LE02_200612: Of roots and dots

Intricacies into organization management and teamwork

To quote Lao Tzu, the journey of a thousand miles commences with a single step. To try and solve a problem, the first step is to begin. Yet the question remains of how to begin and in which direction to take that first step? A step in the wrong direction of an overlooking gorge can leave one plunging downwards. Yes, that might still be a thousand miles down perhaps but not quite in the direction one would want to go! Anyway, to understand the significance of the first step in reaching for the proverbial skyscraper, what better than learning through application?

Tower building: Simple yet emphatic
It is amazing to think how the power in simple things is so elusive to be recognized. My class on Principles of Management begins with one of such exercise to understand a concept of mammoth importance. Blocks made of light wood need to be placed one above the other and the placement of the blocks reflects on the stability of the tower being constructed. Simple, isn’t it? Yet, the underlying learning involved is fantastic with the blocks representing organization expansion milestones and the tower of blocks, the organization itself. An important question to ask when it comes to the difficulty in setting up a new organization or maintaining its pedigree is WHY. Why is it difficult to get your start-up successful? Why is it difficult for larger organizations to sustain their performance? The reach for the skyscraper, to put our exercise figuratively, did answer it all and quite emphatically.

The first block needs to be placed on a firm footing as in the case of a start-up. If the idea itself is not worth the buck, then the organization may not survive for long.  As the draft of fans invades on the base of the block, I start to think of market and funding pressures. If the block itself was too light, it could perhaps be blown off the table as in the case of quite a number of start-ups. So, the first step needs to be firm, strong to establish the organization on a sound footing. Anyway, the organization is being built block by block by three folks while the rest of the class watches. Only one of the three can touch the blocks and place them on the tower blindfolded while the other two represent two levels of management to guide our worker. Initial training of the workers takes time and the same is the case here with building the tower. And thereafter, each incremental step needs to be carefully planned and executed with timely contributions from the each member of the team. 

The organization needs to get acclimatized to the market scenario and assess its next step yet improve in terms of productivity and efficiency. All of this is learnt or rather, realized, while the tower is built and as the tower gains height its stability is threatened, both because of its own foundation and because of competition from our simulated market. 


SMARTER Goal Setting

Not just with respect to setting up organizations, but this simple tower building exercise demonstrates the importance of SMARTER Goal Setting. What is SMARTER by the way? Well, it stands for Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time Bound, Evaluate and Re-evaluate. SMARTER is easier to remember, isn’t it? In any case, goals provide direction and purpose in general and are viewed from different perspectives. Consider the case of a manager close by who is supervising the worker (the one actually placing the blocks one over the other) in an organizational perspective. Before they set out on the tower building exercise, they look at historical data to come to an estimate or an educated guess of an achievable performance in terms of the tower height. Based on this, the manager and the worker propose goals from their individual perspectives. Now, either of these goals or none of them might be aligned with organizational goals and here is where the manager’s task is of utmost importance in terms of getting the best out of the worker, use his negotiation skills to persuade the worker to come to a common consensus of a SMARTER goal. Of course, not all managers are the same and hence, convincing the worker may be easier said than done!

Let us look at a set of scenarios I-IV as per the table below:

Parameter	Index	I	II	III	IV
Historical Tower height achieved by team LOW	1	5	5	5	5
Historical Tower height achieved by team HIGH	2	18	20	21	23
Achievable Performance -(Estimate / Guess )	3	18	20	22	25
Goal proposed by the Manager	4	18	22	22	18
Goal proposed by the worker	5	12	12	12	20
Goal Mutually agreed for building the tower between worker and manager with the support of the manager	6	15	22	18	15
No. of cubes Tower manager and worker team could build / achieve at the end of the exercise	7	18	18	18	18

With respect to goal setting, an analysis of gaps reveals a lot about the types of managers in organizations as shown below. The analysis is carried out with respect to the manager’s traits and the four basic functions of a manager in mind.

Gaps	How to?	I	II	III	IV
Gap if any between Tower height Performance so far achieved and Achievable performance of tower	3-7	0	2	4	7
Gap if any between goal proposed by the manager and mutually agreed goal by team	4-6	3	0	4	3
Gap if any between goal proposed by the manager and the goal proposed  by the worker	4-5	6	10	10	-2
Gap if any between goal proposed by the worker and mutually agreed goal by team	5-6	-3	-10	-6	5
Gap if any between  performance achieved ( at the end of the exercise ) and  goal mutually agreed by manger and the worker	6-7	-3	4	0	-3
Gap if any between  performance achieved ( at the end of the exercise ) and  achievable goal	7-3	0	-2	-4	-7

Scenario I is more or less an ideal case with the manager and worker proposing goals at opposite ends of the spectrum. However, both the manager and the worker compromised on their ambitions to equal degrees and the team achieved the goal in the end. One could fault the manager for not being enterprising and establishing a goal equal to that indicated by historical data which, in turn, was further compromised on negotiation with the worker. The manager did act a bit timid to start with but the team achieved the desired performance in the end which goes to show that the worker was kept motivated throughout.

How about Scenario II? The manager has proposed a goal to create a new record. I can assure you that Usain Bolt did not participate in this exercise! However, the most striking part is that the manager has more or less enforced the goal upon the worker. The manager has, probably in arrogance or ignorance, failed to consider the perspective of the worker and stood firm with his goal by not letting the goal get compromised. In the end, both the manager and the worker are left disappointed because of a lofty ambition which was not quite achievable. Shows the importance of “A” in SMARTER goal, doesn’t it?

Scenario III is perhaps the most interesting amongst all and offers powerful insights. Not just with respect to a realistic initial goal setting, but the manager has been successful in mutually agreeing to a goal with the worker which reflects a sense of motivation in the initial stages itself. The worker has raised the bar to 6 towers from his proposal of 12 while the manager has dropped the bar just enough to 4 towers to motivate the worker and make him realize his value. As a result, the goal achieved by the team has been in line with the mutually agreed goal. Certainly, in this case, the manager has taken a holistic view and not compromised either on the organizational goals or the feedback from the worker. However, there is a catch! When compared to the historic HIGH, the team has fallen short at the end of the exercise leaving some shoe strings to be tied to perform better the next time. A possible cause could be that the worker was not motivated enough to reach beyond the goal mutually agreed upon.

Scenario IV is a submissive case of a manager who does not believe in his worker. Even if the worker has demonstrated zeal and ambition towards the organization goal, the manager has done a brilliant job in suppressing it even more with a mutually agreed goal way below the historic team HIGH and Achievable Performance measures. Finally, the worker’s zeal has come through by saving grace in terms of the eventual tower height. This is a case of one rotten apple spoiling the basket when it comes to the negative mindset of the manager undermining the team performance at the end of the day. Not the kind of manager one would like to have in their organizations, is he?

Anyway, to sum up the four scenarios, the below table analyzes the manager’s behavior and performance with respect to the four basic managerial functions. An upward arrow indicates a positive note while a cross indicates that the manager hasn’t performed the function in an apt manner.

Organization: A holistic view 

As the tower is built by the team of three, I realize the significance of looking at the bigger picture and aligning your personal goals with the organizational goals. Better the alignment and visualization of where a team member fits in the scheme of things better would be performance of the organization.  Quite often, addressing this fundamental issue could resolve a majority of conflicts. Yet, bigger the organization, greater the difficulty in realizing the root cause and consequently, the concept of a holistic view becomes even more subtle. “Easier said than done” is a clichéd phrase and often times, not valued appropriately. But, the one who utters it understands every bit of it and has seen it to believe it! Dots on a sheet of paper have no value unless they are connected appropriately. And once they are connected, they are invincible for the bigger picture to be viewed just like one of those blocks in the tower. Removing a single intermediate block can send the tower tumbling down and therein lies the essence of teamwork.