Hi Mahesh, I’m extremely sorry for the comment which hurted you, But I didn’t meant so. Again and again I would like sorry you. Regards, Ritesh
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Excellent packages for the trainers as reference though they lack depth for a more advance audience/participants. Overall a commendable effort Yean
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]ave you ever seen a football game?
Or been a part of a football team?
These questions might seem awkward and absurd when talking about How to crack a Group Discussion to get into a top B-School.
But they are relevant to understand the nuances of a Group Discussion.
Just reiterating the cliché that a Group discussion, or GD, as it is commonly called, is a group process or a team building exercise does not help students.
As in a football game, where you play like a team, passing the ball to each team member and aim for a common goal, GD is also based on team work, incorporating views of different team members to reach a common goal.
A Group Discussion at a B-School can be defined as a formal discussion involving ten to 12 participants in a group.
They are given a topic. After some time, during which they collect their thoughts, the group is asked to discuss the topic for 20 to 25 minutes.
B-Schools use the GD process to assess a candidate's personality traits.
Here are some of the most important personality traits that a candidate should possess to do well at a GD:
1.Team Player
B-Schools lay great emphasis on this parameter because it is essential for managers to be team players.
The reason: Managers always work in teams.
At the beginning of his career, a manager works as a team member. And, later, as a team leader.
Management aspirants who lack team skills cannot be good managers.
2.Reasoning Ability
Reasoning ability plays an important role while expressing your opinions or ideas at a GD.
For example, an opinion like 'Reduction in IIMs' fees will affect quality' can be better stated by demonstrating your reasoning ability and completing the missing links between fees and quality as:
'Reduction in IIMs' fees will result in less funds being invested on study material, student exchange programmes, research, student development activities, etc.
'Moreover, it costs money to attract good faculty, create good infrastructure and upgrade technology.
'With reduction in fees, less money will be available to perform these ,activities which will lead to deterioration in the quality of IIMs.'
3.Leadership
There are three types of situations that can arise in a GD:
~ A GD where participants are unable to establish a proper rapport and do not speak much.
~ A GD where participants get emotionally charged and the GD gets chaotic.
~ A GD where participants discuss the topic assertively by touching on all its nuances and try to reach the objective.
Here, a leader would be someone who facilitates the third situation at a GD.
A leader would have the following qualities:
~S/he shows direction to the group whenever group moves away from the topic.
~S/he coordinates the effort of the different team members in the GD.
~S/he contributes to the GD at regular intervals with valuable insights.
~S/he also inspires and motivates team members to express their views.
Caution: Being a mere coordinator in a GD does not help, because it is a secondary role.
Contribute to the GD with your ideas and opinions, but also try and steer the conversation towards a goal.
4. Flexibility
You must be open to other ideas as well as to the evaluation of your ideas: That is what flexibility is all about.
But first, remember: Never ever start your GD with a stand or a conclusion.
Say the topic of a GD is, 'Should India go to war with Pakistan?'
Some participants tend to get emotionally attached to the topic and take a stand either in favour or against the topic, ie 'Yes, India should', or, 'No, India should not'.
By taking a stand, you have already given your decision without discussing the topic at hand or listening to the views of your team members.
Also, if you encounter an opposition with a very strong point at the 11th hour, you end up in a typical catch-22 situation:
~If you change your stand, you are seen as a fickle-minded or a whimsical person.
~If you do not change your stand, you are seen as an inflexible, stubborn and obstinate person.
5. Assertiveness
You must put forth your point to the group in a very emphatic, positive and confident manner.
Participants often confuse assertiveness with aggressiveness.
Aggressiveness is all about forcing your point on the other person, and can be a threat to the group. An aggressive person can also demonstrate negative body language, whereas an assertive person displays positive body language.
6.Initiative
A general trend amongst students is to start a GD and get the initial kitty of points earmarked for the initiator.
But that is a high risk-high return strategy.
Initiate a GD only if you are well versed with the topic. If you start and fail to contribute at regular intervals, it gives the impression that you started the GD just for the sake of the initial points.
Also, if you fumble, stammer or misquote facts, it may work against you.
Remember: You never ever get a second chance to create a first impression.
7.Creativity/ Out of the box thinking
An idea or a perspective which opens new horizons for discussion on the GD topic is always highly appreciated.
When you put across a new idea convincingly, such that it is discussed at length by the group, it can only be positive.
You will find yourself in the good books of the examiner.
8.Inspiring ability
A good group discussion should incorporate views of all the team members.
If some team members want to express their ideas but are not getting the opportunity to do so, giving them an opportunity to express their ideas or opinions will be seen as a positive trait.
Caution: If a participant is not willing to speak, you need not necessarily go out of the way to ask him to express his views. This may insult him and hamper the flow of the GD.
9. Listening
Always try and strike a proper balance between expressing your ideas and imbibing ideas.
10. Awareness
You must be well versed with both the micro and macro environment.
Your awareness about your environment helps a lot in your GD content, which carries maximum weightage.
Caution: The content or awareness generally constitutes 40 to 50 percent marks of your GD.
Apart from these qualities, communication skills, confidence and the ability to think on one's feet are also very important.
From India, Pune
276Or been a part of a football team?
These questions might seem awkward and absurd when talking about How to crack a Group Discussion to get into a top B-School.
But they are relevant to understand the nuances of a Group Discussion.
Just reiterating the cliché that a Group discussion, or GD, as it is commonly called, is a group process or a team building exercise does not help students.
As in a football game, where you play like a team, passing the ball to each team member and aim for a common goal, GD is also based on team work, incorporating views of different team members to reach a common goal.
A Group Discussion at a B-School can be defined as a formal discussion involving ten to 12 participants in a group.
They are given a topic. After some time, during which they collect their thoughts, the group is asked to discuss the topic for 20 to 25 minutes.
B-Schools use the GD process to assess a candidate's personality traits.
Here are some of the most important personality traits that a candidate should possess to do well at a GD:
1.Team Player
B-Schools lay great emphasis on this parameter because it is essential for managers to be team players.
The reason: Managers always work in teams.
At the beginning of his career, a manager works as a team member. And, later, as a team leader.
Management aspirants who lack team skills cannot be good managers.
2.Reasoning Ability
Reasoning ability plays an important role while expressing your opinions or ideas at a GD.
For example, an opinion like 'Reduction in IIMs' fees will affect quality' can be better stated by demonstrating your reasoning ability and completing the missing links between fees and quality as:
'Reduction in IIMs' fees will result in less funds being invested on study material, student exchange programmes, research, student development activities, etc.
'Moreover, it costs money to attract good faculty, create good infrastructure and upgrade technology.
'With reduction in fees, less money will be available to perform these ,activities which will lead to deterioration in the quality of IIMs.'
3.Leadership
There are three types of situations that can arise in a GD:
~ A GD where participants are unable to establish a proper rapport and do not speak much.
~ A GD where participants get emotionally charged and the GD gets chaotic.
~ A GD where participants discuss the topic assertively by touching on all its nuances and try to reach the objective.
Here, a leader would be someone who facilitates the third situation at a GD.
A leader would have the following qualities:
~S/he shows direction to the group whenever group moves away from the topic.
~S/he coordinates the effort of the different team members in the GD.
~S/he contributes to the GD at regular intervals with valuable insights.
~S/he also inspires and motivates team members to express their views.
Caution: Being a mere coordinator in a GD does not help, because it is a secondary role.
Contribute to the GD with your ideas and opinions, but also try and steer the conversation towards a goal.
4. Flexibility
You must be open to other ideas as well as to the evaluation of your ideas: That is what flexibility is all about.
But first, remember: Never ever start your GD with a stand or a conclusion.
Say the topic of a GD is, 'Should India go to war with Pakistan?'
Some participants tend to get emotionally attached to the topic and take a stand either in favour or against the topic, ie 'Yes, India should', or, 'No, India should not'.
By taking a stand, you have already given your decision without discussing the topic at hand or listening to the views of your team members.
Also, if you encounter an opposition with a very strong point at the 11th hour, you end up in a typical catch-22 situation:
~If you change your stand, you are seen as a fickle-minded or a whimsical person.
~If you do not change your stand, you are seen as an inflexible, stubborn and obstinate person.
5. Assertiveness
You must put forth your point to the group in a very emphatic, positive and confident manner.
Participants often confuse assertiveness with aggressiveness.
Aggressiveness is all about forcing your point on the other person, and can be a threat to the group. An aggressive person can also demonstrate negative body language, whereas an assertive person displays positive body language.
6.Initiative
A general trend amongst students is to start a GD and get the initial kitty of points earmarked for the initiator.
But that is a high risk-high return strategy.
Initiate a GD only if you are well versed with the topic. If you start and fail to contribute at regular intervals, it gives the impression that you started the GD just for the sake of the initial points.
Also, if you fumble, stammer or misquote facts, it may work against you.
Remember: You never ever get a second chance to create a first impression.
7.Creativity/ Out of the box thinking
An idea or a perspective which opens new horizons for discussion on the GD topic is always highly appreciated.
When you put across a new idea convincingly, such that it is discussed at length by the group, it can only be positive.
You will find yourself in the good books of the examiner.
8.Inspiring ability
A good group discussion should incorporate views of all the team members.
If some team members want to express their ideas but are not getting the opportunity to do so, giving them an opportunity to express their ideas or opinions will be seen as a positive trait.
Caution: If a participant is not willing to speak, you need not necessarily go out of the way to ask him to express his views. This may insult him and hamper the flow of the GD.
9. Listening
Always try and strike a proper balance between expressing your ideas and imbibing ideas.
10. Awareness
You must be well versed with both the micro and macro environment.
Your awareness about your environment helps a lot in your GD content, which carries maximum weightage.
Caution: The content or awareness generally constitutes 40 to 50 percent marks of your GD.
Apart from these qualities, communication skills, confidence and the ability to think on one's feet are also very important.
From India, Pune
Kevin Freiberg is a recognised authority on leadership and business best practices. The founder and CEO of the San Diego Consulting Group, Freiberg has worked with some of the top companies in the world, including American Express, Ernst & Young, Eli Lilly, General Electric and Southwest Airlines.
His first book Nuts! Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success (co-authored with his wife Jackie) sold more than 500,000 copies world-wide and was named by Financial Times as one of the top five global business books of the year. His second book, also written along with his wife, is Guts! Companies that Blow the Doors Off Business-as-Usual. Freiberg was in Bangalore last week to address a leadership seminar.
In a conversation with Meenakshi Radhakrishnan-Swami, he spoke on the leadership principles behind unconventional companies and how organisations need to create cultures that recognise and reward creativity in individuals. Excerpts:
Why are you against business-as-usual?
Business-as-usual is okay, to some degree, because you need stability in the economy. But it's a competitive world. And if you get stuck with business-as-usual, you get left behind. Technology and the global economy wait for no one. You either get on board, or you get left behind.
Remember that societies, cultures and business communities advance because of those who are thinking unconventionally, breaking the rules and creating new ways of doing things.
Can unconventional companies exist anywhere? Or are there any prerequisites?
First, you have to have a culture of freedom. By that, I mean a culture where people are not afraid to think in new ways, to challenge the status quo, to test new ideas. In many cultures - I don't know about India, but I suspect it's true here, as in the US - there is a culture of fear where people are afraid to step out of the comfort zone.
So how do you create an environment of freedom? You reward intelligent failure. That translates as: I understand the values and the strategy of the business, and within that that strategy and those values, I'm going to try new things.
Now, if I fail, the question is, do I get my hands slapped or am I rewarded? It's not enough to not punish people who fail intelligently; you need to reward them. If the company gets across the message that it values the fact that you were thinking outside the box, and it does that with enough people in a company, it's creating a DNA in the culture that says it's okay to try new things.
Jack Welch was famous for asking people to try new things. And if somebody tried something that didn't work out, they would sometimes win a trip or a TV set would show up at their home with a card that said something like "With compliments from Jack Welch. Glad you tested this. Sorry it didn't work out."
You do that with even one person and word travels fast. "Hey, did you hear what Welch did? Did you hear what he said? Wow." And people get this sense that it's okay to try new things.
You also need to learn from failures. One of the classic examples in American business history is 3M with Post-it notes. That was a mistake: it started with an adhesive that failed. A 3M scientist was in church trying to keep his page open for the hymnal, and he needed something to mark the page. He remembered that at 3M they were working on an adhesive that had not served the original purpose.
He thought, "Maybe it will work for this." Well, as you know, Post-it notes are now all over the world. But had he not had the freedom to say, "Let's try it, let's see if it works", it would have remained a failure.
Is there a cost advantage in doing business-not-as-usual? Or is it cheaper to stick with the old, proven methods?
A company like SAS spends millions on its campus and its people. That's a lot relative to what other companies spend on their people. But relative to what SAS saves in retention, it's minimal. Large computer companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Siebel lose about 1,000 people a year.
The average software developer is paid $75,000-125,000 a year. It takes them a year to be fully productive, to learn the culture and the systems. You do the math, but a 1,000 times 100,000 -- that's a big number. SAS loses a 100 people a year. They figure they save somewhere between $60 and $80 million yearly in lower attrition costs.
Blowing the doors off business-as-usual can be more cost effective. Look at Southwest. Its entire success is because it is cost effective. And disciplined. You can't be cost-effective if you're not disciplined. You also can't be cost-effective if you're not creative. A lot of people don't think the two go together. But I believe boundaries can actually be freeing.
What do I mean by boundaries? I mean that the values the vision and strategic intent of the company are clear.
All those set boundaries. You get more innovation and creativity in a company where boundaries are clear because when boundaries are not laid out, people gravitate towards the safe area, the middle, instead of getting out on the radical fringe. When you make the boundaries clear, people can push the edge of the envelope.
What's missing in organisations today?
Leadership that truly understands that any business is a people business. Yes, you have to have the right operating strategy, understand market trends and build a brand. But at the end of the day, it's about people.
What's missing is leaders who truly understand what it takes to draw the best out of every individual. One size doesn't fit all. You have to be a world-class student of people. And I think most CEOs get preoccupied with doing deals, mergers and acquisitions, with new technology.
All organisations need to ask themselves whether they want to remain in a sea of sameness or they want to radically differentiate themselves. If they want to radically differentiate themselves, they need gutsy leadership to do things differently. It takes guts to break with the norm. And it takes guts to look in the mirror and say if this company is to change, what about me needs to change first? Those are not easy questions to answer.
What you're advocating is a change in the culture of organisations. How easy is that?
You have to have a lot of backbone to change the culture of an organisation. It's not for the faint hearted. Cultures are designed to protect themselves. And if you try to change a culture using the old values, the old mores and rituals, you'll have a difficult time. And that's the mistake a number of companies make -- they try to take the old rules and apply them to the new ways. To really succeed, you have to blow up the old ways.
That's why Jack Welch was so successful at GE: he exaggerated things. I met with Welch and he said to me, "If you're going to take an organisation of 350,000 people and move them from Point A to Point B, you've got to be at Point Z."
Would it be easier for a new company to implement unconventional ideas?
Yes. It's much easier to start from scratch than it is to try and change a culture. The airlines have been trying this for years. Everyone is trying to emulate Southwest and so Delta has tried to spin off a piece of its business called Song, Continental did it a number of years ago with Continental Light. I think it's very difficult.
That's not to say it can't be done: Welch did it at GE. But it takes a lot more guts to change an existing culture than to create a new one.
Does size matter? Would be easier for a small company to try gutsy things?
Yes and no. It's easier for the entrepreneur of a small organisation because you can change on a dime. It's like a speedboat versus an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier has to negotiate its turn miles in advance while a speedboat can move at will.
But then, a large company like GE can absorb the mistakes from people who're doing intelligent failures much more easily than a small company.
The consequences are far greater for a small company, so it requires even more courage. If a small company bets the farm on an innovative idea and loses, the company could go out of business. If GE bets on a piece of the business and loses, it's a blip on the radar screen.
Of course, if a small company loses, it's that much easier to start over. There's less at stake. If GE goes under, it's like the Titanic just went down.
Southwest's success has a lot to do with its founder-CEO Herb Kelleher. Every organisation can't have a Kelleher. How important is the CEO?
Kelleher is a media icon because he's so crazy and so out there. It's natural to assume that all the success at Southwest is because of him. But if pause a moment to think about it, any great company is infinitely more than its CEO. CEOs get far more credit than they deserve and they get far more criticism than they deserve. The position serves as a lightning rod.
At the end of Nuts! is a chapter on will there be life at Southwest after Herb? The answer was an emphatic yes. Why? Because the culture is so ingrained, the values are so steeped that it would take years to unravel that.
People said that when Mr Sam [Walton] dies, Wal-Mart will fall. What's happened since Mr Sam died almost a decade ago? Wal-Mart has quadrupled its size and continues to grow explosively.
The reason we wrote Guts! is because a number of people asked us the same question. You don't have to have a Kelleher in every company. If you look at the companies featured in Guts!, you have Kelleher on one end -- wild, crazy, extroverted -- and you have SAS's Jim Goodnight on the other -- introverted, very private. Both are running world-class companies, both are doing things that the rest of the world says can't be done.
Your new book is on what you call the "victimisation" of the workforce. How does that translate into bad business?
We speak to many CEOs, frontline and middle-level people every year. And everybody has a victim role to play. CEOs say, "If I could only get my people to be more entrepreneurial and tell me the truth about what's really going on in the organisation, we could run a better company."
The middle managers and frontline staff say, "If only our senior management would give us the freedom to act. If only they would reward us and recognise us when we do act."
The message we're trying to get across is that leadership is not about a position. It's a relationship of commitment versus compliance. It's about saying, "How do I get people to want to do what needs to be done rather than just comply?" That doesn't take a position. You can do that laterally or even from the bottom up.
Leadership of the future is going to be from the person who has the best ideas. In a world where information is the pivot around which business is conducted, it's the person with the best ideas
From India, Pune
His first book Nuts! Southwest Airlines' Crazy Recipe for Business and Personal Success (co-authored with his wife Jackie) sold more than 500,000 copies world-wide and was named by Financial Times as one of the top five global business books of the year. His second book, also written along with his wife, is Guts! Companies that Blow the Doors Off Business-as-Usual. Freiberg was in Bangalore last week to address a leadership seminar.
In a conversation with Meenakshi Radhakrishnan-Swami, he spoke on the leadership principles behind unconventional companies and how organisations need to create cultures that recognise and reward creativity in individuals. Excerpts:
Why are you against business-as-usual?
Business-as-usual is okay, to some degree, because you need stability in the economy. But it's a competitive world. And if you get stuck with business-as-usual, you get left behind. Technology and the global economy wait for no one. You either get on board, or you get left behind.
Remember that societies, cultures and business communities advance because of those who are thinking unconventionally, breaking the rules and creating new ways of doing things.
Can unconventional companies exist anywhere? Or are there any prerequisites?
First, you have to have a culture of freedom. By that, I mean a culture where people are not afraid to think in new ways, to challenge the status quo, to test new ideas. In many cultures - I don't know about India, but I suspect it's true here, as in the US - there is a culture of fear where people are afraid to step out of the comfort zone.
So how do you create an environment of freedom? You reward intelligent failure. That translates as: I understand the values and the strategy of the business, and within that that strategy and those values, I'm going to try new things.
Now, if I fail, the question is, do I get my hands slapped or am I rewarded? It's not enough to not punish people who fail intelligently; you need to reward them. If the company gets across the message that it values the fact that you were thinking outside the box, and it does that with enough people in a company, it's creating a DNA in the culture that says it's okay to try new things.
Jack Welch was famous for asking people to try new things. And if somebody tried something that didn't work out, they would sometimes win a trip or a TV set would show up at their home with a card that said something like "With compliments from Jack Welch. Glad you tested this. Sorry it didn't work out."
You do that with even one person and word travels fast. "Hey, did you hear what Welch did? Did you hear what he said? Wow." And people get this sense that it's okay to try new things.
You also need to learn from failures. One of the classic examples in American business history is 3M with Post-it notes. That was a mistake: it started with an adhesive that failed. A 3M scientist was in church trying to keep his page open for the hymnal, and he needed something to mark the page. He remembered that at 3M they were working on an adhesive that had not served the original purpose.
He thought, "Maybe it will work for this." Well, as you know, Post-it notes are now all over the world. But had he not had the freedom to say, "Let's try it, let's see if it works", it would have remained a failure.
Is there a cost advantage in doing business-not-as-usual? Or is it cheaper to stick with the old, proven methods?
A company like SAS spends millions on its campus and its people. That's a lot relative to what other companies spend on their people. But relative to what SAS saves in retention, it's minimal. Large computer companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Siebel lose about 1,000 people a year.
The average software developer is paid $75,000-125,000 a year. It takes them a year to be fully productive, to learn the culture and the systems. You do the math, but a 1,000 times 100,000 -- that's a big number. SAS loses a 100 people a year. They figure they save somewhere between $60 and $80 million yearly in lower attrition costs.
Blowing the doors off business-as-usual can be more cost effective. Look at Southwest. Its entire success is because it is cost effective. And disciplined. You can't be cost-effective if you're not disciplined. You also can't be cost-effective if you're not creative. A lot of people don't think the two go together. But I believe boundaries can actually be freeing.
What do I mean by boundaries? I mean that the values the vision and strategic intent of the company are clear.
All those set boundaries. You get more innovation and creativity in a company where boundaries are clear because when boundaries are not laid out, people gravitate towards the safe area, the middle, instead of getting out on the radical fringe. When you make the boundaries clear, people can push the edge of the envelope.
What's missing in organisations today?
Leadership that truly understands that any business is a people business. Yes, you have to have the right operating strategy, understand market trends and build a brand. But at the end of the day, it's about people.
What's missing is leaders who truly understand what it takes to draw the best out of every individual. One size doesn't fit all. You have to be a world-class student of people. And I think most CEOs get preoccupied with doing deals, mergers and acquisitions, with new technology.
All organisations need to ask themselves whether they want to remain in a sea of sameness or they want to radically differentiate themselves. If they want to radically differentiate themselves, they need gutsy leadership to do things differently. It takes guts to break with the norm. And it takes guts to look in the mirror and say if this company is to change, what about me needs to change first? Those are not easy questions to answer.
What you're advocating is a change in the culture of organisations. How easy is that?
You have to have a lot of backbone to change the culture of an organisation. It's not for the faint hearted. Cultures are designed to protect themselves. And if you try to change a culture using the old values, the old mores and rituals, you'll have a difficult time. And that's the mistake a number of companies make -- they try to take the old rules and apply them to the new ways. To really succeed, you have to blow up the old ways.
That's why Jack Welch was so successful at GE: he exaggerated things. I met with Welch and he said to me, "If you're going to take an organisation of 350,000 people and move them from Point A to Point B, you've got to be at Point Z."
Would it be easier for a new company to implement unconventional ideas?
Yes. It's much easier to start from scratch than it is to try and change a culture. The airlines have been trying this for years. Everyone is trying to emulate Southwest and so Delta has tried to spin off a piece of its business called Song, Continental did it a number of years ago with Continental Light. I think it's very difficult.
That's not to say it can't be done: Welch did it at GE. But it takes a lot more guts to change an existing culture than to create a new one.
Does size matter? Would be easier for a small company to try gutsy things?
Yes and no. It's easier for the entrepreneur of a small organisation because you can change on a dime. It's like a speedboat versus an aircraft carrier. An aircraft carrier has to negotiate its turn miles in advance while a speedboat can move at will.
But then, a large company like GE can absorb the mistakes from people who're doing intelligent failures much more easily than a small company.
The consequences are far greater for a small company, so it requires even more courage. If a small company bets the farm on an innovative idea and loses, the company could go out of business. If GE bets on a piece of the business and loses, it's a blip on the radar screen.
Of course, if a small company loses, it's that much easier to start over. There's less at stake. If GE goes under, it's like the Titanic just went down.
Southwest's success has a lot to do with its founder-CEO Herb Kelleher. Every organisation can't have a Kelleher. How important is the CEO?
Kelleher is a media icon because he's so crazy and so out there. It's natural to assume that all the success at Southwest is because of him. But if pause a moment to think about it, any great company is infinitely more than its CEO. CEOs get far more credit than they deserve and they get far more criticism than they deserve. The position serves as a lightning rod.
At the end of Nuts! is a chapter on will there be life at Southwest after Herb? The answer was an emphatic yes. Why? Because the culture is so ingrained, the values are so steeped that it would take years to unravel that.
People said that when Mr Sam [Walton] dies, Wal-Mart will fall. What's happened since Mr Sam died almost a decade ago? Wal-Mart has quadrupled its size and continues to grow explosively.
The reason we wrote Guts! is because a number of people asked us the same question. You don't have to have a Kelleher in every company. If you look at the companies featured in Guts!, you have Kelleher on one end -- wild, crazy, extroverted -- and you have SAS's Jim Goodnight on the other -- introverted, very private. Both are running world-class companies, both are doing things that the rest of the world says can't be done.
Your new book is on what you call the "victimisation" of the workforce. How does that translate into bad business?
We speak to many CEOs, frontline and middle-level people every year. And everybody has a victim role to play. CEOs say, "If I could only get my people to be more entrepreneurial and tell me the truth about what's really going on in the organisation, we could run a better company."
The middle managers and frontline staff say, "If only our senior management would give us the freedom to act. If only they would reward us and recognise us when we do act."
The message we're trying to get across is that leadership is not about a position. It's a relationship of commitment versus compliance. It's about saying, "How do I get people to want to do what needs to be done rather than just comply?" That doesn't take a position. You can do that laterally or even from the bottom up.
Leadership of the future is going to be from the person who has the best ideas. In a world where information is the pivot around which business is conducted, it's the person with the best ideas
From India, Pune
How would you describe the term communication?
Is it merely the 'act' of sending or receiving a message, or is it the 'process' of sending a message?
Actually, it is both the act of sending and receiving a message as well as the process of doing it. The process of communication also involves getting the desired response.
Heard of accent neutralisation?
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]~ He has got a strong Malayalam accent.
~ She is Bengali but speaks with an impeccable English accent.
~ He speaks with a broad/ heavy/ strong/ thick Bihari accent.
~ I thought I could detect a slight south Indian accent.
~ He spoke in heavily accented English.
What exactly do we mean by the above statements? An accent is the peculiar style and rhythm of speaking a particular language; we also call it 'speech music'.
Factors like mother tongue, socio-economic background and medium of education influence one's accent.
Which brings us to accent neutralisation. It means removing all traces of the mother tongue rhythm and adopting the native rhythm of the language you are trying to learn -- English in this case.
With the onset of BPO and international job opportunities in the Indian market, there is a demand for candidates who can speak English without their local accent creeping in.
Your English, influenced by your Hindi?
Many speakers do not realise they are incorporating English words in Hindi sentences or Hindi words in English sentences.
Take for example:
Indian accents vary greatly from those who lean towards a purist British language to those who lean more towards speech that is tinted with the 'vernacular' (Indian language).
~ The most common instance of modified sounds is the changing of the sounds of English letters like 'D', 'T' and 'R'.
~ South Indians tend to curl the tongue more for the 'L' and 'N' sounds.
~ Bengalis (from both India and Bangladesh) and Biharis often substitute 'J' for 'Z' (as in 'jero' instead of 'zero').
~ People, especially from the Sindh (this pertains to both Indians and Pakistanis) have the habit of changing the 'W' sound to 'V' (as in 'ven' instead of 'when'). The rule to follow to overcome this habit is to 'kiss' your 'Ws' and bite your 'Vs'.
What we are striving for is the ability to communicate effectively, especially in the English language, which has the reputation of being one of the most complex languages to learn. I reiterate -- not difficult, but complex.
The intricacies of English
First, let's understand some of the intricacies of the English language through these two verses from a very popular poem titled Poem Of English (author unknown).
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover.
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice.
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
What's special about this verse? Words spelt differently have similar pronunciations.
For example, turpentine is pronounced as tur + pen + tien, where as marine, which also ends with 'ine' is pronounced as mar + een. Words spelt similarly have different pronunciations, not to mention the ones that sound nowhere near to the way they are written.
For example, you have psalm (pronounced as Saam) and ache (pronounced as ake as in bake).
Once you are aware of these intricacies, you will find that your pronunciation improves dramatically.
From India, Pune
Is it merely the 'act' of sending or receiving a message, or is it the 'process' of sending a message?
Actually, it is both the act of sending and receiving a message as well as the process of doing it. The process of communication also involves getting the desired response.
Heard of accent neutralisation?
[IMG]file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/ADMINI%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]~ He has got a strong Malayalam accent.
~ She is Bengali but speaks with an impeccable English accent.
~ He speaks with a broad/ heavy/ strong/ thick Bihari accent.
~ I thought I could detect a slight south Indian accent.
~ He spoke in heavily accented English.
What exactly do we mean by the above statements? An accent is the peculiar style and rhythm of speaking a particular language; we also call it 'speech music'.
Factors like mother tongue, socio-economic background and medium of education influence one's accent.
Which brings us to accent neutralisation. It means removing all traces of the mother tongue rhythm and adopting the native rhythm of the language you are trying to learn -- English in this case.
With the onset of BPO and international job opportunities in the Indian market, there is a demand for candidates who can speak English without their local accent creeping in.
Your English, influenced by your Hindi?
Many speakers do not realise they are incorporating English words in Hindi sentences or Hindi words in English sentences.
Take for example:
- "Pitaji, time kya hua hai (Father, what is the time right now)?"
- "I have hazaar things on my mind right now (I have thousands of things on my mind right now)."
Indian accents vary greatly from those who lean towards a purist British language to those who lean more towards speech that is tinted with the 'vernacular' (Indian language).
~ The most common instance of modified sounds is the changing of the sounds of English letters like 'D', 'T' and 'R'.
~ South Indians tend to curl the tongue more for the 'L' and 'N' sounds.
~ Bengalis (from both India and Bangladesh) and Biharis often substitute 'J' for 'Z' (as in 'jero' instead of 'zero').
~ People, especially from the Sindh (this pertains to both Indians and Pakistanis) have the habit of changing the 'W' sound to 'V' (as in 'ven' instead of 'when'). The rule to follow to overcome this habit is to 'kiss' your 'Ws' and bite your 'Vs'.
What we are striving for is the ability to communicate effectively, especially in the English language, which has the reputation of being one of the most complex languages to learn. I reiterate -- not difficult, but complex.
The intricacies of English
First, let's understand some of the intricacies of the English language through these two verses from a very popular poem titled Poem Of English (author unknown).
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover.
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice.
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four,
Gas, alas and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean,
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
What's special about this verse? Words spelt differently have similar pronunciations.
For example, turpentine is pronounced as tur + pen + tien, where as marine, which also ends with 'ine' is pronounced as mar + een. Words spelt similarly have different pronunciations, not to mention the ones that sound nowhere near to the way they are written.
For example, you have psalm (pronounced as Saam) and ache (pronounced as ake as in bake).
Once you are aware of these intricacies, you will find that your pronunciation improves dramatically.
From India, Pune
Delegation is a process beyond mere manuals. It needs to be practiced for perfection. Effective delegation creates speed for the organisation, self development for superiors and high motivation for subordinates.
This was a famous speech done by a geat leader in birla
At Birla Cellulosic, we drew up an ambitious plan for achieving excellence. It involved transforming all the business processes into the best in the world, winning all the national quality awards and winning the coveted Deming Prize within a time period of three years. In addition we wanted to accomplish this without any external consultant.
The first step towards this goal involved putting together a core team of exceptional achievers from various departments. I was part of this team. My co-team members included individuals from different parts of the organisation.
This team was expected to facilitate the achievement of excellence in all business processes cutting across the organisation and even beyond. As the team leader I had some initial discussions with various organisations that had implemented the process.
This made me realise that such a transformation was never done without an external consultant. Hence the task became tougher and we began with a lot of anxiety and misgivings.
This article is an account of how the challenges faced by us were shared, analyzed and developed into a methodology of delegation. Today many of the team members are heading different departments at various companies.
I myself have shifted to Jubilant Organosys Limited, Noida. Sameer Desai is now with Acrylic Fibre Division in Egypt. Sanjeev Kullu works in the technical MIS and Ashok Kakadia has now moved to Reliance Industries, Hazira. And Mitul Desai currently heads the quality division at Birla Cellousic. Ravi Sharma, Charulata Joshi, Deepak Pandey and Mahesh Agrwal were the other members of the team. We also had two associate members, Ravi Yadav and Sanjay Pandhre.
Each member of the team contributed significantly and was critical in the creation and execution of the methodology. We realised its benefits and therefore, while heading departments at various places across the globe today, we still practice it.
The climb uphill
The first big challenge was in the genesis of the team itself. I had to lead a team of exceptional achievers of which some members had worked in positions senior to me. So a soft issue of ego clash existed and had to be managed carefully.
Other direct challenges for the team were to design a working model of excellence, help various process owners to align their working towards it and ensure improvement in performance.
Indirect challenges came in the form of all types of technical, cultural and political resistances. These challenges and their changing forms required quick and mid term adjustment in the road map.
To summarise the situation, unclear mid-term targets resulting in a hazy strategy demanded extraordinary flexibility and speed. I realised that I was the bottleneck by virtue of my position as well as expertise.
The team members were experts in their work areas, but expectations from them on the excellence model were different and were known only to me. Hence on a typical day, team members would complete their assignments and wait to meet me to discuss issues. I wished to apply the queuing theory in this situation and also considered opening another discussion forum simultaneously. This required another leader. This thought of creating more of me led to the development of the delegation methodology.
Analysing these challenges I realised that there were three distinct factors that were critical for the success of the project:
Having identified the challenges and success factors I discussed them with the team. It was then decided to resolve these problems first and only then proceed with the actual project.
The issue was discussed with key people in the organisation and interestingly most of them identified it as a 'delegation' issue. Everyone was clear that it could be resolved through effective delegation.
But when it came to the actual implementation all of them had a certain level of discomfort. So our next step was to refer to the company's delegation manual. But we found that this manual focused on financial independence and resources such as people, assets and procedures were considered irrelevant for execution of responsibilities.
Hence the purpose of these manuals or policies did not match the challenges and critical success factors of the team.
At the same time, the team agreed more independence at various jobs should address these challenges. Accordingly, a survey was conducted and fifty employees across various levels were inter-viewed.
The survey revealed that the independence felt by them varied drastically. Although financial independence was followed strictly, control over actual performance of activities was different across the organisation.
Managers who had perceptions of less independence typically focused their discussions on excessive controls exercised by their superiors on their day-to-day activities. When actions were dependent on instructions, managers were unable to use authority.
They felt that their bosses were able to delegate responsibilities easily, but assigning equivalent authority was a rarity. Further, some employees felt that their bosses lacked understanding on equating responsibilities with authority.
Interestingly, almost 90 per cent of subordinates were not happy with the situation although they felt that the delegation manual was adequately drafted.
On the other hand, the department heads felt that exercising controls ensured effective monitoring. Ultimately, performance of activities was directly related to meeting targets. A subordinate who did not perform well could directly affect the actual performance of the department head. Some department heads also felt that sometimes delegated authority was misused.
This created bigger problems for them and therefore they felt that doing anything beyond the present delegation manual could be fatal. At the same time, the same individual who advocated control over his subordinate was frustrated by the intervention of his boss.
This led us to conclude that the viewpoints of both the superior and the subordinate were valid. The confusion was genuine and it became necessary for us to understand what would be the 'ideal state of delegation' in the organisation.
What is effective delegation?
The analysis of the survey and the subsequent discussion among team members clearly revealed the stages of delegation. Delegation was intended when actions were monitored as a part of training. In this case there was a clear communication that if the employee learned to perform the task efficiently he would then be empowered to implement it in the absence of his boss.
When actions were not monitored and results were the focus, then delegation was good. When parameters were not considered and only deviations were monitored, delegation was most effective. To our surprise we found that this was beyond the scope of the delegation manual and was a skill that needed continuous honing.
The cycle of delegating effectively
The team understood that delegation was necessary but at the same time if it was not done effectively it would hamper the performance of the whole team. Hence it was essential to establish a process of continuous delegation, issue by issue. This would not only make the transition smooth but also help in delegation of new responsibilities that would get added on subsequently.
We also felt that an element of standardisation to reduce time as well as individual dependence was necessary. After many experiments and iterations we developed the following eight-step cycle that proved to be highly effective.
Step 1: Identify the strengths of your subordinates
Each individual has a distinct characteristic, which is effective in a particular situation. So apply the strength of a person to the right situation. There are various methods of identifying strengths in subordinates:
This step requires a change in the mindset as the focus of the team leader has to shift from 'identifying the gaps' to 'assigning jobs based on possible achievements'. Feedback has to change from 'you need to improve' to 'well done' or 'I know you are the best and will continue to be'.
But how do you know whether you have identified the strength correctly? If the team member shows willingness to do the task, is not tired after completing the task, shows improvement every time, uses creative methods to make things better and performs at a level higher than his boss on the specific job, it means that you have identified his strength correctly.
Interestingly, in around 80 per cent of activities, effective delegation resulted in subordinates achieving skill levels that were higher than the team leader's own skills.
Step 3: Insist on documenting plans and activities
A vital feature of this step is to develop a checklist for tasks that will be used in the future. If the task was performed earlier the old checklist should be given and the team member should be asked to further enhance its contents. This not only ensures continuous improvement, it also minimises efforts every time.
While assigning the job, insist on developing an activity schedule. The most critical input of the team leader at this stage is to help members identify their activities.
Step 4: Standardise checklists and shift activities horizontally
Each checklist, developed in step 03, should be controlled with proper coding (may require a separate document control system if the company is not ISO certified). Whenever a task is repeated, a clear insistence on observing the checklist should be made. If the checklist needs improvement, activities should be added or removed with consent from the team leader and members. This process of firming checklists, controlled changes to the checklists and removal of obsolete checklists is called standardisation.
The weakest link of effective delegation is standardisation. Mostly supervisors get trapped in daily fire fighting due to their inability to standardise. Japanese companies have become world leaders primarily by standardisation. Standardisation ensures consistency as well as effective delegation and therefore needs extensive focus.
Step 5: Encourage teamwork through the 'project leader' concept
Unfortunately, due to hierarchical working system, team members expect a lot of support from the leader. Usually sub-ordinates do not believe that they are more proficient than their leaders in certain areas.
This in fact is the basic requirement for team working and effective delegation. Hence members should be given control of projects to further sharpen their skills and develop leadership qualities. Obviously, authority should be given based on their individual strengths.
The biggest benefit of this process is identification of new areas of interest and potential strengths' of individuals. It also gives a sense of accomplishment to the project leader and hence energizes him to perform better.
Step 6: Create measures of performance
This step involves identifying measures of performance at each stage. Deviations from norms (control limits) indicate the need for intervention of a superior. This step also requires a keen interest from the team leader in identifying what to measure.
Changing from activity monitoring to granting independence is difficult, as it requires identification of some parameters, which can indicate that performance is yielding results.
This step is the most critical step and team leaders may need specific training inputs and practice to develop this.
As delegation improves, the team leader's involvement in various activities reduces. But given today's volatile environment performances vary with speed. This may result in fluctuating performance levels over a period of time in various areas.
To avoid this fluctuation, it is essential for the team leader and other experts to provide inputs, whenever there is the possibility of a drop in performance.
For example, if a maintenance supervisor is able to answer the question 'what if I do not do this', for each checkpoint of planned maintenance checklist, the various measurables will be revealed. This needs to be done exhaustively before the supervisor completely delegates the maintenance activities.
The measurable will be effective if it is able to indicate the performance of a delegated activity. Since there is some lag in conversion of strengths into a skill, initial monitoring will be required. As the skill level improves, monitoring levels should reduce by design. An important factor that has to be taken into account is the fact that establishing monitoring systems requires a lot of effort. But changing them later requires even greater effort.
Step 7: Develop hierarchical measures of performance
It is the duty of the superior to delegate as well as encourage his team members to further delegate. This effective delegation will result in development of measures of performance at all levels, which are interlinked.
Step 8: Go back to step 01
In this step the process of identifying strengths continues and the delegation cycle becomes continuous. This is therefore not only a delegation cycle but an improvement cycle also. Each cycle means one more activity standardised and delegated.
Performance feedback and effective delegation
It is important to provide continuous feedback to team members on their progress and guide them towards higher performance. But, the area where most team leaders fail is in consolidating these inputs on a periodic basis. This results in an inability of the team member to perform at high levels in the leaders absence.
So, it is absolutely necessary for the team leader to spend time with each team member to take stock of performance. He should discuss the member's achievement, distinct strengths displayed, areas of interest and performance against agreed result areas (along with feedback for deviations).
Preferably, this should be recorded and the company's expectations from the employee should be clearly communicated to him.
Ultimately, at the end of the year, the leader should rate his team members based on the strengths they have acquired and the results that they have delivered.
Plan your substitutes and tell them
The thought of losing authority with delegation in managers is strong. This welds them to their position and limits progress. To avoid falling into this trap, a leader should plan for succession.
He should ideally communicate to one of his team member the skills required to substitute his job. The leader should sit with his boss and an expert from the HR department and discuss his job profile.
He should combine their inputs into a skill set and document it. This document should be given to the possible successor and the leader should support, encourage and motivate him to achieve the skill set.
To conclude, you can grow only if you ensure both the growth of your subordinates and the sustainability of processes in the organisation. This method of delegation does both.
From India, Pune
This was a famous speech done by a geat leader in birla
At Birla Cellulosic, we drew up an ambitious plan for achieving excellence. It involved transforming all the business processes into the best in the world, winning all the national quality awards and winning the coveted Deming Prize within a time period of three years. In addition we wanted to accomplish this without any external consultant.
The first step towards this goal involved putting together a core team of exceptional achievers from various departments. I was part of this team. My co-team members included individuals from different parts of the organisation.
This team was expected to facilitate the achievement of excellence in all business processes cutting across the organisation and even beyond. As the team leader I had some initial discussions with various organisations that had implemented the process.
This made me realise that such a transformation was never done without an external consultant. Hence the task became tougher and we began with a lot of anxiety and misgivings.
This article is an account of how the challenges faced by us were shared, analyzed and developed into a methodology of delegation. Today many of the team members are heading different departments at various companies.
I myself have shifted to Jubilant Organosys Limited, Noida. Sameer Desai is now with Acrylic Fibre Division in Egypt. Sanjeev Kullu works in the technical MIS and Ashok Kakadia has now moved to Reliance Industries, Hazira. And Mitul Desai currently heads the quality division at Birla Cellousic. Ravi Sharma, Charulata Joshi, Deepak Pandey and Mahesh Agrwal were the other members of the team. We also had two associate members, Ravi Yadav and Sanjay Pandhre.
Each member of the team contributed significantly and was critical in the creation and execution of the methodology. We realised its benefits and therefore, while heading departments at various places across the globe today, we still practice it.
The climb uphill
The first big challenge was in the genesis of the team itself. I had to lead a team of exceptional achievers of which some members had worked in positions senior to me. So a soft issue of ego clash existed and had to be managed carefully.
Other direct challenges for the team were to design a working model of excellence, help various process owners to align their working towards it and ensure improvement in performance.
Indirect challenges came in the form of all types of technical, cultural and political resistances. These challenges and their changing forms required quick and mid term adjustment in the road map.
To summarise the situation, unclear mid-term targets resulting in a hazy strategy demanded extraordinary flexibility and speed. I realised that I was the bottleneck by virtue of my position as well as expertise.
The team members were experts in their work areas, but expectations from them on the excellence model were different and were known only to me. Hence on a typical day, team members would complete their assignments and wait to meet me to discuss issues. I wished to apply the queuing theory in this situation and also considered opening another discussion forum simultaneously. This required another leader. This thought of creating more of me led to the development of the delegation methodology.
Analysing these challenges I realised that there were three distinct factors that were critical for the success of the project:
- need to accomplish more activities per day
- space and time for the team leader to think and strategize for the long term and ensure development of individuals
- high motivational levels for all the team members
Having identified the challenges and success factors I discussed them with the team. It was then decided to resolve these problems first and only then proceed with the actual project.
The issue was discussed with key people in the organisation and interestingly most of them identified it as a 'delegation' issue. Everyone was clear that it could be resolved through effective delegation.
But when it came to the actual implementation all of them had a certain level of discomfort. So our next step was to refer to the company's delegation manual. But we found that this manual focused on financial independence and resources such as people, assets and procedures were considered irrelevant for execution of responsibilities.
Hence the purpose of these manuals or policies did not match the challenges and critical success factors of the team.
At the same time, the team agreed more independence at various jobs should address these challenges. Accordingly, a survey was conducted and fifty employees across various levels were inter-viewed.
The survey revealed that the independence felt by them varied drastically. Although financial independence was followed strictly, control over actual performance of activities was different across the organisation.
Managers who had perceptions of less independence typically focused their discussions on excessive controls exercised by their superiors on their day-to-day activities. When actions were dependent on instructions, managers were unable to use authority.
They felt that their bosses were able to delegate responsibilities easily, but assigning equivalent authority was a rarity. Further, some employees felt that their bosses lacked understanding on equating responsibilities with authority.
Interestingly, almost 90 per cent of subordinates were not happy with the situation although they felt that the delegation manual was adequately drafted.
On the other hand, the department heads felt that exercising controls ensured effective monitoring. Ultimately, performance of activities was directly related to meeting targets. A subordinate who did not perform well could directly affect the actual performance of the department head. Some department heads also felt that sometimes delegated authority was misused.
This created bigger problems for them and therefore they felt that doing anything beyond the present delegation manual could be fatal. At the same time, the same individual who advocated control over his subordinate was frustrated by the intervention of his boss.
This led us to conclude that the viewpoints of both the superior and the subordinate were valid. The confusion was genuine and it became necessary for us to understand what would be the 'ideal state of delegation' in the organisation.
What is effective delegation?
The analysis of the survey and the subsequent discussion among team members clearly revealed the stages of delegation. Delegation was intended when actions were monitored as a part of training. In this case there was a clear communication that if the employee learned to perform the task efficiently he would then be empowered to implement it in the absence of his boss.
When actions were not monitored and results were the focus, then delegation was good. When parameters were not considered and only deviations were monitored, delegation was most effective. To our surprise we found that this was beyond the scope of the delegation manual and was a skill that needed continuous honing.
The cycle of delegating effectively
The team understood that delegation was necessary but at the same time if it was not done effectively it would hamper the performance of the whole team. Hence it was essential to establish a process of continuous delegation, issue by issue. This would not only make the transition smooth but also help in delegation of new responsibilities that would get added on subsequently.
We also felt that an element of standardisation to reduce time as well as individual dependence was necessary. After many experiments and iterations we developed the following eight-step cycle that proved to be highly effective.
Step 1: Identify the strengths of your subordinates
Each individual has a distinct characteristic, which is effective in a particular situation. So apply the strength of a person to the right situation. There are various methods of identifying strengths in subordinates:
- Visible performance: when a person joins the department, he starts working in his areas of interest. His initial performance in these areas of interest directly indicates his inherent strengths.
- Past experience: past experience with an individual can be used to identify areas of performance and assess strengths.
- Discussion with a reference: with a new employee, discussions with an earlier supervisor or references is an effective method of identifying his strengths.
- Assigning sample jobs: a variety of small jobs requiring different skills can be given to an individual to identify his strength.
- Victory parade: this unique practice in many organisations has a high potential to improve delegation. Although this exercise was intended to improve team working, it helped significantly in identifying the perceived strengths of all team members. In this exercise each member, based on his experiences, identifies and lists the strengths of other team members including the leader. A forum is then organised to reveal the strengths of each member. A list of strengths is displayed in the working area of the team after every such exercise
This step requires a change in the mindset as the focus of the team leader has to shift from 'identifying the gaps' to 'assigning jobs based on possible achievements'. Feedback has to change from 'you need to improve' to 'well done' or 'I know you are the best and will continue to be'.
But how do you know whether you have identified the strength correctly? If the team member shows willingness to do the task, is not tired after completing the task, shows improvement every time, uses creative methods to make things better and performs at a level higher than his boss on the specific job, it means that you have identified his strength correctly.
Interestingly, in around 80 per cent of activities, effective delegation resulted in subordinates achieving skill levels that were higher than the team leader's own skills.
Step 3: Insist on documenting plans and activities
A vital feature of this step is to develop a checklist for tasks that will be used in the future. If the task was performed earlier the old checklist should be given and the team member should be asked to further enhance its contents. This not only ensures continuous improvement, it also minimises efforts every time.
While assigning the job, insist on developing an activity schedule. The most critical input of the team leader at this stage is to help members identify their activities.
Step 4: Standardise checklists and shift activities horizontally
Each checklist, developed in step 03, should be controlled with proper coding (may require a separate document control system if the company is not ISO certified). Whenever a task is repeated, a clear insistence on observing the checklist should be made. If the checklist needs improvement, activities should be added or removed with consent from the team leader and members. This process of firming checklists, controlled changes to the checklists and removal of obsolete checklists is called standardisation.
The weakest link of effective delegation is standardisation. Mostly supervisors get trapped in daily fire fighting due to their inability to standardise. Japanese companies have become world leaders primarily by standardisation. Standardisation ensures consistency as well as effective delegation and therefore needs extensive focus.
Step 5: Encourage teamwork through the 'project leader' concept
Unfortunately, due to hierarchical working system, team members expect a lot of support from the leader. Usually sub-ordinates do not believe that they are more proficient than their leaders in certain areas.
This in fact is the basic requirement for team working and effective delegation. Hence members should be given control of projects to further sharpen their skills and develop leadership qualities. Obviously, authority should be given based on their individual strengths.
The biggest benefit of this process is identification of new areas of interest and potential strengths' of individuals. It also gives a sense of accomplishment to the project leader and hence energizes him to perform better.
Step 6: Create measures of performance
This step involves identifying measures of performance at each stage. Deviations from norms (control limits) indicate the need for intervention of a superior. This step also requires a keen interest from the team leader in identifying what to measure.
Changing from activity monitoring to granting independence is difficult, as it requires identification of some parameters, which can indicate that performance is yielding results.
This step is the most critical step and team leaders may need specific training inputs and practice to develop this.
As delegation improves, the team leader's involvement in various activities reduces. But given today's volatile environment performances vary with speed. This may result in fluctuating performance levels over a period of time in various areas.
To avoid this fluctuation, it is essential for the team leader and other experts to provide inputs, whenever there is the possibility of a drop in performance.
For example, if a maintenance supervisor is able to answer the question 'what if I do not do this', for each checkpoint of planned maintenance checklist, the various measurables will be revealed. This needs to be done exhaustively before the supervisor completely delegates the maintenance activities.
The measurable will be effective if it is able to indicate the performance of a delegated activity. Since there is some lag in conversion of strengths into a skill, initial monitoring will be required. As the skill level improves, monitoring levels should reduce by design. An important factor that has to be taken into account is the fact that establishing monitoring systems requires a lot of effort. But changing them later requires even greater effort.
Step 7: Develop hierarchical measures of performance
It is the duty of the superior to delegate as well as encourage his team members to further delegate. This effective delegation will result in development of measures of performance at all levels, which are interlinked.
Step 8: Go back to step 01
In this step the process of identifying strengths continues and the delegation cycle becomes continuous. This is therefore not only a delegation cycle but an improvement cycle also. Each cycle means one more activity standardised and delegated.
Performance feedback and effective delegation
It is important to provide continuous feedback to team members on their progress and guide them towards higher performance. But, the area where most team leaders fail is in consolidating these inputs on a periodic basis. This results in an inability of the team member to perform at high levels in the leaders absence.
So, it is absolutely necessary for the team leader to spend time with each team member to take stock of performance. He should discuss the member's achievement, distinct strengths displayed, areas of interest and performance against agreed result areas (along with feedback for deviations).
Preferably, this should be recorded and the company's expectations from the employee should be clearly communicated to him.
Ultimately, at the end of the year, the leader should rate his team members based on the strengths they have acquired and the results that they have delivered.
Plan your substitutes and tell them
The thought of losing authority with delegation in managers is strong. This welds them to their position and limits progress. To avoid falling into this trap, a leader should plan for succession.
He should ideally communicate to one of his team member the skills required to substitute his job. The leader should sit with his boss and an expert from the HR department and discuss his job profile.
He should combine their inputs into a skill set and document it. This document should be given to the possible successor and the leader should support, encourage and motivate him to achieve the skill set.
To conclude, you can grow only if you ensure both the growth of your subordinates and the sustainability of processes in the organisation. This method of delegation does both.
From India, Pune
Friends HR people use a lot of words. The word material can be used to train HR people. regards mahesh
From India, Pune
From India, Pune
SHUUUKRIYA MAHESH
REALLY THANX A LOT
MAY I EXPECT SOME THING MORE from you..!
i am doing my summer project in "training need analysis"
could you mail me some good report on that?
really sir!!
hoping for your reply on my mail
:-D:(:icon1::icon6:
:-D:(:icon1::icon6:
with regards
santosh
From India, Jodhpur
REALLY THANX A LOT
MAY I EXPECT SOME THING MORE from you..!
i am doing my summer project in "training need analysis"
could you mail me some good report on that?
really sir!!
hoping for your reply on my mail
:-D:(:icon1::icon6:
:-D:(:icon1::icon6:
with regards
santosh
From India, Jodhpur
hallo Mahesh
i think you had posted me some material regarding TRAINING NEED ANALYSIS
but i am not able to access it out
do send once again
hope you wouldn't mind it
thank you
if possible send soon
sorry but its
URGENT YAR!!!
WARM REGARDS
santo
:)
From India, Jodhpur
i think you had posted me some material regarding TRAINING NEED ANALYSIS
but i am not able to access it out
do send once again
hope you wouldn't mind it
thank you
if possible send soon
sorry but its
URGENT YAR!!!
WARM REGARDS
santo
:)
From India, Jodhpur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
HR Generalist Practical Training in Delhi.pdf
Cite hr.zip
Cite HT HR Group.xls