated the thought of speaking in public forums. But then I realised two things.
The first was the consoling realisation that I was not alone. The second was a wake-up call telling me that it is difficult to get far in life if your legs turn to jelly on stage.
Since then, I have chosen to overcome my fear of public speaking by intentionally creating opportunities to learn this skill.
I started teaching graduate students, enrolled for training workshops at work while using feedback to reflect on experiences and improve.
During my journey, there have been some “a-ha” moments, when life experience intersected with something I had read or heard before. In those moments, what was just an everyday thought suddenly got a life of its own with the stamp of validity that only experience can give.
Here are some of these moments that I refer to as the five principles of public speaking:
1 It’s about the audience
The starting point of any speech is to realise that it is not about what you want to say. It is about what the audience wants to know.
So the first step of your preparation is to define the objective: “What would you want to know if you were in the audience?”
Once that is clear, you can work backwards to choose the appropriate content level and delivery style.
For example, if you are marketing a car, you might emphasise the look and feel of it for one group of buyers and stress on its technical specifications for another.
People look for different things and get impressed by different things — so know your audience and figure out what works best for them.
2 Find your own voice
Be comfortable with who you are. You are not a textbook. Your uniqueness is what brings a “personal touch” to the session.
People value the personal touch as it signals a willingness to open up to an audience and engage at a deeper level. Real people with real stories and limitations are much more engaging than perfect textbook cases.
For example, after doing a poor job delivering a few “ready-made” presentations prepared by someone else, I learnt that unless I wrestle with an issue for some time to find my own interpretation, I do a poor job of delivering it.
So I now stay away from delivering “canned” presentations and only pick topics where I have some personal perspective to add.
3 Everyone likes stories
People like stories and learn more effectively from them. Stories can add a human dimension that the audience can relate to.
A humdrum training session perks up when someone shares a real-life story to illustrate a point or refute it.
4 Learn from participants
What you share is only half the story. The “other half” is about learning from your participants.
Get involved with your audience as they enter the room. Make them feel comfortable, treat their questions with respect, create opportunities for them to share their own perspectives and, wherever possible, make it a discussion rather than a one-way communication.
For example, I make a point of arriving at least 30 minutes before a session starts and spend time with those who come early, getting to know them.
Usually, by the time the session starts, my participants and I have already built some degree of trust and rapport.
5 Keep improving
Experience teaches us only when we choose to learn from it by seeking feedback, reflecting on past events and making an action plan to do better next time.
Keep in mind that progress should be measured against your past self rather than some real or imaginary external benchmark.
And capitalise on your strengths first before turning to the limitations of your performance.
It is also important to decide which limitations you want to address. For example, I am not comfortable with cracking jokes at large forums and since it is not a “must-have” for the kind of sessions I conduct currently, I stay away from it during this initial phase of building my public speaking skills.
Later on, I might want to work on using humour, but first I want to focus on perfecting my natural style.
Have fun
We all experience failure at some point once we choose to get outside our comfort zones.
Relish the challenge you have set yourself to push your boundaries and master a very useful skill. — Source: ST/ANN
ARTICLE by Sameer Srivastav, a brand manager at a leading multinational corporation.
The first was the consoling realisation that I was not alone. The second was a wake-up call telling me that it is difficult to get far in life if your legs turn to jelly on stage.
Since then, I have chosen to overcome my fear of public speaking by intentionally creating opportunities to learn this skill.
I started teaching graduate students, enrolled for training workshops at work while using feedback to reflect on experiences and improve.
During my journey, there have been some “a-ha” moments, when life experience intersected with something I had read or heard before. In those moments, what was just an everyday thought suddenly got a life of its own with the stamp of validity that only experience can give.
Here are some of these moments that I refer to as the five principles of public speaking:
1 It’s about the audience
The starting point of any speech is to realise that it is not about what you want to say. It is about what the audience wants to know.
So the first step of your preparation is to define the objective: “What would you want to know if you were in the audience?”
Once that is clear, you can work backwards to choose the appropriate content level and delivery style.
For example, if you are marketing a car, you might emphasise the look and feel of it for one group of buyers and stress on its technical specifications for another.
People look for different things and get impressed by different things — so know your audience and figure out what works best for them.
2 Find your own voice
Be comfortable with who you are. You are not a textbook. Your uniqueness is what brings a “personal touch” to the session.
People value the personal touch as it signals a willingness to open up to an audience and engage at a deeper level. Real people with real stories and limitations are much more engaging than perfect textbook cases.
For example, after doing a poor job delivering a few “ready-made” presentations prepared by someone else, I learnt that unless I wrestle with an issue for some time to find my own interpretation, I do a poor job of delivering it.
So I now stay away from delivering “canned” presentations and only pick topics where I have some personal perspective to add.
3 Everyone likes stories
People like stories and learn more effectively from them. Stories can add a human dimension that the audience can relate to.
A humdrum training session perks up when someone shares a real-life story to illustrate a point or refute it.
4 Learn from participants
What you share is only half the story. The “other half” is about learning from your participants.
Get involved with your audience as they enter the room. Make them feel comfortable, treat their questions with respect, create opportunities for them to share their own perspectives and, wherever possible, make it a discussion rather than a one-way communication.
For example, I make a point of arriving at least 30 minutes before a session starts and spend time with those who come early, getting to know them.
Usually, by the time the session starts, my participants and I have already built some degree of trust and rapport.
5 Keep improving
Experience teaches us only when we choose to learn from it by seeking feedback, reflecting on past events and making an action plan to do better next time.
Keep in mind that progress should be measured against your past self rather than some real or imaginary external benchmark.
And capitalise on your strengths first before turning to the limitations of your performance.
It is also important to decide which limitations you want to address. For example, I am not comfortable with cracking jokes at large forums and since it is not a “must-have” for the kind of sessions I conduct currently, I stay away from it during this initial phase of building my public speaking skills.
Later on, I might want to work on using humour, but first I want to focus on perfecting my natural style.
Have fun
We all experience failure at some point once we choose to get outside our comfort zones.
Relish the challenge you have set yourself to push your boundaries and master a very useful skill. — Source: ST/ANN
ARTICLE by Sameer Srivastav, a brand manager at a leading multinational corporation.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Are you a giver or receiver?
Great leaders are great givers” - John Maxwell
I have often been told that money cannot buy us happiness. But now scientists beg to differ. They say it can make us happy as long as we spend it on someone else!
According to three scientific studies done by University of British Columbia Professor Elizabeth Dunn and her team, “regardless of income, those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.”
In tests, those giving money away were far happier than others spending it on luxuries for themselves. Giving away as little as a couple of ringgit daily is enough to significantly boost happiness levels, according to Harvard professor Michael Norton.
The same can be said of countries. According to a global study by Arwin and Lew, “the statistical evidence from this study therefore suggests that as far as happiness is concerned, it is better to give than to receive aid.” Leveraging the World Database of Happiness, this study found that countries that gave more aid had a direct correlation with happiness whilst receiving aid did not impact happiness.
A large banner displaying the image of Mother Teresa in Calcutta, India. Mother Teresa, who died at age 87 in 1997 in Calcutta where she is buried, says “a life not lived for others is not a life.” — AP
Interestingly, it seems the same for businesses. Businesses that are primarily focused on enhancing shareholder value (i.e. receiving profits), have unhappier people compared with start-ups and social enterprises (companies that give to its communities).
In fact, in a recent UK poll, people in large companies have a far higher disposable income than their grandparents, yet are not happier. Unhappy people mean lower productivity and higher healthcare costs.
Most people forget that inspired leadership is more about people and not products or profit. And people are inspired by organisations and leaders that give rather in addition to receiving.
History is awash with the value of giving. Christopher Chapman's 1680 grave in Westminster Abbey reads: “What I gave, I have. What I spent, I had. What I left, I lost by not giving it.” Longfellow wrote, “Give what you have. Notable author John Bunyan reminds us, “There was a man, though some did count him mad; the more he cast away the more he had.”
Of course there are some who believe they have little to give, and that their gift will make little difference. Mother Teresa confounds that by saying, “A life not lived for others is not a life.” If anyone truly lived a life of giving, it was Mother Teresa.
Leaders sometimes give at great personal cost to themselves. Gandhi lost his life to his cause. So did Martin Luther King. But their leadership legacies live forever.
Today, we see a different form of leadership. A leadership of wanting to receive more and more. The Wall Street Journal suggested that a culture of greed' was to blame for the recent financial crisis with billionaire investor Stephen Jarislowsky echoing that extreme greed' was to blame. Even when organisations were falling apart, we read of its leaders receiving more and more. In the movie Wall Street Gordon Gekko, in his greed is good' speech, crystallised why receiving is the new leadership mantra.
But yet when we explore new research on legendary leaders', the following are the top three leadership traits identified:
Legendary leaders seek significance (people) rather than success (profits). They value people - their families, employees, and customers. They make decisions based on the impact to key stakeholders.
Serve a purpose rather than achieve results. Legendary leaders resist the pressure for immediate gratification and focus on long term purpose. They evaluate new products and services on the needs of the marketplace and how it improves the lives of its users.
Legendary leaders focus on “what can I give?” rather than “what can I get?” They follow a philosophy of abundance. Instead of fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie, they work to make the pie larger.
Reading through the top three traits of legendary leaders, it paints a picture of a giving leader. The opposite of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. They focus on people, not only on profits, have long term purpose and bring benefit to society. Interestingly, social enterprises are organisations that focus on significance, ensuring impact to the community and these organisations end up creating new markets in the process.
I recently was invited to be one of the main judges at the latest reality show from TV3, Sejuta Impian (to be aired Sunday weekly from May 15th). The show centres on enabling Malaysians to be able to fulfil their dreams', as long as these dreams' benefit the community in some way or form.
As I watched the 92 finalists come and present their cases for funding, I was inspired by how Malaysians want to impact the community. More interestingly was the mushrooming of social enterprises with a clear social mission and a solid plan of sustainability through profits.
More and more organisations today are transforming from profit-driven' only into social-driven' missions. GE is moving into green territory with its eco-imagination' mission. Google “does no evil” whilst AirAsia's social mission is to ensure “everyone can fly.” Everywhere organisations realise that giving ensures a bigger return and are altering their focus from profit singularly to a more community-based mission.
Social enterprises and giving' companies don't just donate cash and gifts. They give back to society by making the world a better place, engaging with stakeholders and the community around them. They give back to their employees with great workplace practices.
Companies who consistently try to take into account its stakeholders and community outperformed the S&P 500 by more than twice the average over the past 15 years. (Schmidt, 2000). This result was confirmed by Harvard University, who found community-based' companies showed four times the growth rate and eight times the employment growth when compared with companies that are shareholder-only focused (Harvard University, 2000).
How is it that giving' companies outperform the traditional maximising shareholder value' organisations? In C.K. Prahalad's book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, he challenges big companies by showcasing that we could make bigger profit and margins by focusing on people who earn less than US$2 per day.
His book showcased how social enterprises that championed the poor and other social causes reaped significant bigger margins than the big boys. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh outperformed all other banks but their core mission was to serve the poor, not to enhance shareholder value.
Traditional businesses compete either on price, quality level or service as their competitive advantage. NGOs often use value of service or societal benefit to generate their competitive advantage.
Social enterprises tap on both these competitive advantages but additionally tap into further social advantages that can be used for competitive purposes, such as community support, superior brand identity, customer commitment to the cause, and employee engagement.
Nothing unites people more (especially your employee base) than to work together towards the greater good of mankind and the community. Giving' truly excites your employees and gets them committed to your cause, ensuring higher margins and profitability.
We often hear of stories of leaders who jump out of their big CEO roles and gravitate towards new roles which have more meaning. It is a strange phenomenon that they all reach a stage in their careers when leaders feel compelled to suddenly give back'.
Peter Lynch was at the peak of his career, having grown the Fidelity Magellan fund, when he decided to leave to set up a philanthropic fund. So did Bill Gates, Carnegie and Rockefeller.
Why does it have to be so late in one's career that giving happens? Giving is simple. Giving is not only providing financial support. The best leaders believe that “you get the best out of others when you give the best of yourself” and they start giving early in life.
So, how do leaders in business give throughout their careers? Below are three simple ways that each of us can begin the process of giving back.
Listening - The greatest courtesy a leader can give is to listen. Everyone wants to be listened to. The problem is most leaders have no time to listen and be an empathetic ear to colleagues, subordinates, suppliers, and customers. You will be surprised by the information and ideas you may receive in exchange for listening.
Giving feedback to employees - Courageous leaders know that giving and receiving feedback are needed for inspiring relationships. 70% of employees feel they hear too little feedback and have too little interaction with their direct manager, with limited positive feedback and constructive feedback offered. Most view the annual performance appraisal as being a broken process for delivering feedback. I personally struggle with this as it is extremely time-consuming, but the more feedback you give, the better your team performs.
Developing others - Leadership is not a platform to use people but to develop them. The legacy of a leader is not one who achieves the most, but one who builds up other great leaders who will accomplish more. If you want to succeed as a leader, focus more on what you can do for others rather than what you expect others to do for you. Teach, coach and mentor your employees. In return, they will outperform for you.
Give always
I am going to end this article with a short story on why giving sometimes even gets you out of trouble, especially poor drivers. A few years ago, an accident took place with a woman's car crashing into a man's car. Both cars were wrecked. But amazingly, neither got injured.
As they crawled out of their demolished cars, they both counted their blessings with the man shocked by this miracle. “Even more amazing,” said the woman, “my wine did not even break. Here, have my bottle to celebrate our survival,” as she gives the new bottle to the man.
The man smiled and with his manly grip opened the bottle, drank half and handed it back to the lady, who simply put the cork back in and handed it back. Flustered, the man asked, “Aren't you having any?” To which the woman replied, “No. I think I'll just wait for the police.”
Final thoughts
Giving is limited when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give and reap the rewards. As Albert Einstein said: “The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving.” Be a generous leader keep giving to your people.
by Roshan Thiran is CEO of Leaderonomics
I have often been told that money cannot buy us happiness. But now scientists beg to differ. They say it can make us happy as long as we spend it on someone else!
According to three scientific studies done by University of British Columbia Professor Elizabeth Dunn and her team, “regardless of income, those who spent money on others reported greater happiness, while those who spent more on themselves did not.”
In tests, those giving money away were far happier than others spending it on luxuries for themselves. Giving away as little as a couple of ringgit daily is enough to significantly boost happiness levels, according to Harvard professor Michael Norton.
The same can be said of countries. According to a global study by Arwin and Lew, “the statistical evidence from this study therefore suggests that as far as happiness is concerned, it is better to give than to receive aid.” Leveraging the World Database of Happiness, this study found that countries that gave more aid had a direct correlation with happiness whilst receiving aid did not impact happiness.
A large banner displaying the image of Mother Teresa in Calcutta, India. Mother Teresa, who died at age 87 in 1997 in Calcutta where she is buried, says “a life not lived for others is not a life.” — AP
Interestingly, it seems the same for businesses. Businesses that are primarily focused on enhancing shareholder value (i.e. receiving profits), have unhappier people compared with start-ups and social enterprises (companies that give to its communities).
In fact, in a recent UK poll, people in large companies have a far higher disposable income than their grandparents, yet are not happier. Unhappy people mean lower productivity and higher healthcare costs.
Most people forget that inspired leadership is more about people and not products or profit. And people are inspired by organisations and leaders that give rather in addition to receiving.
History is awash with the value of giving. Christopher Chapman's 1680 grave in Westminster Abbey reads: “What I gave, I have. What I spent, I had. What I left, I lost by not giving it.” Longfellow wrote, “Give what you have. Notable author John Bunyan reminds us, “There was a man, though some did count him mad; the more he cast away the more he had.”
Of course there are some who believe they have little to give, and that their gift will make little difference. Mother Teresa confounds that by saying, “A life not lived for others is not a life.” If anyone truly lived a life of giving, it was Mother Teresa.
Leaders sometimes give at great personal cost to themselves. Gandhi lost his life to his cause. So did Martin Luther King. But their leadership legacies live forever.
Today, we see a different form of leadership. A leadership of wanting to receive more and more. The Wall Street Journal suggested that a culture of greed' was to blame for the recent financial crisis with billionaire investor Stephen Jarislowsky echoing that extreme greed' was to blame. Even when organisations were falling apart, we read of its leaders receiving more and more. In the movie Wall Street Gordon Gekko, in his greed is good' speech, crystallised why receiving is the new leadership mantra.
But yet when we explore new research on legendary leaders', the following are the top three leadership traits identified:
Legendary leaders seek significance (people) rather than success (profits). They value people - their families, employees, and customers. They make decisions based on the impact to key stakeholders.
Serve a purpose rather than achieve results. Legendary leaders resist the pressure for immediate gratification and focus on long term purpose. They evaluate new products and services on the needs of the marketplace and how it improves the lives of its users.
Legendary leaders focus on “what can I give?” rather than “what can I get?” They follow a philosophy of abundance. Instead of fighting to get a bigger piece of the pie, they work to make the pie larger.
Reading through the top three traits of legendary leaders, it paints a picture of a giving leader. The opposite of Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. They focus on people, not only on profits, have long term purpose and bring benefit to society. Interestingly, social enterprises are organisations that focus on significance, ensuring impact to the community and these organisations end up creating new markets in the process.
I recently was invited to be one of the main judges at the latest reality show from TV3, Sejuta Impian (to be aired Sunday weekly from May 15th). The show centres on enabling Malaysians to be able to fulfil their dreams', as long as these dreams' benefit the community in some way or form.
As I watched the 92 finalists come and present their cases for funding, I was inspired by how Malaysians want to impact the community. More interestingly was the mushrooming of social enterprises with a clear social mission and a solid plan of sustainability through profits.
More and more organisations today are transforming from profit-driven' only into social-driven' missions. GE is moving into green territory with its eco-imagination' mission. Google “does no evil” whilst AirAsia's social mission is to ensure “everyone can fly.” Everywhere organisations realise that giving ensures a bigger return and are altering their focus from profit singularly to a more community-based mission.
Social enterprises and giving' companies don't just donate cash and gifts. They give back to society by making the world a better place, engaging with stakeholders and the community around them. They give back to their employees with great workplace practices.
Companies who consistently try to take into account its stakeholders and community outperformed the S&P 500 by more than twice the average over the past 15 years. (Schmidt, 2000). This result was confirmed by Harvard University, who found community-based' companies showed four times the growth rate and eight times the employment growth when compared with companies that are shareholder-only focused (Harvard University, 2000).
How is it that giving' companies outperform the traditional maximising shareholder value' organisations? In C.K. Prahalad's book Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid, he challenges big companies by showcasing that we could make bigger profit and margins by focusing on people who earn less than US$2 per day.
His book showcased how social enterprises that championed the poor and other social causes reaped significant bigger margins than the big boys. Grameen Bank in Bangladesh outperformed all other banks but their core mission was to serve the poor, not to enhance shareholder value.
Traditional businesses compete either on price, quality level or service as their competitive advantage. NGOs often use value of service or societal benefit to generate their competitive advantage.
Social enterprises tap on both these competitive advantages but additionally tap into further social advantages that can be used for competitive purposes, such as community support, superior brand identity, customer commitment to the cause, and employee engagement.
Nothing unites people more (especially your employee base) than to work together towards the greater good of mankind and the community. Giving' truly excites your employees and gets them committed to your cause, ensuring higher margins and profitability.
We often hear of stories of leaders who jump out of their big CEO roles and gravitate towards new roles which have more meaning. It is a strange phenomenon that they all reach a stage in their careers when leaders feel compelled to suddenly give back'.
Peter Lynch was at the peak of his career, having grown the Fidelity Magellan fund, when he decided to leave to set up a philanthropic fund. So did Bill Gates, Carnegie and Rockefeller.
Why does it have to be so late in one's career that giving happens? Giving is simple. Giving is not only providing financial support. The best leaders believe that “you get the best out of others when you give the best of yourself” and they start giving early in life.
So, how do leaders in business give throughout their careers? Below are three simple ways that each of us can begin the process of giving back.
Listening - The greatest courtesy a leader can give is to listen. Everyone wants to be listened to. The problem is most leaders have no time to listen and be an empathetic ear to colleagues, subordinates, suppliers, and customers. You will be surprised by the information and ideas you may receive in exchange for listening.
Giving feedback to employees - Courageous leaders know that giving and receiving feedback are needed for inspiring relationships. 70% of employees feel they hear too little feedback and have too little interaction with their direct manager, with limited positive feedback and constructive feedback offered. Most view the annual performance appraisal as being a broken process for delivering feedback. I personally struggle with this as it is extremely time-consuming, but the more feedback you give, the better your team performs.
Developing others - Leadership is not a platform to use people but to develop them. The legacy of a leader is not one who achieves the most, but one who builds up other great leaders who will accomplish more. If you want to succeed as a leader, focus more on what you can do for others rather than what you expect others to do for you. Teach, coach and mentor your employees. In return, they will outperform for you.
Give always
I am going to end this article with a short story on why giving sometimes even gets you out of trouble, especially poor drivers. A few years ago, an accident took place with a woman's car crashing into a man's car. Both cars were wrecked. But amazingly, neither got injured.
As they crawled out of their demolished cars, they both counted their blessings with the man shocked by this miracle. “Even more amazing,” said the woman, “my wine did not even break. Here, have my bottle to celebrate our survival,” as she gives the new bottle to the man.
The man smiled and with his manly grip opened the bottle, drank half and handed it back to the lady, who simply put the cork back in and handed it back. Flustered, the man asked, “Aren't you having any?” To which the woman replied, “No. I think I'll just wait for the police.”
Final thoughts
Giving is limited when you give of your possessions. It is when you give of yourself that you truly give and reap the rewards. As Albert Einstein said: “The value of a man resides in what he gives and not in what he is capable of receiving.” Be a generous leader keep giving to your people.
by Roshan Thiran is CEO of Leaderonomics
Sunday, May 01, 2011
How to influence others for change
Leaders who lack the ability to influence those who work for them are why 85% of corporate change efforts fail. The inability to influence oneself is why 19 out of 20 diet attempts fail. According to author, leadership speaker and president of VitalSmarts Inc, Joseph Grenny, a systematic approach to influencing behaviour can result in enormous change.
“Influence goes beyond persuasion. Persuasion is trying to get someone to say, ‘yes’. Influence aims at developing change in deeply entrenched behaviours — which organisations tend to develop,” said Grenny, who was in town to conduct a seminar on “Leadership strategies to influence results,” at Hotel Nikko last month on Oct 14.
“Leaders tend to spend too much time focused on strategy and neglect getting people onboard with the strategy. Remember, there is no strategy so brilliant that people can’t render it worthless!” said Grenny wryly.
About 20 years ago, Grenny researched around 12,000 academic essays to identify people who were notable influencers and then to try and understand the techniques they used. Those he identified included Matt Van Vranken, executive vice president of US-based NPO Spectrum Healthcare who got 10,000 people to go from 50% to 90% handwashing in a month. And Wiwat Rojanapithayakorn, who, while serving as director of the Office of Communicable Disease Control Region 4 in Ratchaburi, Thailand in 1989, managed to reduce the incidents of new HIV infections from 143,000 per year in 1991 to 14,000 in 2001 with a free-comdom campaign.
According to Grenny, they achieved this by influencing others to alter key behaviours. “The most important capacity you possess is the ability to influence behaviour — that of yourself and others,” he said, a mantra he repeats several times throughout the seminar. Grenny uses the term “vital behaviours” to identify key actions that lead directly to better results, breaks self-defeating patterns and causes many other positive behaviours to follow naturally. “For example, if I don’t get to bed by 9pm at night, I won’t wake up early enough the next day for a jog, and if I don’t have my jog I feel terrible and it throws my entire day off kilter. So, the vital behaviour here is getting me to bed by 9pm,” said Grenny.
A key way to identify vital behaviours is to look for “positive deviants”.
“Those who should have the problem, but don’t,” explained Grenny. When the Carter Center first set out to eliminate the Guinea Worm in 1986, they observed two villages in Africa who shared the same water source. One had a much lower incidence of infection than the other. Observation showed that the women of this village filtered the water they drew through their skirts before bringing it back to the village.
“The Guinea Worm is a parasite that when ingested is incubated by the human body before emerging to return to the water, a process that causes intense pain for its host. By simply filtering out the worm before ingestion, the village lowered its risk of infection considerably,” said Grenny. Since 1986, the Carter Center has managed to almost completely eradicate the Guinea Worm from 20 African countries and 23,600 villages using an education campaign and affordable filters. “Those who were infected were encouraged to seek medical attention and stay away from the watering holes.”
The six sources of influence Grenny identified to alter vital behaviours target personal, social and structural issues that influence the individual’s motivation and ability to act. In terms of motivation, the influencer must make the undesirable, desirable, harness peer pressure and design rewards and demand accountability. “Often, people don’t do something like wash their hands simply because they forget or find it inconvenient, not because they’re morally callous,” said Grenny.
In the case of Spectrum Healthcare’s Van Vranken, he first educated his healthcare workers on the importance of washing their hands (making the undesirable, desirable), then put in place a policy where, regardless of rank, a person who did not wash their hands on entering and leaving a patient’s room would be reminded (peer pressure). “Importantly, he also made the person who was reminded say, ‘thank you’, which in turn encourages the reminding,” said Grenny.
The next three sources of influence affect ability, they are to build the skills needed, both emotionally and technically, use strength in numbers and to change the environment to support the vital behaviour. By getting its healthcare workers to say thank you for the handwashing reminder, Spectrum Healthcare was increasing the ability its workers had to speak up. “When the person you’re reminding is the chief of surgery and you’re a nurse, it can be harder than you think. Especially if he doesn’t thank you, but reacts negatively,” explained Grenny. The more workers who washed their hands, the more shameful it was for the individuals who didn’t. Spectrum also altered the environment by placing hand sanitizers outside each patient’s room — a visual reminder and a convenience.
When asked what was the key factor for change in an organisation, Grenny points to a personal skill — the ability to hold “crucial conversations”, the subject of one one of his books and the seminar’s afternoon session. “At the heart of almost all chronic problems are conversations you’re not holding, or not holding well. It’s a behaviour that impedes progress more than others. For example, there was an incident in a hospital where a patient admitted for a tonsillectomy ended up with part of his foot amputated instead. A post-mortem discovered that no fewer than seven people could have averted this mistake, if they had only spoken up,” said Grenny. “Those are crucial conversations that were not held.”
How do you know when you’re not holding a crucial conversation effectively? “When you find yourself getting increasingly frustrated and when you have to hold the same conversations twice,” said Grenny. Two quick tips he provided to deal with similar situations, is to “take conversations a level deeper” and to wait till you are able to voice your concern in a single sentence. “Often we get sidetracked by smaller, pettier considerations that are not really the heart of the problem. Take it deeper and identify the key point in the conversation you’re trying to address,” explained Grenny.
Approaching the topic though, takes skill. “People don’t get defensive over what you say, they get defensive because of why they think you’re saying it. The key here is to create a safe environment to talk where they feel they are not being judged and you have their best interests at heart,” said Grenny. “First establish mutual purpose, ie ‘I care about your goals’. Then as the conversation proceeds, establish mutual respect, ‘I care about you’.”
To conclude, Grenny shared an incident that happened to him while standing in line to check in at an airport in the US. “The queue was long and moving very slowly. Frustrations were high when a woman jumped queue by simply barging her luggage cart in front of a man who was a little ways ahead of me. He exploded in fury and she screamed right back at him. When he made a move to strike the woman, I had to intervene. Of course that meant he wanted to hit me too. I neutralised his anger by saying, ‘What she did to you was wrong!’ which made my presence ‘safe’ for him. Then added more quietly ‘But sir, I cannot allow you to hit a woman’. When he lowered his fists and apologised, I established mutual purpose by suggesting we get an airport official to solve the problem and mutual respect by including him and the woman in the process.
“The ability to know how to say the things that need to be said, is an essential skill to influence others,” said Grenny.
Joseph Grenny, Written by Emily Tan
“Influence goes beyond persuasion. Persuasion is trying to get someone to say, ‘yes’. Influence aims at developing change in deeply entrenched behaviours — which organisations tend to develop,” said Grenny, who was in town to conduct a seminar on “Leadership strategies to influence results,” at Hotel Nikko last month on Oct 14.
“Leaders tend to spend too much time focused on strategy and neglect getting people onboard with the strategy. Remember, there is no strategy so brilliant that people can’t render it worthless!” said Grenny wryly.
About 20 years ago, Grenny researched around 12,000 academic essays to identify people who were notable influencers and then to try and understand the techniques they used. Those he identified included Matt Van Vranken, executive vice president of US-based NPO Spectrum Healthcare who got 10,000 people to go from 50% to 90% handwashing in a month. And Wiwat Rojanapithayakorn, who, while serving as director of the Office of Communicable Disease Control Region 4 in Ratchaburi, Thailand in 1989, managed to reduce the incidents of new HIV infections from 143,000 per year in 1991 to 14,000 in 2001 with a free-comdom campaign.
According to Grenny, they achieved this by influencing others to alter key behaviours. “The most important capacity you possess is the ability to influence behaviour — that of yourself and others,” he said, a mantra he repeats several times throughout the seminar. Grenny uses the term “vital behaviours” to identify key actions that lead directly to better results, breaks self-defeating patterns and causes many other positive behaviours to follow naturally. “For example, if I don’t get to bed by 9pm at night, I won’t wake up early enough the next day for a jog, and if I don’t have my jog I feel terrible and it throws my entire day off kilter. So, the vital behaviour here is getting me to bed by 9pm,” said Grenny.
A key way to identify vital behaviours is to look for “positive deviants”.
“Those who should have the problem, but don’t,” explained Grenny. When the Carter Center first set out to eliminate the Guinea Worm in 1986, they observed two villages in Africa who shared the same water source. One had a much lower incidence of infection than the other. Observation showed that the women of this village filtered the water they drew through their skirts before bringing it back to the village.
“The Guinea Worm is a parasite that when ingested is incubated by the human body before emerging to return to the water, a process that causes intense pain for its host. By simply filtering out the worm before ingestion, the village lowered its risk of infection considerably,” said Grenny. Since 1986, the Carter Center has managed to almost completely eradicate the Guinea Worm from 20 African countries and 23,600 villages using an education campaign and affordable filters. “Those who were infected were encouraged to seek medical attention and stay away from the watering holes.”
The six sources of influence Grenny identified to alter vital behaviours target personal, social and structural issues that influence the individual’s motivation and ability to act. In terms of motivation, the influencer must make the undesirable, desirable, harness peer pressure and design rewards and demand accountability. “Often, people don’t do something like wash their hands simply because they forget or find it inconvenient, not because they’re morally callous,” said Grenny.
In the case of Spectrum Healthcare’s Van Vranken, he first educated his healthcare workers on the importance of washing their hands (making the undesirable, desirable), then put in place a policy where, regardless of rank, a person who did not wash their hands on entering and leaving a patient’s room would be reminded (peer pressure). “Importantly, he also made the person who was reminded say, ‘thank you’, which in turn encourages the reminding,” said Grenny.
The next three sources of influence affect ability, they are to build the skills needed, both emotionally and technically, use strength in numbers and to change the environment to support the vital behaviour. By getting its healthcare workers to say thank you for the handwashing reminder, Spectrum Healthcare was increasing the ability its workers had to speak up. “When the person you’re reminding is the chief of surgery and you’re a nurse, it can be harder than you think. Especially if he doesn’t thank you, but reacts negatively,” explained Grenny. The more workers who washed their hands, the more shameful it was for the individuals who didn’t. Spectrum also altered the environment by placing hand sanitizers outside each patient’s room — a visual reminder and a convenience.
When asked what was the key factor for change in an organisation, Grenny points to a personal skill — the ability to hold “crucial conversations”, the subject of one one of his books and the seminar’s afternoon session. “At the heart of almost all chronic problems are conversations you’re not holding, or not holding well. It’s a behaviour that impedes progress more than others. For example, there was an incident in a hospital where a patient admitted for a tonsillectomy ended up with part of his foot amputated instead. A post-mortem discovered that no fewer than seven people could have averted this mistake, if they had only spoken up,” said Grenny. “Those are crucial conversations that were not held.”
How do you know when you’re not holding a crucial conversation effectively? “When you find yourself getting increasingly frustrated and when you have to hold the same conversations twice,” said Grenny. Two quick tips he provided to deal with similar situations, is to “take conversations a level deeper” and to wait till you are able to voice your concern in a single sentence. “Often we get sidetracked by smaller, pettier considerations that are not really the heart of the problem. Take it deeper and identify the key point in the conversation you’re trying to address,” explained Grenny.
Approaching the topic though, takes skill. “People don’t get defensive over what you say, they get defensive because of why they think you’re saying it. The key here is to create a safe environment to talk where they feel they are not being judged and you have their best interests at heart,” said Grenny. “First establish mutual purpose, ie ‘I care about your goals’. Then as the conversation proceeds, establish mutual respect, ‘I care about you’.”
To conclude, Grenny shared an incident that happened to him while standing in line to check in at an airport in the US. “The queue was long and moving very slowly. Frustrations were high when a woman jumped queue by simply barging her luggage cart in front of a man who was a little ways ahead of me. He exploded in fury and she screamed right back at him. When he made a move to strike the woman, I had to intervene. Of course that meant he wanted to hit me too. I neutralised his anger by saying, ‘What she did to you was wrong!’ which made my presence ‘safe’ for him. Then added more quietly ‘But sir, I cannot allow you to hit a woman’. When he lowered his fists and apologised, I established mutual purpose by suggesting we get an airport official to solve the problem and mutual respect by including him and the woman in the process.
“The ability to know how to say the things that need to be said, is an essential skill to influence others,” said Grenny.
Joseph Grenny, Written by Emily Tan
Fostering workplace creativity
The future is out there but most of us just don’t see it, said John Ryan, president of global executive education and research provider Centre for Creative Leadership, quoting management guru and author, the late Peter Drucker.
“Inspiration for innovation and creativity is everywhere but the problem with many companies is the lack of a corporate culture that celebrates and encourages innovation,” Ryan said in a recent phone interview.
He said that Google is an example of a company that celebrates innovation and creativity because it commits the resources to creativity — “bringing together unique talents from different sections and giving them the tools and the time to be creative and innovative”.
Creativity is only innovative when it is applied, said Ryan, illustrating his point that unless resources such as people, tools and time are committed to an innovative idea, that’s all it is — an idea.
“I might have a great idea but if I can’t get it pass the bureaucracy, or if I don’t have the tools, ideas or procedures to hand this off to, it doesn’t work,” he said.
On the flip side, some companies only pay lip service to fostering creativity but continue to overwork employees and not give any time to them to devote to building their creativity.
“It starts with the CEO setting the right kind of climate that is stimulating, motivating and gives people the space to be creative,” said Ryan, adding that it doesn’t take as much time to encourage creativity.
“Scheduling a meeting or two every week to discuss challenges and have brainstorming sessions with your employees, for example. Like developing leadership talent in an organisation, you can’t take shortcuts to developing creativity either,” he said.
Innovation is not an individual sport but a team sport, he said.
“Creativity is not just about new products but new ways of doing business, new ways of being efficient. And we get most of those ideas from our employees and our customers. Most innovations come from being intimate with our customers,” he said.
Getting to know the customers means “being immersed in their lives — understanding why they buy our products, both the rational and emotional reasons”, he said.
Creative firms are also risk takers, he said. “No company that I know grows by sitting on the sidelines. As a leader, you either take chances and those risks with growth associated with them or create and innovate. The ROI is not just on bottom line but the culture it breeds in the organisation.”
Citing one of CCL’s clients, internationally renowned design firm Continuum as an example, Ryan said that the company worked together with Procter & Gamble to design its Swiffer line of cleaning products based on visits to the homes of consumers, watching the women use the old product and asking for suggestions of improvement.
“Millions of dollar in revenue and profit that comes simply from listening to the customer, ‘This is how I use your product now but I wish it could be like this’,” said Ryan.
The biggest factor that stifles creativity in the workplace are people — and leaders — who like the status quo so much that they are not open to new ideas and change. “That’s why it’s so important to establish a new culture that encourages creativity. If you have a corporate strategy that calls for creativity but if your corporate culture doesn’t support it, your corporate culture eats strategy for breakfast,” he said.
Leaders also need to have an “urgent patience” when it comes to encouraging creativity in their companies, he said. “Most leaders want things done quickly, but they need to be patient, that great innovations — from global positing satellites to the Apple iPod — take time.”
The best companies use rapid prototyping, which allows them to get to market faster than others, he said. “A lot of companies are afraid of prototyping, especially how it would affect their brand but it doesn’t if it’s internally tested among your best customers and employees because they want to see you innovate.”
Asked whether certain industries, such as IT or retail, were more likely to be innovative than others, Ryan disagreed. “It really depends on the people in the organisation. We’ve seen similar organisations in those industries that are not creative or innovative,” he quipped.
He added that some companies, especially the technology firms, tend to get more publicity than other equally innovative firms because creativity is usually defined product-wise.
“Walmart is very creative in driving down prices, marketing and its store placements but we take it for granted just because it’s not product invention but efficiencies. Innovation can be anything, from a new way of doing business to a reduction of cost, so long as it is something creative applied and is now better than before,” he said.
In a world that is constantly evolving, Ryan said that the need to anticipate what clients and customers need is more pressing than ever. “We don’t need to be afraid of change. We need to embrace it, get good at it and be comfortable with being uncomfortable.”
“Inspiration for innovation and creativity is everywhere but the problem with many companies is the lack of a corporate culture that celebrates and encourages innovation,” Ryan said in a recent phone interview.
He said that Google is an example of a company that celebrates innovation and creativity because it commits the resources to creativity — “bringing together unique talents from different sections and giving them the tools and the time to be creative and innovative”.
Creativity is only innovative when it is applied, said Ryan, illustrating his point that unless resources such as people, tools and time are committed to an innovative idea, that’s all it is — an idea.
“I might have a great idea but if I can’t get it pass the bureaucracy, or if I don’t have the tools, ideas or procedures to hand this off to, it doesn’t work,” he said.
On the flip side, some companies only pay lip service to fostering creativity but continue to overwork employees and not give any time to them to devote to building their creativity.
“It starts with the CEO setting the right kind of climate that is stimulating, motivating and gives people the space to be creative,” said Ryan, adding that it doesn’t take as much time to encourage creativity.
“Scheduling a meeting or two every week to discuss challenges and have brainstorming sessions with your employees, for example. Like developing leadership talent in an organisation, you can’t take shortcuts to developing creativity either,” he said.
Innovation is not an individual sport but a team sport, he said.
“Creativity is not just about new products but new ways of doing business, new ways of being efficient. And we get most of those ideas from our employees and our customers. Most innovations come from being intimate with our customers,” he said.
Getting to know the customers means “being immersed in their lives — understanding why they buy our products, both the rational and emotional reasons”, he said.
Creative firms are also risk takers, he said. “No company that I know grows by sitting on the sidelines. As a leader, you either take chances and those risks with growth associated with them or create and innovate. The ROI is not just on bottom line but the culture it breeds in the organisation.”
Citing one of CCL’s clients, internationally renowned design firm Continuum as an example, Ryan said that the company worked together with Procter & Gamble to design its Swiffer line of cleaning products based on visits to the homes of consumers, watching the women use the old product and asking for suggestions of improvement.
“Millions of dollar in revenue and profit that comes simply from listening to the customer, ‘This is how I use your product now but I wish it could be like this’,” said Ryan.
The biggest factor that stifles creativity in the workplace are people — and leaders — who like the status quo so much that they are not open to new ideas and change. “That’s why it’s so important to establish a new culture that encourages creativity. If you have a corporate strategy that calls for creativity but if your corporate culture doesn’t support it, your corporate culture eats strategy for breakfast,” he said.
Leaders also need to have an “urgent patience” when it comes to encouraging creativity in their companies, he said. “Most leaders want things done quickly, but they need to be patient, that great innovations — from global positing satellites to the Apple iPod — take time.”
The best companies use rapid prototyping, which allows them to get to market faster than others, he said. “A lot of companies are afraid of prototyping, especially how it would affect their brand but it doesn’t if it’s internally tested among your best customers and employees because they want to see you innovate.”
Asked whether certain industries, such as IT or retail, were more likely to be innovative than others, Ryan disagreed. “It really depends on the people in the organisation. We’ve seen similar organisations in those industries that are not creative or innovative,” he quipped.
He added that some companies, especially the technology firms, tend to get more publicity than other equally innovative firms because creativity is usually defined product-wise.
“Walmart is very creative in driving down prices, marketing and its store placements but we take it for granted just because it’s not product invention but efficiencies. Innovation can be anything, from a new way of doing business to a reduction of cost, so long as it is something creative applied and is now better than before,” he said.
In a world that is constantly evolving, Ryan said that the need to anticipate what clients and customers need is more pressing than ever. “We don’t need to be afraid of change. We need to embrace it, get good at it and be comfortable with being uncomfortable.”
Leadership lessons from hostage negotiations
Negotiating for the lives of hostages may not be part of their day-to-day responsibilities, but corporate chieftains have much to learn about leadership from the art and science of hostage negotiation, says George Kohlrieser, a hostage negotiator and professor of leadership and organisational behaviour at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD).
Last April, Kohlrieser joined the International Centre for Leadership in Finance (ICLIF) Malaysia as head of research and faculty dean.
Speaking on his book, Hostage at the Table: How Leaders Can Overcome Conflict, Influence Others, and Raise Performance, Kohlrieser says leadership — like hostage negotiations — is about dealing with human relations.
Published in 2006, the book has been translated into 14 languages and has received international recognition, winning the “Best Business Book Award 2007” from Dirigeant Commerciaux de France (the French Association of Business Leaders) and “Best Management Book 2008” from Managementbuch.de, a top German online bookstore for business, management and self-management books.
“A hostage negotiation is about creating a relationship with the hostage taker. You have to form that emotional bond before you can convince the hostage taker to surrender his weapons, hostages and himself,” he said in an interview on Oct 1.
Kohlrieser says hostage negotiators have a 95% success rate, which demonstrates that there is a leadership process — the art and science of influencing, persuading and changing mindsets — in hostage negotiations, which may sometimes even lead to the Stockholm syndrome, where hostages get emotionally attached to their captors.
Over the last 42 years, Kohlrieser has handled close to 160 hostage negotiations — in four of these, he was taken hostage himself. With the exception of hostage takers who kidnap for ransom, he explains that every hostage situation is preceded by loss and motivation.
“Hostage takers usually suffer from a loss before they take someone hostage, and they want something out of it. As a hostage negotiator, you have to get into the mind of the hostage taker, understand why he is doing that and help him to switch his mind’s eye — or focus — away from that loss towards the benefits,” he says.
He says that physiologically, the human brain is hardwired to look out for danger and pain to survive. Having a positive focus — such as persuading a hostage taker to think about his children — would lead to positive results.
The focus of one’s mind determines the way one views the world, the state a person is in and the results he can achieve, says Kohlrieser.
“When you train a hostage negotiator, they have to look beyond a person — the hostage taker — as the problem. The problem is not the person but the weapons possessed, the hostages and dealing with what hostage takers want. It’s a human process,” he says.
Hostage negotiators also have to be a secure base for the hostage taker. “Building a basis of trust and making sure they feel you’re on their side and that you are there to help them,” Kohlrieser explains.
Likewise, leaders too need to be a source of security and safety for their employees to be inspired, be creative and be engaged in the workplace, especially in times of crises and change. “People do not naturally resist change if they can see the benefit; the human brain seeks stimulation and challenges, but only if you feel a certain amount of safety. So leaders have to create safety, which allows people to open their minds, be willing to fail, make mistakes and reach out for different ways of doing things,” he says.
Kohlrieser says that unfortunately, research shows that 80% of people do not trust their bosses. “In the US, only 28% of employees are engaged with their jobs. In Germany, only 12% and in France, 7% are engaged employees. Bosses are seen as a threat and emotionally detached,” he says.
When bosses are considered caring, giving hope and support, employees start caring about their jobs and their productivity increases.
“Unfortunately, we see a catastrophic failure happening in building engagement and trust in leaders … and that’s a leadership crisis,” he says.
The problem with most corporate leaders is when they become hostages themselves, he says. “We are living in a world of leadership crisis. The financial collapse is a story of failed leadership — leaders who were no longer there to serve people but themselves and greed. They became hostages to numbers, money, power … and they lost their inner values,” he says.
Authenticity matters too, as leaders themselves have to be inspired or be visionaries before they can influence others in the same direction, Kohlrieser says.
“Leadership, on the one hand, is quite complex as everyone has different definitions of what makes a good leader. On the other hand, it’s simple — it’s about having the vision and inspiring others by persuading them to head towards a common objective,” he says.
Kohlrieser describes great hostage negotiators as those with the ability to adapt in every situation and those who care about the hostage — not just to get them out. “In the same way, the best leaders are intrinsically driven by challenge, learning, caring about the outcome and people. We have a crisis when leaders become so focused on performance, outcomes and numbers that they drive people into negative states and no longer give joy to work.”
He says the strength of Malaysian corporate leaders is their high level of bonding and relationship.
Malaysian leaders have to learn how to like dealing with conflict and recognise the positive side to conflict, Kohlrieser says. “Secondly, learn how to stand up to authority, push back and compete in a positive way. There are many people who are afraid to compete, especially when it has to do with the authority structure. Malaysians tend to over-respect authority,” says Kohlrieser, who has worked with Khazanah, the Malaysian Directors Academy, Sime Darby and Petronas, among others.
The list of organisations he has worked with globally is an impressive one, and includes Accenture, Barclays Global Investors, Cisco, Coca-Cola, HP, IBM, IFC, Morgan Stanley, Motorola, Nestle, Nokia, Roche, Sara Lee, Tetra Pak and Toyota.
Kohlrieser will deliver a public seminar on “High Performance Communication: Influencing, Persuading and Negotiating” on Nov 3 at Taylor’s University College’s Lakeside Campus. The seminar is organised by Taylor’s Centre for Continuing Professional Education in collaboration with the ICLIF Leadership Centre.
Kohlrieser first got involved in hostage negotiation when he was finishing his clinical psychological degree in 1968. “I was asked to participate in an experimental programme, to be attached to the police department and go into [violent] homes ... to prevent domestic violence. I loved working with the police, who had access to a group of people who were deprived of help, so we could dramatically reduce homicide rates,” he says.
Hostage taking “became fashionable in the 1970s in the US”, he says, adding that he began setting up hostage negotiation teams then. “It’s a really powerful process to engage another human being who is so desperate he becomes willing to take hostages. Some cases involved talking suicidal people out of taking their own lives. There’s a personal reward out of that — that you can make an individual life better and help set hostages free,” he says.
In addition to his role as a leadership professor at IMD, Kohlrieser continues to conduct hostage negotiation training sessions today out of personal interest. “I enjoy the teamwork and process of engaging another human being who is desperate to find a way out. Having been a hostage myself, I’ve learnt that words are the most powerful tool that anybody has,” he says.
Asked about the recent Manila hostage crisis last August, he says that the police failed to form an emotional bond with the hostage taker, a former police officer who was accused of corruption and dismissed.
“The police did not try to understand the hostage taker, who was desperate after losing his job and felt he was wrongly accused of corruption. Instead, the police arrested his brother who was his secure base. That was his second loss and triggered an emotional reaction before he began shooting in the bus.
“Furthermore, there was a TV on the bus so the hostage taker knew what was going on,” says Kohlrieser
Last April, Kohlrieser joined the International Centre for Leadership in Finance (ICLIF) Malaysia as head of research and faculty dean.
Speaking on his book, Hostage at the Table: How Leaders Can Overcome Conflict, Influence Others, and Raise Performance, Kohlrieser says leadership — like hostage negotiations — is about dealing with human relations.
Published in 2006, the book has been translated into 14 languages and has received international recognition, winning the “Best Business Book Award 2007” from Dirigeant Commerciaux de France (the French Association of Business Leaders) and “Best Management Book 2008” from Managementbuch.de, a top German online bookstore for business, management and self-management books.
“A hostage negotiation is about creating a relationship with the hostage taker. You have to form that emotional bond before you can convince the hostage taker to surrender his weapons, hostages and himself,” he said in an interview on Oct 1.
Kohlrieser says hostage negotiators have a 95% success rate, which demonstrates that there is a leadership process — the art and science of influencing, persuading and changing mindsets — in hostage negotiations, which may sometimes even lead to the Stockholm syndrome, where hostages get emotionally attached to their captors.
Over the last 42 years, Kohlrieser has handled close to 160 hostage negotiations — in four of these, he was taken hostage himself. With the exception of hostage takers who kidnap for ransom, he explains that every hostage situation is preceded by loss and motivation.
“Hostage takers usually suffer from a loss before they take someone hostage, and they want something out of it. As a hostage negotiator, you have to get into the mind of the hostage taker, understand why he is doing that and help him to switch his mind’s eye — or focus — away from that loss towards the benefits,” he says.
He says that physiologically, the human brain is hardwired to look out for danger and pain to survive. Having a positive focus — such as persuading a hostage taker to think about his children — would lead to positive results.
The focus of one’s mind determines the way one views the world, the state a person is in and the results he can achieve, says Kohlrieser.
“When you train a hostage negotiator, they have to look beyond a person — the hostage taker — as the problem. The problem is not the person but the weapons possessed, the hostages and dealing with what hostage takers want. It’s a human process,” he says.
Hostage negotiators also have to be a secure base for the hostage taker. “Building a basis of trust and making sure they feel you’re on their side and that you are there to help them,” Kohlrieser explains.
Likewise, leaders too need to be a source of security and safety for their employees to be inspired, be creative and be engaged in the workplace, especially in times of crises and change. “People do not naturally resist change if they can see the benefit; the human brain seeks stimulation and challenges, but only if you feel a certain amount of safety. So leaders have to create safety, which allows people to open their minds, be willing to fail, make mistakes and reach out for different ways of doing things,” he says.
Kohlrieser says that unfortunately, research shows that 80% of people do not trust their bosses. “In the US, only 28% of employees are engaged with their jobs. In Germany, only 12% and in France, 7% are engaged employees. Bosses are seen as a threat and emotionally detached,” he says.
When bosses are considered caring, giving hope and support, employees start caring about their jobs and their productivity increases.
“Unfortunately, we see a catastrophic failure happening in building engagement and trust in leaders … and that’s a leadership crisis,” he says.
The problem with most corporate leaders is when they become hostages themselves, he says. “We are living in a world of leadership crisis. The financial collapse is a story of failed leadership — leaders who were no longer there to serve people but themselves and greed. They became hostages to numbers, money, power … and they lost their inner values,” he says.
Authenticity matters too, as leaders themselves have to be inspired or be visionaries before they can influence others in the same direction, Kohlrieser says.
“Leadership, on the one hand, is quite complex as everyone has different definitions of what makes a good leader. On the other hand, it’s simple — it’s about having the vision and inspiring others by persuading them to head towards a common objective,” he says.
Kohlrieser describes great hostage negotiators as those with the ability to adapt in every situation and those who care about the hostage — not just to get them out. “In the same way, the best leaders are intrinsically driven by challenge, learning, caring about the outcome and people. We have a crisis when leaders become so focused on performance, outcomes and numbers that they drive people into negative states and no longer give joy to work.”
He says the strength of Malaysian corporate leaders is their high level of bonding and relationship.
Malaysian leaders have to learn how to like dealing with conflict and recognise the positive side to conflict, Kohlrieser says. “Secondly, learn how to stand up to authority, push back and compete in a positive way. There are many people who are afraid to compete, especially when it has to do with the authority structure. Malaysians tend to over-respect authority,” says Kohlrieser, who has worked with Khazanah, the Malaysian Directors Academy, Sime Darby and Petronas, among others.
The list of organisations he has worked with globally is an impressive one, and includes Accenture, Barclays Global Investors, Cisco, Coca-Cola, HP, IBM, IFC, Morgan Stanley, Motorola, Nestle, Nokia, Roche, Sara Lee, Tetra Pak and Toyota.
Kohlrieser will deliver a public seminar on “High Performance Communication: Influencing, Persuading and Negotiating” on Nov 3 at Taylor’s University College’s Lakeside Campus. The seminar is organised by Taylor’s Centre for Continuing Professional Education in collaboration with the ICLIF Leadership Centre.
Kohlrieser first got involved in hostage negotiation when he was finishing his clinical psychological degree in 1968. “I was asked to participate in an experimental programme, to be attached to the police department and go into [violent] homes ... to prevent domestic violence. I loved working with the police, who had access to a group of people who were deprived of help, so we could dramatically reduce homicide rates,” he says.
Hostage taking “became fashionable in the 1970s in the US”, he says, adding that he began setting up hostage negotiation teams then. “It’s a really powerful process to engage another human being who is so desperate he becomes willing to take hostages. Some cases involved talking suicidal people out of taking their own lives. There’s a personal reward out of that — that you can make an individual life better and help set hostages free,” he says.
In addition to his role as a leadership professor at IMD, Kohlrieser continues to conduct hostage negotiation training sessions today out of personal interest. “I enjoy the teamwork and process of engaging another human being who is desperate to find a way out. Having been a hostage myself, I’ve learnt that words are the most powerful tool that anybody has,” he says.
Asked about the recent Manila hostage crisis last August, he says that the police failed to form an emotional bond with the hostage taker, a former police officer who was accused of corruption and dismissed.
“The police did not try to understand the hostage taker, who was desperate after losing his job and felt he was wrongly accused of corruption. Instead, the police arrested his brother who was his secure base. That was his second loss and triggered an emotional reaction before he began shooting in the bus.
“Furthermore, there was a TV on the bus so the hostage taker knew what was going on,” says Kohlrieser
Sustainability is not just good to have, it’s good for business
Research shows that businesses which factor sustainability into their strategies reap financial rewards
Companies that rank high on sustainability outperform their peers in terms of shareholder returns by as much as 16 percentage points, according to a report by management consultancy firm Accenture.
The study “Can business do well by doing good?” was published this month and compares a cross-industry group of 275 companies from the Fortune Global 1,000. The research found that the 50 companies that were leaders in sustainability outperformed the 50 companies with the poorest levels of sustainability in three-year total return to shareholders by 16 percentage points and outperformed the group of 50 average sustainability peers by six percentage points. Furthermore, these 50 sustainable leaders exceeded their less- and average-sustainable peers in five-year shareholder returns by 38 and 21 percentage points respectively.
Additionally, in a joint study by Accenture and the United Nations published in June, almost all (93%) of 766 CEOs surveyed globally see sustainability as important to their companies’ future success. The research also found that the recent global economic downturn has made companies focus “more intensely” on the business value of sustainability with almost three-quarters (74%) of CEOs surveyed saying the downturn has led their company to align sustainability more closely with core business goals — such as cost reduction and revenue growth.
For 72% of corporate leaders surveyed, one of the top motivators was “brand, trust and reputation”, three factors that were negatively impacted during the downturn. James Layard, a partner with Accenture and consumer goods consultancy lead, pointed out that while consumers were unwilling to pay top dollar for sustainable products, they were likely to shun companies that were known for unsustainable practices.
“Bottom line, between two similar products at similar price points, the one with a reputation for sustainability and green-friendliness will win out,” said Layard in an interview in Kuala Lumpur last Tuesday.
On Sept 21, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recognised 10 companies at the World Business and Development Awards (WBDA) in New York for their efforts in improving the lives of some of the world’s most disadvantaged communities. The award winners proved that when companies operate on a business model that includes sustainable objectives, they can be a powerful engine for societal growth and development, while at the same time driving innovation within their own companies and opening up new markets.
According to the 2008 report “Creating value for all: Strategies for doing business with the poor” by the UNDP Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative, inclusive business models include the poor at various points of the value chain. On the supply side as employees, producers and business owners, and on the demand side as clients and customers. Beyond immediate profits and higher incomes, these models drive innovation, building new markets and strengthening supply chains while for the poor, they include higher productivity, sustainable earnings and greater empowerment.
UNDP Administrator Helen Clark said doing business with the poor is a potential boost to a company’s competitiveness as well as a force in the fight against poverty.
“Today, more business leaders recognise that true worth can come not only from profits but from making a positive difference. With five years left to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, an innovative private sector must be part of the global partnership to lift millions of people out of poverty,” she said in a press statement on Sept 21.
The Millennium Development Goals are eight internationally agreed targets which aim to reduce poverty, hunger, maternal and child deaths, disease, inadequate shelter, gender inequality and environmental degradation by 2015.
The winning companies this year are engaged in diverse initiatives such as providing low-income housing in Mexico; assisting farmers in Sierra Leone integrate into sorghum value chains, and offering affordable maternal health services in India, proving that investing in low-income communities can also drive business innovation and growth.
As Andrew Mitchell, UK International Development Secretary, said: “These awards recognise the crucial role of the private sector in development and the contribution that untapped markets can make to increasing global prosperity and tackling poverty. It is the private sector that creates the jobs, enterprise and wealth that can give the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people a chance to transform their lives and secure their futures
Companies that rank high on sustainability outperform their peers in terms of shareholder returns by as much as 16 percentage points, according to a report by management consultancy firm Accenture.
The study “Can business do well by doing good?” was published this month and compares a cross-industry group of 275 companies from the Fortune Global 1,000. The research found that the 50 companies that were leaders in sustainability outperformed the 50 companies with the poorest levels of sustainability in three-year total return to shareholders by 16 percentage points and outperformed the group of 50 average sustainability peers by six percentage points. Furthermore, these 50 sustainable leaders exceeded their less- and average-sustainable peers in five-year shareholder returns by 38 and 21 percentage points respectively.
Additionally, in a joint study by Accenture and the United Nations published in June, almost all (93%) of 766 CEOs surveyed globally see sustainability as important to their companies’ future success. The research also found that the recent global economic downturn has made companies focus “more intensely” on the business value of sustainability with almost three-quarters (74%) of CEOs surveyed saying the downturn has led their company to align sustainability more closely with core business goals — such as cost reduction and revenue growth.
For 72% of corporate leaders surveyed, one of the top motivators was “brand, trust and reputation”, three factors that were negatively impacted during the downturn. James Layard, a partner with Accenture and consumer goods consultancy lead, pointed out that while consumers were unwilling to pay top dollar for sustainable products, they were likely to shun companies that were known for unsustainable practices.
“Bottom line, between two similar products at similar price points, the one with a reputation for sustainability and green-friendliness will win out,” said Layard in an interview in Kuala Lumpur last Tuesday.
On Sept 21, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) recognised 10 companies at the World Business and Development Awards (WBDA) in New York for their efforts in improving the lives of some of the world’s most disadvantaged communities. The award winners proved that when companies operate on a business model that includes sustainable objectives, they can be a powerful engine for societal growth and development, while at the same time driving innovation within their own companies and opening up new markets.
According to the 2008 report “Creating value for all: Strategies for doing business with the poor” by the UNDP Growing Inclusive Markets Initiative, inclusive business models include the poor at various points of the value chain. On the supply side as employees, producers and business owners, and on the demand side as clients and customers. Beyond immediate profits and higher incomes, these models drive innovation, building new markets and strengthening supply chains while for the poor, they include higher productivity, sustainable earnings and greater empowerment.
UNDP Administrator Helen Clark said doing business with the poor is a potential boost to a company’s competitiveness as well as a force in the fight against poverty.
“Today, more business leaders recognise that true worth can come not only from profits but from making a positive difference. With five years left to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, an innovative private sector must be part of the global partnership to lift millions of people out of poverty,” she said in a press statement on Sept 21.
The Millennium Development Goals are eight internationally agreed targets which aim to reduce poverty, hunger, maternal and child deaths, disease, inadequate shelter, gender inequality and environmental degradation by 2015.
The winning companies this year are engaged in diverse initiatives such as providing low-income housing in Mexico; assisting farmers in Sierra Leone integrate into sorghum value chains, and offering affordable maternal health services in India, proving that investing in low-income communities can also drive business innovation and growth.
As Andrew Mitchell, UK International Development Secretary, said: “These awards recognise the crucial role of the private sector in development and the contribution that untapped markets can make to increasing global prosperity and tackling poverty. It is the private sector that creates the jobs, enterprise and wealth that can give the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people a chance to transform their lives and secure their futures
Staying nimble to stay ahead
Corporations need to facilitate, incentivise and enable their people to adapt to changes
The truism, “the only constant is change” applies more to today’s turbulent business environment than ever before.
Companies that factor this into their business strategy, that are nimble and capable of adapting, have a distinct advantage in this environment, said Boston Consulting Group senior partner and managing director of the New York office, Martin Reeves.
Yet many companies cling stubbornly to practices that render them less adaptive. “Most business strategies are still based on the assumption that industries are largely stable. That a market leader has at least a decade at the top. However that is no longer true, what used to be 10 years in the 1950s is only a year today,” said Reeves.
Traditionally, companies race to be the biggest in terms of market share and sales volume — this, however, no longer works quite as well in today’s market, pointed out Reeves. An example would be the case of Nokia and Apple. Although Nokia remains the leader in the mobile market in terms of volume, Apple is the industry’s undisputed leader in both brand and market share value.
“Apple surfs change best because it anticipates the market — and this is the game changer,” said Reeves. The old mantra of “sustainable, competitive advantage” has given way to “temporary, repetitive advantage” where companies rely on repeating success to stay ahead, he added.
The age-old drive for efficiency and leanness is another corporate strategy that reduces a company’s ability to adapt. “If the industry will do the same thing for the next 10 years, then efficiency as the ultimate goal makes sense. But as it relies on doing the same thing more quickly, it leaves little room for experimentation and learning — rendering a the corporation less able to adapt to change,” pointed out Reeves.
Having too lean and mean a head count, continued Reeves, also leaves employees no time to think ahead, read widely, or anticipate change. “Furthermore, it can lead to burnout, unmotivated employees who lack autonomy and purpose,” he said.
To stay nimble, corporations need to “facilitate, incentivise and enable their people,” added Reeves.
Companies who desire greater adaptiveness — or as Reeves terms it, the “adaptive advantage” should consider their organisation from five aspects namely: Signal advantage — the ability to detect, capture and exploit information patterns; people advantage — leveraging human resources; simulation advantage — experimenting gives companies the ability to anticipate issues; systems advantage — creating the ecosystem and system that sustain a company’s products and services; and the social advantage — which states that social responsibility is simply good business.
Underpinning all these various aspects of organisational adaptiveness, is the people advantage, said Reeves. “To stay ahead, corporations need to tap into the collective intelligence of its people — just about everything depends on its personnel,” he said. Characteristics of an adaptive corporation include a culture of innovation and experimentation. “If you punish failure and demand every scrap of employee time, you suppress innovation and adaptation,” said Reeves. Two of the world’s most innovative companies, Google and 3M are well-known for allowing their employees time for personal projects.
By allowing experimentation, companies gain simulation advantage where ideas and products are tested before they hit the market. “Proctor & Gamble tests their products in a simulated home environment so engineers can gather data, anticipate problems and exploit advantages,” said Reeves.
Signal advantage also depends on externally focused, well-informed personnel who are informed of corporate goals within context. “When employees have time to ‘play’ or read widely, they are then able to pick up information that is relevant to the company. If they are informed of corporate goals and leadership decisions are given in context, they are best able to react dynamically to this knowledge,” added Reeves.
Both Apple and Amazon tap into the people advantage represented in a large pool of independent developers and content to gain systems advantage. The ecosystem of the Apple App store, is sustained by the creativity of developers creating those apps, while Amazon’s Kindle has market advantage with Kindle-only publications. The ecosystem they created around their products grant them a systems advantage competitor companies find hard to challenge, said Reeves.
Finally, companies who invest in socially responsible and sustainable business practices are in truth gaining themselves a measure of stability and competitive advantage. “Companies who neglect this aspect run the risk of consumer boycotts, lawsuits and unfavourable regulations,” noted Reeves.
“The old rules of management were predicated on stable and static business environments. Today’s rules demand that companies should expect change. That they not only look to lead the business but constantly reinvent it and that their corporate cultures have the necessary adaptiveness to enable them to do so,” said Reeves
The truism, “the only constant is change” applies more to today’s turbulent business environment than ever before.
Companies that factor this into their business strategy, that are nimble and capable of adapting, have a distinct advantage in this environment, said Boston Consulting Group senior partner and managing director of the New York office, Martin Reeves.
Yet many companies cling stubbornly to practices that render them less adaptive. “Most business strategies are still based on the assumption that industries are largely stable. That a market leader has at least a decade at the top. However that is no longer true, what used to be 10 years in the 1950s is only a year today,” said Reeves.
Traditionally, companies race to be the biggest in terms of market share and sales volume — this, however, no longer works quite as well in today’s market, pointed out Reeves. An example would be the case of Nokia and Apple. Although Nokia remains the leader in the mobile market in terms of volume, Apple is the industry’s undisputed leader in both brand and market share value.
“Apple surfs change best because it anticipates the market — and this is the game changer,” said Reeves. The old mantra of “sustainable, competitive advantage” has given way to “temporary, repetitive advantage” where companies rely on repeating success to stay ahead, he added.
The age-old drive for efficiency and leanness is another corporate strategy that reduces a company’s ability to adapt. “If the industry will do the same thing for the next 10 years, then efficiency as the ultimate goal makes sense. But as it relies on doing the same thing more quickly, it leaves little room for experimentation and learning — rendering a the corporation less able to adapt to change,” pointed out Reeves.
Having too lean and mean a head count, continued Reeves, also leaves employees no time to think ahead, read widely, or anticipate change. “Furthermore, it can lead to burnout, unmotivated employees who lack autonomy and purpose,” he said.
To stay nimble, corporations need to “facilitate, incentivise and enable their people,” added Reeves.
Companies who desire greater adaptiveness — or as Reeves terms it, the “adaptive advantage” should consider their organisation from five aspects namely: Signal advantage — the ability to detect, capture and exploit information patterns; people advantage — leveraging human resources; simulation advantage — experimenting gives companies the ability to anticipate issues; systems advantage — creating the ecosystem and system that sustain a company’s products and services; and the social advantage — which states that social responsibility is simply good business.
Underpinning all these various aspects of organisational adaptiveness, is the people advantage, said Reeves. “To stay ahead, corporations need to tap into the collective intelligence of its people — just about everything depends on its personnel,” he said. Characteristics of an adaptive corporation include a culture of innovation and experimentation. “If you punish failure and demand every scrap of employee time, you suppress innovation and adaptation,” said Reeves. Two of the world’s most innovative companies, Google and 3M are well-known for allowing their employees time for personal projects.
By allowing experimentation, companies gain simulation advantage where ideas and products are tested before they hit the market. “Proctor & Gamble tests their products in a simulated home environment so engineers can gather data, anticipate problems and exploit advantages,” said Reeves.
Signal advantage also depends on externally focused, well-informed personnel who are informed of corporate goals within context. “When employees have time to ‘play’ or read widely, they are then able to pick up information that is relevant to the company. If they are informed of corporate goals and leadership decisions are given in context, they are best able to react dynamically to this knowledge,” added Reeves.
Both Apple and Amazon tap into the people advantage represented in a large pool of independent developers and content to gain systems advantage. The ecosystem of the Apple App store, is sustained by the creativity of developers creating those apps, while Amazon’s Kindle has market advantage with Kindle-only publications. The ecosystem they created around their products grant them a systems advantage competitor companies find hard to challenge, said Reeves.
Finally, companies who invest in socially responsible and sustainable business practices are in truth gaining themselves a measure of stability and competitive advantage. “Companies who neglect this aspect run the risk of consumer boycotts, lawsuits and unfavourable regulations,” noted Reeves.
“The old rules of management were predicated on stable and static business environments. Today’s rules demand that companies should expect change. That they not only look to lead the business but constantly reinvent it and that their corporate cultures have the necessary adaptiveness to enable them to do so,” said Reeves
Changing ‘from the inside out’
A new way
Dr Bajer, who spent much of his consulting career with Accenture, leading change projects for big-name clients from Shell to the British government, says the formula was always similar, with much attention paid to the senior leaders in the first instance. Change, it was said, should come from the “top, down”.
Dr Bajer instead looks more closely at the tangible results of corporate change. “Why can’t we create lasting, powerful, business results through the transformation of entire cultures,” he asks.
He took time out to study ethnography (a mix of sociology and anthropology) before heading back to Accenture with a different change management strategy. Instead of heading straight to the leadership group, Dr Bajer worked with the rank and file members of staff. More to the point, he worked as part of the rank and file.
Dr Bajer would take on jobs with each of his clients, spending two months as a typical worker to get a better understanding of the existing culture. Over the next year, he worked as a call centre operator and even as a royal servant. From that experience, he developed a whole new model for change — and that formed the basis of a new stand-alone research and consulting business.
Different approach
Instead of the traditional “top-down” approach, Dr Bajer now calls for organisations to implement changes “from the inside out”. He notes that it is the general staff population that will inevitably make or break a change project.
“The (traditional) model was completely upside down,” he says. “Leaders would paint a picture of where they were, and where they wanted to go, and then try to make it happen.
“But change only happens when enough individuals decide to change,” he says.
In this way, Dr Bajer targets everyone in an organisation, from the board to the rank and file. He says if you can give these people the space, passion and inspiration to find new ways of doing things, organisational change becomes both possible and very real.
Pilot success
It all sounds fair in theory, but what about the reality? Dr Bajer’s pilot programme with HSBC Bank’s underperforming Argentina subsidiary showed how “inside-out” change could end in real improvements to the bottom line.
In early 2008, the division was ranked sixth in Argentina on customer service tables of the banking sector. Employee engagement was measured at a low 40%.
Dr Bajer and his colleagues then instituted the “100-Day Journey” for all 12,000 staff. This self-awareness and leadership course was made available to everyone, from cashiers to security guards to the board of directors. He says over 98% of staff chose to voluntarily participate.
Each was trained to look at his own role as a leadership position. They were taught to think not just about that single job, but its role in the context of the entire organisation. “It’s about thinking like a business owner,” Dr Bajer says.
While such courses are not earth-shattering on the individual scale, having the entire organisation learn these skills en masse created a unique phenomenon. “Everyone was changing at the same time,” he says. “They then reached a tipping point where (organisation-wide) change could be enabled.”
The results, he says, were very positive. In less than a year, HSBC enjoyed a complete turnaround of its position in Argentina. It rose to be number one in the country’s customer service rankings for banks; and staff engagement levels jumped to 78%.
“I’m hoping to share my experience with cultures,” he says. “We’ll answer the question: how do you truly connect people with profits?”
by Dr Javier Bajer is an international talent and leadership expert.
Dr Bajer, who spent much of his consulting career with Accenture, leading change projects for big-name clients from Shell to the British government, says the formula was always similar, with much attention paid to the senior leaders in the first instance. Change, it was said, should come from the “top, down”.
Dr Bajer instead looks more closely at the tangible results of corporate change. “Why can’t we create lasting, powerful, business results through the transformation of entire cultures,” he asks.
He took time out to study ethnography (a mix of sociology and anthropology) before heading back to Accenture with a different change management strategy. Instead of heading straight to the leadership group, Dr Bajer worked with the rank and file members of staff. More to the point, he worked as part of the rank and file.
Dr Bajer would take on jobs with each of his clients, spending two months as a typical worker to get a better understanding of the existing culture. Over the next year, he worked as a call centre operator and even as a royal servant. From that experience, he developed a whole new model for change — and that formed the basis of a new stand-alone research and consulting business.
Different approach
Instead of the traditional “top-down” approach, Dr Bajer now calls for organisations to implement changes “from the inside out”. He notes that it is the general staff population that will inevitably make or break a change project.
“The (traditional) model was completely upside down,” he says. “Leaders would paint a picture of where they were, and where they wanted to go, and then try to make it happen.
“But change only happens when enough individuals decide to change,” he says.
In this way, Dr Bajer targets everyone in an organisation, from the board to the rank and file. He says if you can give these people the space, passion and inspiration to find new ways of doing things, organisational change becomes both possible and very real.
Pilot success
It all sounds fair in theory, but what about the reality? Dr Bajer’s pilot programme with HSBC Bank’s underperforming Argentina subsidiary showed how “inside-out” change could end in real improvements to the bottom line.
In early 2008, the division was ranked sixth in Argentina on customer service tables of the banking sector. Employee engagement was measured at a low 40%.
Dr Bajer and his colleagues then instituted the “100-Day Journey” for all 12,000 staff. This self-awareness and leadership course was made available to everyone, from cashiers to security guards to the board of directors. He says over 98% of staff chose to voluntarily participate.
Each was trained to look at his own role as a leadership position. They were taught to think not just about that single job, but its role in the context of the entire organisation. “It’s about thinking like a business owner,” Dr Bajer says.
While such courses are not earth-shattering on the individual scale, having the entire organisation learn these skills en masse created a unique phenomenon. “Everyone was changing at the same time,” he says. “They then reached a tipping point where (organisation-wide) change could be enabled.”
The results, he says, were very positive. In less than a year, HSBC enjoyed a complete turnaround of its position in Argentina. It rose to be number one in the country’s customer service rankings for banks; and staff engagement levels jumped to 78%.
“I’m hoping to share my experience with cultures,” he says. “We’ll answer the question: how do you truly connect people with profits?”
by Dr Javier Bajer is an international talent and leadership expert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)