Dear All,
I would like to seek your suggestions on a typical situation:
There is a Marketing team structured in a hierarchy from top to bottom as follows:
Director - National Manager - Zonal Heads - Sr. ASMs - ASMs - Executives
In this scenario, we are dealing with an issue in the North Zone.
The Zonal Head (North) is excelling and is the top performer among all zones.
The Sr. ASM (North) is a key performer in the team. For instance, if the turnover is 100, he achieves 40 while the rest of the team achieves 60. His behavior is described as too ambitious, arrogant, and impatient, but self-motivated. He does not rely much on the Zonal Head except for strategizing and occasional meetings if necessary. Despite his performance, he is not well-liked by others.
He arranges a meeting with a prospect without involving the National Head or Zonal Head and directly approaches the Director. The Director agrees and attends the meeting, but when questions arise, the National Head shows ignorance and defers to the Zonal Head, who reacts similarly.
The National Head questions the Sr. ASM on why he didn't involve his senior in the hierarchy. The response received is that he wanted to close the deal without involving too many people.
How should the Zonal Head, who is liked by many and perceived as dynamic, handle this situation? Is the Sr. ASM not considering him as a senior, trying to undermine him, or aiming to show superiority?
How can the Zonal Head address this issue to prevent recurrence, considering the Sr. ASM's performance?
Thank you for your time.
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I would like to seek your suggestions on a typical situation:
There is a Marketing team structured in a hierarchy from top to bottom as follows:
Director - National Manager - Zonal Heads - Sr. ASMs - ASMs - Executives
In this scenario, we are dealing with an issue in the North Zone.
The Zonal Head (North) is excelling and is the top performer among all zones.
The Sr. ASM (North) is a key performer in the team. For instance, if the turnover is 100, he achieves 40 while the rest of the team achieves 60. His behavior is described as too ambitious, arrogant, and impatient, but self-motivated. He does not rely much on the Zonal Head except for strategizing and occasional meetings if necessary. Despite his performance, he is not well-liked by others.
He arranges a meeting with a prospect without involving the National Head or Zonal Head and directly approaches the Director. The Director agrees and attends the meeting, but when questions arise, the National Head shows ignorance and defers to the Zonal Head, who reacts similarly.
The National Head questions the Sr. ASM on why he didn't involve his senior in the hierarchy. The response received is that he wanted to close the deal without involving too many people.
How should the Zonal Head, who is liked by many and perceived as dynamic, handle this situation? Is the Sr. ASM not considering him as a senior, trying to undermine him, or aiming to show superiority?
How can the Zonal Head address this issue to prevent recurrence, considering the Sr. ASM's performance?
Thank you for your time.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Always remember 1 this in mind that boss is always right. OK then this positively in this scenario!!! Regards BSIngh Chauhan
From Greenland
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Greenland
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This case is a strict ego and communication problem across the levels.
Looking at the scenario, the Director has obliged the Sr. ASM to accompany him to close the deal without even checking the communication flow across the levels. This shows the lack of transparency and hierarchy in the organization. The senior team shall decide what should matter: business or process. If this is a startup, business is important, so they shall not create too much hierarchy and follow a horizontal structure.
If the company is a stabilized company, they should focus more on the process-oriented approach and look for long-term yields. It all depends on the vision and the clarity of thought amongst senior team members.
I suggest the senior members shall lay down guidelines, meeting etiquettes, business etiquettes to achieve the best results. Otherwise, with the current structure, there is always a chance of losing key customers due to the lapses in the system.
Kumar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
28Looking at the scenario, the Director has obliged the Sr. ASM to accompany him to close the deal without even checking the communication flow across the levels. This shows the lack of transparency and hierarchy in the organization. The senior team shall decide what should matter: business or process. If this is a startup, business is important, so they shall not create too much hierarchy and follow a horizontal structure.
If the company is a stabilized company, they should focus more on the process-oriented approach and look for long-term yields. It all depends on the vision and the clarity of thought amongst senior team members.
I suggest the senior members shall lay down guidelines, meeting etiquettes, business etiquettes to achieve the best results. Otherwise, with the current structure, there is always a chance of losing key customers due to the lapses in the system.
Kumar
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Neelambakshi,
This is a typical attitude of quite a few top performers.
First and foremost, I think your Director made a mistake by going directly without involving any of the seniors or at least keeping them in the loop. Unknowingly, he seems to have emboldened this guy into taking things for granted. Since the Director was the cause for it (or at least the 'cause' for the trigger), it's him who has to sort it out. I suggest that he speak to this guy personally or over the phone to resolve the issue.
Next, regarding the reply of this guy, '...I wanted to close the deal without involving too many people,' did anyone ask him why? 'Involving' too many people is one thing, and 'informing' too many people is quite another. Do you see the difference? It's clear that he wanted to take all the credit with the head boss, bypassing the middle hierarchy.
Even if he didn't want to 'involve' his seniors, the minimum he is expected to do is to 'inform' his local bosses.
This also leads to another possibility in the scenario—were there any earlier situations that are making him behave this way now? Maybe the boss took credit for what this guy did? I suggest checking this aspect discreetly.
I doubt if any talk to him by the Zonal Head or others would help except the Director. In fact, there is a risk of things going from bad to worse, as the Zonal head is one of the persons affected by this guy's behavior, and the chances are high that his prejudices may come out badly, and the consequence could be a slowdown in this guy's performance, which is not in anyone's interest—his or the company's.
I would also suggest that the HR Head/person be present in the meeting when the Director meets this guy, more to focus on the long-term and psychological aspects of his behavior. Usually, such headstrong guys tend to listen only to those who are important/powerful or 'beyond-sight.' Someone needs to tell him softly that this attitude is likely to hit him more than the company, and in the long run, he would be able to achieve much more if he takes the others along with him.
Also, if practical/possible, I think he could be an ideal candidate for some managerial course focusing on the psychological aspects of S&M.
All the best.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is a typical attitude of quite a few top performers.
First and foremost, I think your Director made a mistake by going directly without involving any of the seniors or at least keeping them in the loop. Unknowingly, he seems to have emboldened this guy into taking things for granted. Since the Director was the cause for it (or at least the 'cause' for the trigger), it's him who has to sort it out. I suggest that he speak to this guy personally or over the phone to resolve the issue.
Next, regarding the reply of this guy, '...I wanted to close the deal without involving too many people,' did anyone ask him why? 'Involving' too many people is one thing, and 'informing' too many people is quite another. Do you see the difference? It's clear that he wanted to take all the credit with the head boss, bypassing the middle hierarchy.
Even if he didn't want to 'involve' his seniors, the minimum he is expected to do is to 'inform' his local bosses.
This also leads to another possibility in the scenario—were there any earlier situations that are making him behave this way now? Maybe the boss took credit for what this guy did? I suggest checking this aspect discreetly.
I doubt if any talk to him by the Zonal Head or others would help except the Director. In fact, there is a risk of things going from bad to worse, as the Zonal head is one of the persons affected by this guy's behavior, and the chances are high that his prejudices may come out badly, and the consequence could be a slowdown in this guy's performance, which is not in anyone's interest—his or the company's.
I would also suggest that the HR Head/person be present in the meeting when the Director meets this guy, more to focus on the long-term and psychological aspects of his behavior. Usually, such headstrong guys tend to listen only to those who are important/powerful or 'beyond-sight.' Someone needs to tell him softly that this attitude is likely to hit him more than the company, and in the long run, he would be able to achieve much more if he takes the others along with him.
Also, if practical/possible, I think he could be an ideal candidate for some managerial course focusing on the psychological aspects of S&M.
All the best.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Neelambakshi,
I am fully in line with the views expressed by Mr. Kumar and Mr. TS.
Systems and processes should be in place if an organization has to function in a professional way. An organization cannot ride on the brilliance of a few individuals for a long time.
From the details provided, the National Manager and Zonal Head have been sidelined for the meeting. Is this a regular feature or the first of its kind?
The Director, after attending the meeting (which is wrong in the first place with two of his next senior members being absent), has no moral right to ask his National Manager or Zonal Manager, knowing fully well that both were not present at the meeting. Anyway, since he is the super boss, he can get away with this for a short period.
However, both the National Manager and Zonal Head have to sort out the matter at the Director level in a firm way, lest they would run the risk of getting sidelined again. This will be the first step to redress the situation.
They can ill afford to fail, and if they are not successful in convincing the Director, it is doomsday for both. Once they win the confidence of the Director, they can tackle the Senior Manager and force him to mend his ways. Discipline is first, and performance comes later.
If the situation does not change, and the Director encourages the Senior Manager, he may himself be in for a nasty surprise and one day find himself on the receiving end. Having created a Frankenstein, you cannot take your safety for granted.
If you fall back on Indian myth, "Basmasura," who gained a boon by which he can turn any individual to ashes, decided to try it out on Lord Shiva Himself after vanquishing many (Lord Shiva grants Basmasura a boon by which Basmasura, if he keeps his hands above the head of any individual, that person would be turned to ashes).
V. Raghunathan ......................................... Navi Mumbai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am fully in line with the views expressed by Mr. Kumar and Mr. TS.
Systems and processes should be in place if an organization has to function in a professional way. An organization cannot ride on the brilliance of a few individuals for a long time.
From the details provided, the National Manager and Zonal Head have been sidelined for the meeting. Is this a regular feature or the first of its kind?
The Director, after attending the meeting (which is wrong in the first place with two of his next senior members being absent), has no moral right to ask his National Manager or Zonal Manager, knowing fully well that both were not present at the meeting. Anyway, since he is the super boss, he can get away with this for a short period.
However, both the National Manager and Zonal Head have to sort out the matter at the Director level in a firm way, lest they would run the risk of getting sidelined again. This will be the first step to redress the situation.
They can ill afford to fail, and if they are not successful in convincing the Director, it is doomsday for both. Once they win the confidence of the Director, they can tackle the Senior Manager and force him to mend his ways. Discipline is first, and performance comes later.
If the situation does not change, and the Director encourages the Senior Manager, he may himself be in for a nasty surprise and one day find himself on the receiving end. Having created a Frankenstein, you cannot take your safety for granted.
If you fall back on Indian myth, "Basmasura," who gained a boon by which he can turn any individual to ashes, decided to try it out on Lord Shiva Himself after vanquishing many (Lord Shiva grants Basmasura a boon by which Basmasura, if he keeps his hands above the head of any individual, that person would be turned to ashes).
V. Raghunathan ......................................... Navi Mumbai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Neelam,
I find the replies above to be textbook responses that have little connection with reality.
To me, reality looks like this:
Such an unprofessional environment in Indian organizations is a norm rather than an exception. This rut starts at the top and percolates down. In the process, some good managers, despite their good work, do not get the recognition, authority, and position they deserve. This is not the fault of an individual but the prevailing organizational climate, which breeds a culture of direct communication with the top. I don't blame this ASM, as he is a growth-oriented person, wants to rise in life, and has the necessary job capability and skills.
In such organizations with hierarchies, HR teams exist for the sake of a name; they seldom work independently on their conscience. The top fellow doesn't have a professional attitude, so he doesn't work through the hierarchy of his team (as the top person lacks confidence and conviction in himself and his fellow senior team members). In such cases, even mediocre successes of bottom-line employees like the said ASMs are directly or indirectly appreciated by the top, overlooking hierarchies. This breeds consequential arrogance in people like this ASM, who have proved their mettle through their good performance.
So, the key question is: How should ZM take it?
In my view, ZM must take stock of the ground reality if it exists as described above. He should focus on issues rather than the person (meaning I would have high regard for a performer with arrogance than a polite, decent non-performer). My experience suggests that such arrogance is mostly not a result of an individual's attitude but rather a result of the organizational climate which the boss (ZM) will have to learn to accept and innovate new ways to make his subordinates accept him as their boss (one level above them).
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I find the replies above to be textbook responses that have little connection with reality.
To me, reality looks like this:
Such an unprofessional environment in Indian organizations is a norm rather than an exception. This rut starts at the top and percolates down. In the process, some good managers, despite their good work, do not get the recognition, authority, and position they deserve. This is not the fault of an individual but the prevailing organizational climate, which breeds a culture of direct communication with the top. I don't blame this ASM, as he is a growth-oriented person, wants to rise in life, and has the necessary job capability and skills.
In such organizations with hierarchies, HR teams exist for the sake of a name; they seldom work independently on their conscience. The top fellow doesn't have a professional attitude, so he doesn't work through the hierarchy of his team (as the top person lacks confidence and conviction in himself and his fellow senior team members). In such cases, even mediocre successes of bottom-line employees like the said ASMs are directly or indirectly appreciated by the top, overlooking hierarchies. This breeds consequential arrogance in people like this ASM, who have proved their mettle through their good performance.
So, the key question is: How should ZM take it?
In my view, ZM must take stock of the ground reality if it exists as described above. He should focus on issues rather than the person (meaning I would have high regard for a performer with arrogance than a polite, decent non-performer). My experience suggests that such arrogance is mostly not a result of an individual's attitude but rather a result of the organizational climate which the boss (ZM) will have to learn to accept and innovate new ways to make his subordinates accept him as their boss (one level above them).
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Mr M K Sharma,
The first line of your message is a moot point.
All the three postings have considered practical aspects as well.
Perhaps I can agree to disagree with your observation expressed in the first line.
Coming to the case you have expressed that Zonal Manager should
1.0 take stock of the situation to ascertain if it really exists.
2.0 focus on the issue
Some more questions arise.
The situation as presented describes an event that has already occurred.
Focusing on the issue is certainly a progressive way of looking forward on how the
National Manager and Zonal Manager should go ahead.
The issue is both National Manager and ZM have been kept in dark
and when questioned by National Manager the ASM had the audacity to
tell that he didn’t want to involve too many people. How can some
one declare the higher ups in hierarchy as “too many people” ?
The issue is still ‘live’ for the National Manager also.
If the Director continues to give his support to ASM will the issue get settled?
Your views are solicited.
V.Raghunathan……………………………………… Navi Mumbai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The first line of your message is a moot point.
All the three postings have considered practical aspects as well.
Perhaps I can agree to disagree with your observation expressed in the first line.
Coming to the case you have expressed that Zonal Manager should
1.0 take stock of the situation to ascertain if it really exists.
2.0 focus on the issue
Some more questions arise.
The situation as presented describes an event that has already occurred.
Focusing on the issue is certainly a progressive way of looking forward on how the
National Manager and Zonal Manager should go ahead.
The issue is both National Manager and ZM have been kept in dark
and when questioned by National Manager the ASM had the audacity to
tell that he didn’t want to involve too many people. How can some
one declare the higher ups in hierarchy as “too many people” ?
The issue is still ‘live’ for the National Manager also.
If the Director continues to give his support to ASM will the issue get settled?
Your views are solicited.
V.Raghunathan……………………………………… Navi Mumbai
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If I have understood you correctly this is main point where more clarity required.
Sir,
I will again refer you to points suggested by me on the take of ZM. I further presume that ZM/ NSM are competent/ mature fellows (No aspect of personality conflict involved on their part).
If situation like I have mentioned exists, than both ZM and NSM (if they are sound professional and believe in real professional work culture and environment), should move out of this organisation and join a more professional organisation.
This is easier said than done. So alternately they should bear with this unprofessional situation (since shifting job today and getting good alternate today is not easy) and start working on this arrogant ASM rather than giving lessons of management good practices to top brass. While working with this ASM, they should focus on.............
Further I appreciate and respect your right to agree to disagree. I have tried to paint a picture, which I have seen prevailing around much. However these are complex situations, more experienced and enlightened managers can even suggest better ways.......however that would require, putting your foot in shoes, where it pinches.......
Best Regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
I will again refer you to points suggested by me on the take of ZM. I further presume that ZM/ NSM are competent/ mature fellows (No aspect of personality conflict involved on their part).
If situation like I have mentioned exists, than both ZM and NSM (if they are sound professional and believe in real professional work culture and environment), should move out of this organisation and join a more professional organisation.
This is easier said than done. So alternately they should bear with this unprofessional situation (since shifting job today and getting good alternate today is not easy) and start working on this arrogant ASM rather than giving lessons of management good practices to top brass. While working with this ASM, they should focus on.............
Further I appreciate and respect your right to agree to disagree. I have tried to paint a picture, which I have seen prevailing around much. However these are complex situations, more experienced and enlightened managers can even suggest better ways.......however that would require, putting your foot in shoes, where it pinches.......
Best Regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Communication.p pt
Communication.d oc
Performance Review Form - KDCL for year 2010.xls