Significance of Learning by Doing

With the explosion of technological possibilities, it appears that 21st century human beings are smarter than the earlier generations. It is not so. They (even the prehistoric tribes) were equally intelligent like us and have faced day today challenges as we do.  The only difference could be that the content of our issues/challenges are different.

We boast of knowledge accumulation in various fields. But, what is that hinders business growth when there is plenty of knowledge and information around? The converging answer is; rarely do people set out for executing an action or applying knowledge. The corollary of the statement is rarely we gather knowledge by doing.

In our business facilitation, we follow the principle of 'being aware before doing before knowing'. We propose to suspend knowledge until you do (while tackling wicked problems). We are struggling to cajole our clients to take action on the insights we generate during our workshops. Everybody agrees about the insights and the desired destiny, but no one takes initiatives, even the simple ones.    

The essence of learning is that those who are aware of the exact here-and-now issues and the farther impact of the action, are likely to take action. Raising such an awareness among the key members of the organisation is not easy. We need to design or perhaps invent methodologies to bring out a collective awareness about the common goal. In the end, we console ourselves that, we are getting better  and moving towards gaining shared understanding and execution among our client's team. Perfection is yet to be reached.  

We constantly take efforts to install a culture in the organization  for taking action on the insights developed, and  create opportunities to reflect  and review on their actions. Doing with awareness and reflecting on the actions, promises an ability to adapt, cope with, manage and prepare for uncertainties and change. Our focus on 'doing before knowing' also ensures that the organisational members complete learning cycles by doing, reflecting, re-framing and applying on the business issues. One of the pioneering practitioner once said " there is no learning without doing and no action without learning". How true it is?

contributed by Sasikanth R Prabhu

Awakening Trumpet

We are deeply moved by watching ordinary people doing extraordinarily in course of our Strategy development workshops. Little achievements of the key members (ordinary people) having profound effect on the business leaves us in disbelief. We are glad to watch the changes in their outlook about the business. But, we are regretting that only a small percentage of business owners / teams dare to leave their accustomed way of thinking and catch the growth mindset. One of the major mindset is to expand the production facility, or increase number of sales outlets, or increase man power, etc. 

Most  organisations operate on the assumption or formula that more resources / facility equals better business. They invest a large financial capital in upgrading, expanding and improving resources. Of course, resources matter to accomplish organisational feat. But the mindset for growth matters more than resources.  When you look around the companies that grow geometrically; in spite of meager resources, they thrive with their outlook. Often mindset trumps the resources bank; it sets businesses apart. It help

s the leaders to navigate the right path, irrespective of the circumstances the organisation is having. Mindset can be acquired with right kind of facilitation. A look back on the clients whom we have served indicate, it is sheer mindset that helped them to reach a growth path. The wake up call to every Small and Medium business is to see the market before they spend or acquire costly resources.  Resources may become obsolete faster than the returns it can provide. Many times simplest of the ideas lead to big breakthroughs, but the ideas stick only if there are right mindsets. 

contributed by Sasikanth R Prabhu

Hopes Alive in Change Management

Through our strategy workshops we try to unite people in action (build social capital).  We are able to do that, but we find it difficult to sustain the initiatives undertaken as part of the program (especially the customer visits and new market identification). People have

a tendency to relapse into their individualistic approach to jobs, and they remain operations focused than business focused.  We are very much aware that a poorly led change initiative can inflict disorder on a business unit or the entire company. Sluggish initiatives can breed sarcasm and damage the top management’s and our credibility, and can jeopardize future change initiatives. We are very concerned in preventing change failures. 

Failed initiatives have happened in some of our facilitation midway. As we are a research based consulting, we delved deep into the issues related to initiatives and improved our delivery systems to overcome the inertia of change. In the process of analyzing the cause for change-initiative failures, we also recognized that the business leader’s courage matters most in making the change successful.  There is no substitute for this ingredient, and we have to depend on the leadership level of the client company. Places where we have strong leadership at the top, our strategy facilitation is smoother.   Resilience, patience and trying out until the goal is reached, are the three attributes we expect or want from the top team to implement changes in business strategy.  We are constantly working on developing and nurturing these characteristics in our client’s team.  Even a small breakthrough in change management can give tremendous outcomes.  . We recognize that  leading initiatives is not easy,  but we have identified a few effective principles, that change initiatives stand to  survive the most common vulnerabilities. That is emerging as our strength. 

Contributed by Sasikanth R Prabhu, Marg Atreya

Lasting change through crisis

Prevention of crisis is much advised and of course we must do everything to prevent it. But if it occurs, we need preparation to gain from it. Many families, young couples, close friends, colleagues etc have reported  that their past crisis, very deep ones, have helped then to form deeper bonds with each other  Attempting to contain or overcome a crisis brings people together. That is one of the positive value of crisis.

This phenomenon is equally good for business teams too.  The teams that have found ways to overcome crisis and worked together to get over it have found to be having better working relationships and bonding. Crisis gives an opportunity to know each other at deeper levels and to lean to adjust with each other.

Crisis also gives us an opportunity to break from the outdated habits, renew our perspectives and learn new courses of actions.

We facilitate to create conflicts and crisis in our business facilitation services that the team of key players emerge strong and are clear about the strategy. Though we provoke to create conflicts , we are competent to avoid unhealthy interpersonal rub offs and lead to healthy and long lasting outputs.

Experiencing conflicts and resolving it is the stepping stones to growth.


contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Disorder in the Questions: asking the ‘How?’ sooner

When we go for marketing calls to sell the service of DNA development for the businesses, I make a single statement to make our point i.e. ‘we help the companies to grow from one level to next level’.  As a response to this, often we get back a question ‘How do you do that? ‘.  Also we get other questions that are closely related to the disorderly question “how do you do that? “. Some of them are ‘How do you get from here to there?’, ‘Where has this worked?’, ‘What would this program cost and what is the return on investment?’. ’ How do we measure it?’ etc. We prefer to call this question disorderly, because it beats all the creative and productive purposes. The question creates a subtle aura of cynicism or contempt. It indicates something such as “ We have been doing it all these years, how can you be better than us” ,  “We know it all , let us see if you can tell us more than we know, which is impossible”,  etc.. It is also a defense against taking action, as it implies that let us know clearly that it will yield what we want then we shall act.

Thus the How? question is a defense for the stubbornness to act for change or even to think differently. It is an indirect expression of doubt, more on to them than on us.  The How? question also seem to be a habit.   Business owners who have strong habits of pursuing what is practical and doable, tend to ignore larger purpose and impacts. We are astonished to watch frequently that when some business owner’s initiatives do not work, they simply try harder. When they are trying to control a business and it is failing, then they doggedly do more of what is not working.

The How? question also promotes an illusion of speed such as the world is moving fast now a days  and there is no time for thinking and emotions; At any cost we must do all things fast. Of course, we need to do things fast what needs to be done. What need to be done: ‘the business’ is often forgotten.  Instead the organization mindlessly pursues to meet the mechanical objectives. This mindset, of going only behind what works, is the biggest hurdle to sustainable business growth. We attempt to break this mindset very early in our interactions and that puts us in the risk of being expelled from the premises. But that is the hazard of business facilitation job. We need to put up with it.

Each time business owners / managers try to get answers to the question How?, they get answers such as .. do Lean management, do six sigma, do 5S, do 360 degree feedback, do balance score card, do leadership training etc etc. All seem to have not yielded what was expected if not failed. Still organizations resort to such programs every now and then with a hope to solve their fundamental issues.  Often How?  question fails because it is not the right question and secondly the answer comes out of someone else’s experience. It is difficult for any business to live on the experiences of others regardless of the meticulousness with which the answer is accepted.

It is not that we propose a blanket ban on the How?, it is only that we persuade the business owners/ managers to save this question for a  latter period and that there are more important questions to be asked before the How?. Getting the questions right at first is the best step. We facilitate to make them ask right questions.

Contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Strategy during stressful times.

Recently we had to stall our Business strategy workshops (DNA Development) in one of the reputed company which serves as vendor to an Automotive OEM. The strategy development process is stopped because the company is undergoing distress in terms of increased costs of production, cut in orders from the customers, lower productivity etc. The company was also preoccupied with negotiations with labor for a renewed contract.  All these put together may take toll on the long term strategy. ‘We need to survive first, to think for future’ that is the principle chosen by our client for the moment.  Logically this mantra seems right but has very limited value.

Impulsive reactions to problems, across the enterprise cost-cutting, failures of leadership, lack of clarity, misunderstanding of risk and ignorance of consequences, are all common strategic failings during stressful times.  Typical actions during such period as we have seen is that, all activities centre around cutting costs and raising cash (by loans, by brisk debt collection or delaying payments to creditors). Other ways are – reducing salaries, renegotiating contracts, selling assets, closing a plant, or even reorganizing the entire plant. Business owners or managers who make these decisions seem to be making a critical error. A majority of companies’ cost-cutting measures fail to deliver the savings expected. In fact, half of all cost-cutting schemes are aimed at delivering incremental savings of less than 10% of costs.

Most ‘reduce - cost’ decisions have limited effectiveness. There is genuine concern that more invasive cost-cutting decisions designed to deliver short-term benefits often harm the long-term competitiveness of the company. The key to effective cost cutting is to know the business and its outcome.  That outcome should be in line with the organizational actions we take. Even if a cost reduction attempt is considered essential to survival, simply looking for percentage cuts across the business is likely to lead to a reduction in a business’ competitiveness.   The Business owners / managers should have strategic outlook on cost savings and it should be available for dialogue.

Applying a cost-cutting mentality within existing strategies (if there is one) can deliver not only sustainable savings but also help advance strategic goals. For example, it’s often assumed that cost-cutting and customer satisfaction – a common strategic objective – are mutually exclusive. But if there is an existing supply chain strategy in place, it makes sense to identify which processes are not directly related to improved customer relationships – then look to cut costs or refocus those activities.

Though we supported our client who suspended the strategy discussions in passive way, our answer to this problem is to address strategy in simple, relevant ways that keep business owner / key players focused on the business of the company (strategy), while delivering clear courses of action to survive in turbulent times and grow at the same time.  This need for maintaining a strategic approach is critical, which means looking clearly at business in clear ways, then analyzing how long-term strategy can be maintained in a depressed situation. Business owners / key players who have a mindset to make reasoned decisions based on the solid strategy will do a better job of securing a winning future of their business, as well as their survival.

At times of economic upheaval and low availability of finance, there’s a real danger that

the strategy can take a back seat to survival. But organisations that abandon strategic thinking not only run the risk of undermining their chances of advancing their business when the economy improves, they also endanger their ability to weather the storm.

The key to ‘strategy under stresses is discipline – business discipline !

Contributed by Sasikanth prabhu

Profit and Profitability

Many incidences we have faced in our strategy workshops, where we have to explain the difference between profit and profitability. Yogesh Jain of Niche Quality Systems Pvt Ltd, who is partnering for the DNA development service in Indore region has witnessed most of the confrontations related to profitability.

The question, what is the aim of doing business? Elicits an immediate and instinctive answer… ‘to make profits’ from most of our workshop participants.  Anything other than profit seems to be unthinkable for both business owners and managers.  This is the point where we struggle most to make the key players of the business think beyond profit.  One aspect that we push them to go beyond profit is ‘profitability’.

When we say that ‘profitability is healthier measure of business than profit’ is not welcome by most of the business owners, partially because they do not understand the difference between these two and due to the sentimental attachment they have towards the term ‘profit’.  

Why this strong sentiment?  We feel …….because everyone in the company pays attention to profits. Most of the key business teams have a revenue / budget / profit plan, each department / functional head owns an important element of that plan and progress is watched closely by them in the review meetings.  All managers work strenuously to meet these targets. Yet, even if each manager meets the budget targets, the company seems to be a lot less profitable.   

I remember sitting in a review meeting of a distribution company several years ago. The business owner of the company sat at the head of the table and looked at the four to five managers sitting on both sides of the table. Each manager, in turns began..’ here are my numbers’……. After presentation, they had discussions on implications of the numbers presented and finally all adjusted their numbers and a consensus was reached. This was the half yearly plan.   

In the following quarter the Sales manager grew the top line and met his quota. An additional sale came from new customers who ordered frequently in small amounts. The gross margin on these orders did not cover the distribution cost. Other customer ordered products that were out of stock locally and had to be couriered from other regions.

Two things were noticed in this situation. First both the Sales manager and the Logistic manager were on target; the sales manager grew revenues and the Logistics manager met his target because his budget was based on an average cost that allowed these inefficiencies with a hope on future business. Even though these managers met their numbers they failed in managing the profitability.

Second, these uncommon sales and orders could have been made much more profitable through some very simple business oriented twists, which would have benefited the customers as well as the company. These twists require only a business acumen and execution - not extra financial capital. Our strategy workshop highlights this point to a large extent.

As a discipline, we need to see Profit and Money as two different things. It is certainly possible for a firm to make a huge profit and have no money. It is equally possible that company is flush with funds but is suffering from losses.  What happens when an organization shows a profit?  There will be a line of people standing in a queue waiting for a share of profit.  Some organizations get into trouble because they don’t make profit. And others get into trouble because they make profit.

But successful businesses stand on two pillars. One: the ability to generate profit. Two: the ability to manage cash flow. Managing cash flow is very much related profitability. But this is missing in most of the companies… profitability is unseen and unmanaged!

 Contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Outside support

Entrepeuners succeed with one set of skills and mindset. They are often tempted to think that success can be repeated in the future with the same set of game plan. What we have found is that many successful entrepreuners get stuck at some level of achievement and their business do not grow further. The reason could be when things slip, as it coud be, the temptation to do the same old things hardens aggressively and urgently.

But some companies, very rare ones, even though they are successful in their initial phases, they do differently in their second phase. One of the different things is that these long surviving companies infuse help from outside at an early stage itself by associating with resources such as external board of directors, advisory councils, industry experts, consultants, mentors, facilitators, learning forums etc.  

While the companies that are stuck and have a retarded growth appears to be more insular and are less eager to form partnerships with people outside the firm. Such company owners show so much confidence in themselves that they end up eulogising themselves about how they succeded in tackling challenging situations in the past and how they rely on their own internal abilities. At times, they also, redicule external sources of expertise.

"Help seeking" is a mindset, that need to be inculcated very early in an organisation. But the entrepreuners who start an enterprise tend to be great at figuring things out by themselves and are extremely confident in their ability to find the right answers. Initially this seems to be great , but as the business grows, the leaders must be willing to look for people (outside the four walls of the organisation) with relevant experience, connections and perspectives that are useful to the company.

The power of seeking outside wisdom is immence. The outsiders can play a number of relevant roles. Such as....

1. Usually leaders and managers who take extraordinary initiatives are alone at the top / edge. They can rely on or use outsiders as mentors / counsellors / sounding boards

2. Business is all about perspectives. Outsiders can bring in different perspectives. Many leaders, due to operational urgencies, get bankrupt on ideas. Facilitators can bring new ideas and help key people in the organisation to navigate to the growth path.

3. Sometimes the company may be trying out new ideas or innovation that were tried and perfected by others, elsewhere. If the organisation has a habit of looking for the best from the market, the chances are high that a useful resource be found.

4. Many business tools are developed and tested by varius institutions for the benefit of the business organisations. The outside network of people can get these new tools into the organisation quicker and with ease.

5. Closer contact with external people will enhance the competiveness of the people in the organisation including the top leaders of the organisation.

Getting connected with outside human resources is a channel to grow the company but Douglas Adams says " Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others are also remarkable for this apparent disinclination to do so"...... but do not hesitate to seek help!   

contributed by sasikanth prabhu

Entry Barriers

When I was a MDP consultant at IBS Kochi, I had a chance to visit premises of more than 50 small, medium and large businesses. My job was to develop businesses for the intellectual capital of the faculty at IBS. My experiences during the visits to the prospective customers' premises made me feel that intellectual capital is the least wanted capital by them, but mostly needed. We found two situations in the customer’s premises: one is " business is doing well" and the other " business is not doing well". After visiting a score of prospects we found a pattern in their responses, mostly unfavourable ones.

Places where business is doing well the following behavior is found.....

 They....

·   Do not allow the new service providers to access the business leaders

·   Show ‘we-know-it-all’ attitude

·   are busy Expanding the organisation at a faster pace

·   Revenue growth and profit generation is equated with business growth

·   Give high priority to prestigious certifications and image building activities

·   Focus mostly on customers with high purchase power

·   Engage in creating entry barriers to the new comers / competitors

·   Look for business diversifications

·   Command and demand services from the vendors (supply chain)

 Places where business is not doing well the following behavior is found.....

 They....

·         engage in cost cutting measures

      ·         sell the products at thin margins

·         arrange programs to change the peoples’ behavior. The programs will be conducted by in house experts or by an outside agency that quotes the least.

·         take disconcerted marketing initiatives

·         spend more time in urgent and managerial issues

·         Search for certifications that will give them credibility in the market.

·         are hesitant to discontinue the unprofitable / failed product lines

contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Closing the perceptual gap in the organisation

As part of the struggle to communicate, what benefits a company will get if they engage us, we offer a
sample session. The hazard of this session – Business Facilitation- is in the initial phases of our engagement. The people in the organization tend to scrutinize / evaluate us to death. After every sessions of two hours the client has a sub-conscious tendency to look for’ what did we gain today?’ Or ‘did we get what we have paid for?’ ‘Did we get anything new?’ Etc.etc.

What we have observed is that always people crave for new knowledge, new ideas, new paradigms, new models. And the attempts for these cognitive acquisitions actually neither solve the issues at hand nor place the company in a better business position. If the participants do not get something new, they get disappointed and the halo about our services also gets affected. Actually our programs are not meant to teach or enlighten about new knowledge but to bring perceptual changes and shared understanding, which unfortunately is not observable, articulable but have significant effect on the collective efforts of the company.

Different groups within an organization can have sharply contrasting perceptions of organizational aspects. For example, while senior executives are twice as likely as any other group to view their company as “resilient,” nearly 60% of line managers, mid-level managers, and business-unit staff describe the same organization as unhealthy in some respect. And though senior managers tend to feel positive about their involvement in operating decisions, many junior managers in the same company feel that senior managers “micromanage” or “domineer.”

Such perception gaps pose a serious organizational climate. Yes, we all want confident, optimistic organizational citizens. But if people within a company can’t agree on the state of its affairs, they can’t accurately diagnose problems or design and execute solutions for them. In our initial phase of our engagement, we dig out the dirt in the organization and try to close the perception gap.

 We make them acknowledge that different people have different perspectives on the organization’s matters. We allow the participants from different groups / departments to share their views—and the reasoning behind them. Sharing their views with others, backing them up with the data they have used to form those conclusions etc.. Our goal is….to compile a more complete picture of the organization. Also encourage honesty and acceptance in the group. We help them describe what’s actually happening in their organization. This process brings into light the real naked issues of the organization. This makes them realize the wrong ride they are taking. We are sure that mere awareness about the prevalent conditions can help managers and staff form a more objective impression of the organization’s health and help them build readiness for change. This feeling is the most important to bring about changes in strategy and organizational development. But alas! The immediate effortless change in perception is not considered to be a gain and the human mind craves for more knowledge…

Contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Killing Business Innovation

Innovation happens in most organisations on daily basis, but most of it is revolving around cost reduction or pricing tactics. Very very rarely do Business Innovation happens.

Business Innovation isn’t just a strategy – it’s a mind-set founded on the belief that a win for customers and employees is a win for the company. Unfortunately, most companies are unwilling to make the transformation from being product, geography, or function centric to becoming truly Business centric. With a decade of experience with many businesses, we have found six mind-sets that block business innovation.

1. Spends without focus. Firms pour money into traditional pockets.... training, sales promotions, advertisements, product / service development, but research shows that the market refuses to give them credit for this. Business owners make all kinds of excuses for this state of affairs –“We’re in a tough industry” or “All the Street cares about is short-term results”– but customers just aren’t buying it.

2. Makes budgets an entitlement. Senior managers who negotiate for funding typically make their decisions on the basis of the prior year’s budget or the company’s general cost concerns. At the same time, department staff view the budget funds as an entitlement (we ought to get this... attitude) rather than as a investment focused on the business. The result?  Business as usual, and the same (boring / off the shelf ) customer offerings.

3. Assumes people in the field know nothing. Most firms treat departments as seperate entities /functions run by people with respective special backgrounds. A typical business owner / CEO thinks, “Our technical people are in charge of product development – they have to develop and educate the sales people about the new product. Sales persons will never understand the complexities of engineering.” This mindset almost guarantees that products and services don’t properly connect within the organisation.

4. Puts Marketing, Finance, Administration etc. in different cubicles. These distinctly different functions are more or less autonomous. They rarely communicate, except to consider cutting budgets when overall business performance lags. Such disunity ensures that no one pays attention to business of what the customer needs and wants from the company as a whole.

5. Detaches Marketing from the customers. Marketing people can’t do much for customers beyond feeding them propaganda. For eaxample when premium resort customers often lack a decent meal or even a pillow, the poor folks in Marketing can only report on customer rage.

6. Don’t rock the boat ..attitude. Harmony is given priority than doing more business. Business leaders / top management shy away from organizing their businesses around customers' needs , arguing that doing so is “too complicated” or “too disruptive” for them. But for the organic growth of the business, shaking up is needed. Only then the sustainable benefits will flow to the customers, employees, shareholders and the economy as a whole.

We are exposed this kind of mindsets in our retainer engagements (DNA Crafting) and it frequently challenges us in various forms. With a balance of approaches we have begun to grapple with the situations. But we hold on to our methodology of 'Merciless provocation" though it is interpersonally risky, yet the only known effective method. Changing mindsets emerging to be our specialisation.

contributed by Sasikanth prabhu

Visioning

Now we have facilitated visioning exercise of more than 50 small businesses. Recently we did visioning program for a Automotive parts manufacturing Company in Dewas (Madhya Pradesh). This company was introduced by our friend Yogesh Jain who also became an ardent follower of School of Strategy and he runs his organisation Niche Quality Solutions Pvt Ltd (http://nicheqs.com/), which has long experience in providing Six sigma, Quality solutions to organisations in and around Indore. An year's experience in strategy workshops have given him an opportunity to develop an unconventional perspectives on business growth. He says " I have attended many management programs organised by institutions such as IMA.... but the business strategy workshops are different and they really add value to the organisation. There is a sense of fulfillment in taking part in these sessions". It is wonderful to work with him now... ...

During the meetings with business owners the question that comes up a lot in the work we do is the difference between vision and mission. At times we come across companies which do not bother to distinguish them at all: but...They have a separate Values Statement (thank goodness), but if you ask them to tell their Vision, and then their Mission, they’ll give you the same answer for both questions. So what is . difference? Does it matter? Yes it does! we will see visioning here .

• A strategic vision is usually thought to be solely future oriented. A vision provides an organization a forward looking, idealized image of itself.


• Moves outside the usual assumptions.


• Concentrates on the end goal, not the means to reach the goal.


• Followers gain ownership by developing the means (action plan).

Another benefit when done together with the people in the organisation is shared vision, which includes a present component.

• Vision is not a destination, but an intangible structure that surrounds us and guides our daily activities. From this perspective, a shared vision is a form of self-identity.

This definition of vision is a collective belief in what the organization can become. In this way it is similar to a truly desired wish for the future. If the vision is sufficiently broad it is enough for providing a framework for current decisions.

Regularly feedback can be employed for both corrective action and vision revision (interesting combination of words). If the feedback indicates a problem in the implementation and nothing amiss in the expected vision then the strategy and/or tactics can be altered to get back on track toward the vision. And if there is an indication that the vision is no longer realistic there is no problem with a shift in vision to a more workable vision. Normal planning cycles allow for such a step on an annual or half yearly basis.

ImplicationsWhat is unique about the organization's self-concept of itself? Something that would be missed if the organization were not to fulfill this vision.

What issues might arise among different stakeholders as this vision is realized?
Are organizational practices aligned with the vision? Are desired actions reinforced by performance metrics?

Putting an organization’s mission & vision in place requires working at all levels of the organization. Often, the effort is only made at the top of the organization with the expectation that employee commitment will follow. This assumption is far from true. It is recommended that a specific change program be put in place to develop a shared vision and common understanding of the organization’s vision and mission.

Characteristics of Strategy meetings with the key people of an organisation (Part 1)

By now I have facilitated more than 100 sessions on development of Business strategy and I see some common occurings / patterns in most of the sessions. The observations and experiences are given below.......

• The development of suitable / appropriate strategic options often require novel perspective. Catching the novel perspective sometimes is the most difficult and time consuming part in strategy devlopment


• Many in the organisation view strategy and execution are two different and sometimes even go to the extent that they cannot co-exist.


• Real strategy making requires inputs and contributions from various members of the team. But the top management has the tendency to act as an apex body and take a stand point 'do as I/we say ". This disconnects many employees from the business.


• Strategic information is often forgotten amidst new information pertaining to daily operations. This makes people to be fire fighting than doing the important.


• Many times it requires the key people to make difficult decisions, which they postpone thinking better decision can come as time passes by.


• Many important key points need to be taken into account from the business perspective. But many key people think only in specific functions such as finance, production, accounts, sales , HR etc. They think of doing the job well and not winning the business.


• There is gross disagreement exists among key players on basic assumptions regarding the future of their business.


• The strategy need to be communicated to the employees convincingly, but little time and effort is spent on making the strategy simple to communicate.


• Difference of opinion among the key players regarding the strategy escalates into personal conflicts at a later stage.


• The key players fail to help the employees feel that strategy is something worthwhile to pursue, to identify and to feel proud of.

contributed by : Sasikanth Prabhu

Unconventional Learning Program

Today, one positive thing is that the top management has begun to recognize the promise of sustainable growth hinges on the human beings (the key people) and not the technology or finance. Their key people’s knowledge, understanding and learning are the organization’s sacred assets. When it comes to breathing life into strategic initiatives, the key people are the ones who hold the power.

Creating a “learning oriented organization” to fulfill the growth needs has proven to be devilishly difficult.

If we read through the media we find that, the quest for employee-driven business growth is reaching a near-feverish pitch. Many organizations are looking for programs that will guarantee people’s commitment and engagement in the organizations goal. Often, sought after programs are Certifications, Computer based learning, Soft skills training, Offsite simulation programs etc. We have even found that some companies are intoxicated in conducting such programs.
Recently we asked one of the business owner of a Rs.40 crore company owner (our client too), what role does he play in the organization primarily. He said he spends a lot of time in HR development, developing people skills and attitudes. He is of the opinion that only if people’s attitude change he can go for business expansion / growth.

Sure, such programs are sexy and create a surge in the enthusiasm of the participants. But they are, after all, merely tools that offer no magic on their own. In factual terms, they do not seem to generate knowledge, commitment or enthusiasm in a sustainable way. For getting employees’ commitment and application of their skills the top management needs to begin the process elsewhere.

The challenge, here, is not “how do we get employees to learn.” Rather, it is “how do we create a situation in which they can use their own powerful and innate abilities to apply.” Notice the important difference between the two orientations. Organizational training ceases to be something we “do to” employees.

Instead, facilitators become triggers of a latent, collective power that may be harnessed and directed towards our organization’s shared goals and aspirations. The equation is simple. To unlock the power of widespread transformation, simply embrace some new assumptions. Immerse learners in experience. Welcome mistakes. Discover what works. Apply it to reality.

Though this later method of promoting learning in the organization is effective and invaluable, but the challenge is…. this service of learning facilitation is difficult to sell and it doesn’t have the boundaries and content structure of the other learning tools. The decision maker himself needs to be a learner and go beyond his/ her own thresholds of fear to subscribe for this method.

It is worth taking the risk…. The outcomes are unpredictable but valuable sustainably.

contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Possible causes of productivity problems in India (More of Kerala)

Macro Issues

Micro Issues

Economical · Inflation / recession · Excessive defense spending · High Energy prices · Subsidies to inefficiency · Imbalanced wealth distribution · Government too high a percentage of GNP · Unhealthy ratio of export to import · High technology cost · Unaffordable cost of living Agriculture & Industry · Insufficient /ineffective research and development · Exploitation of farmers · Lack of developments in product quality Governmental · Inappropriate and impractical legislations · Bureaucratic delays · Enormous paper work · Governmental waste · Low government productivity Societal · Discrimination based on caste, religion and language · Wasteful habits · Dishonesty and corruption · Frequent family conflicts · Transition from joint family to nuclear family · Increasing crime rates · Unhealthy public habits · Rioting tendency · Lack of constructive politics, resorting to mud slinging Education · Irrelevant curriculum · Not appropriately linked to career and occupation · Lack of commitment and efforts from tutors · Lack of facility and amenities · Excessive thrust on criticisms and analysis · Lacking creativeness, construction and synthesis Health · Undernourished / unhealthy diet · Stress Frequent incidence of epidemics Labour force characteristics · Low education standards · Adversarial relations with private sector · Poor work ethics · Pilferage · Tendency for strike and Unionism · Insensitivity and indifference to the management · Lack of loyalty to the organisation, business and occupation Psychological · Lack of motivation to achieve · Low self esteem · Improper communication styles Irrational cognitions

Organisational · Insufficient / Obsolete machines & plants · Misfit staff · Faulty structure · Discouraging and oppressive culture Business · Ventures without mission, vision, strategy and resources · Lack of understanding about market needs and market segment · Unfair pricing · Too much dependence on foreign technology & know how · Short term focus · Inappropriate risk taking Management · Inattention to operations · Inattention to quality · Excessive analytical management · Resource wastages · Inattention to human factors · Excessive executive pay · Lack of synergistic relation with vendors, suppliers and customers · Attempt to dominate other management functions · Adversarial attitude towards unions · Excessive attention to legal issues and paperwork · Resistance to change Unions · Insensitively asserting union rights · Featherbedding (getting paid for services not performed) · Rigid job classification · Adversarial attitude towards management · Pay greater than productivity · Keeping output low deliberately Employees · Preference for leisure time · Resistance to change · No pride in workmanship · Poor work ethics · Focus on pay and wages than on work · Improper utilization of wages earned · Self centeredness and tendency to take bribe · Unhealthy habits · Attitudinal problems with work · Laziness, negligence, indifference, arrogance

Productivity

Classical definition: Productivity is the ratio of output to input. Productivity means that more is produced with the same expenditure of resources.

According to Bernadine, H.J and Kane, J.S (1993) Performance appraisal: A contingency approach to system development and evaluation.

Effective performance (productivity related) at the individual or aggregated level can be defined according to six criteria.

The most effective employees or work units are those providing the highest possible quantity and quality of work at the lowest cost and in the most timely fashion, with a minimum of supervision and with a maximum of positive impact on co-workers, organisational units and the client/customer population.

Another conceptualization posits simply effectiveness and efficiency, with effectiveness defined as meeting or exceeding customer requirements and efficiency defined as meeting those requirements at the lowest cost possible.

Contributed by

Sasikanth R Prabhu (November,2002)