Work conditions: Catch the i-deal

Summary: [You might view the earlier post "Work conditions: The red line" before this.] Workers taking issue with their unpaid overtime and negotiating their own work schedules – flexibility of time and developmental opportunities - could happen.


The workforce composition is now heterogeneous. New workgroups are increasingly knowledge-based. They have a clear idea of their priorities, and can take the necessary steps to achieve them.

The 'i-deal'

For example, with individualized negotiations on work conditions with their supervisors.

The effects of such i-deals – “idiosyncratic deals” between employer-employees were studied. The negotiations promote, for instance, arrangements like telecommuting or working part-time, giving the workers more control over their work.

Survey results

A survey conducted in a government agency in Germany (published in APA journal) compared conditions before and after introduction of i-deals.

Researchers reported two types of i-deals: time flexibility and developmental opportunities.They found that:

• Flexibility i-deals were negatively related to work-family conflict and working unpaid overtime - but unrelated to increased performance expectations and affective organizational commitment.
• Developmental i-deals were positively related to work-family conflict, working unpaid overtime and also to increased performance expectations and affective organizational commitment.
  

What might these findings imply?

Finding equity

By negotiating flexible hours of work, the workers may have two objectives in mind. Firstly, to resolve the conflict that arises between home and work-life responsibilities. And secondly, to perhaps turn down their working unpaid overtime.

The move to flexitime seems to be to achieve equity; neither performance nor their commitment to the organization tends to increase as a result. Employees may simply be unprepared to increase stress in their lives catering to managerial whims!

Motivated choice

On the other hand, in negotiating developmental opportunities, workers may choose to work unpaid overtime despite their work-home conflicts rising. The job content constitutes the satisfiers that may motivate it.

The objective may be the accumulation of knowledge, to learn, understand and enhance their organizational roles. Performance expectations and organizational commitment, therefore, are also high, as perhaps are their ambitions.

Rethink work organization

Research is finding out that the worker mindset and quality of work has changed. Their motives and attitudes to work are also different, and they’re far less open to being intimidated or exploited.

Managers stuck on ‘the way things have always been around here’ should rethink their own mindsets, and attitudes to employment and conditions of work. Attrition and poor performance add up to wastage and loss of valuable resources for the company itself.

Comments/Opinions, Anyone??

Work conditions: The red line

Summary: Many managers are sticklers for the sign-in times of worker attendance, but indifferent to unpaid overtime. This inconsistence can cause dysfunction since workers no longer fit the ‘too stupid to think’ image.



Many, if not most managers in Asia are sticklers for time. Not time management, but the in time of attendance at work.


Work by the clock


In many places, the manual register is still in use.

Especially in bureaucratic institutions, signing in and out are strictly by the clock. Staying beyond the stipulated time brings overtime pay – twice normal so people appreciate the added income.

But late arrival is underlined in red; three reds in a row mean losing a day of paid leave. Does that instill discipline? Not really. The common joke is that -

The late arrival prepares for an early departure. When asked why, replies: I sure wouldn’t want to be late twice in a day!

Inhouse training?

Private companies, owner-driven firms or corporate bodies, too have rules. The difference is that there generally are no money rewards for overtime on work distributed late – sometimes deliberately.

Following the tacit norm, many employees are at the office about twelve hours each day, with or without genuine job tasks. Some bosses consider this the inhouse training in handling pressure!

The dissatisfiers

Does this time spent at the office enhance performance or organizational commitment? On the contrary, in the Herzberg theory, hygiene factors (like work conditions) are the dissatisfiers at work.

Managers, deliberately putting pressure on employees in their charge, should be careful. They may simply be causing dysfunction - creating stress, encouraging attrition, or facilitating poor performances.

No longer stupid

Workers no longer fit the ‘too stupid to think’ image reminiscent of the industrial age. Today’s workforce is largely literate, may even be educated and tech-savvy.

Especially in Asian countries like India and China, the entry-level applicant could be a graduate with at least a Bachelor’s degree, if not more e.g., with a business degree!

Respect contributions

Change in the quality requires a change in thinking in their management. In fact, the younger generations are far more aggressive go-getters than many of the older generations have been, and far more aware of their own value.

In situations not conducive they tend to vote with their feet, having as they say, “no time to be intimidated”. Should the idea of individualization take hold and spawn a global trend, workers everywhere could take the initiative to negotiate their own work schedules!

Managers and supervisors need to change their working theories, i.e., shift to ‘theory y’ from ‘theory x’. That means especially to respect others’ contributions to organizational goals, and include their inputs in work decisions.

Cont’d 2…Catch the i-deal

Talent development: The issue of apathy

Summary: [You might view the earlier post "Talent development: Does anybody really care?" before this.] Perhaps a relying on experience and external motivators contributes to apathy. A strong commitment to learning is needed to really develop talent.

Why the apathy towards talent development?

Experience versus change

Many organizational members rely heavily on experience. They expect to know already how to adapt to various situations.

They assume they’re fully competent to execute on all occasions despite the many challenges of environment, cultures and diversity, since they’ve seen it all, been there and done that.

But the rapid changes the world perceives are in –

• Technology
• Demographics
• Regulations
• Economic shift to other markets

Experience can’t be relied on blindly to carry the day, every day, because work is increasingly both ambiguous and limitless.

Neither does effective performances come automatically with race, gender, academic degrees or level in the organization. The truth is we don’t know all the answers, and can’t cope with the unforeseen.

The motivators

Perhaps organizational dependence on external motivators - like money - also contributes to the resistance to change. Its members have learned to value targets, incentives and appraisals for career betterment. Without them they feel lost.

Intrinsic motivation, that is, moving without the external push, depends on our locus of control – the sense of whether we’re responsible for our actions or forces outside of us are. Obviously in the context, this intrinsic drive is attenuated.

With no perceived relationship between anything educational and advancements in power, pay and profits, the collective organizational will to develop talent is weak.

Evaluation of self

Our motives are also guided by our self-concept. This relates to the image of self created and viewed in the mind’s eye.

The person each one of us becomes over time may differ in reality both from that we should be, or have potential for. When the gaps widen between these aspects of self, there is dissonance and discomfort within.

It hurts the self-concept to admit truth. We generally deal with discomfort by refusing to accept the reality that we may in fact require learning, un-learning and re-learning to deal with change. We tend to become defensive to protect our self-concept and bolster our pride - for example, with over-optimism in our evaluations of self.

We rate ourselves higher in strengths, like smarter, more capable, and lower in our weaknesses, like less prone to mistakes, than we do other people.

Commitment to learning

The total organization needs to step away from traditional assumptions of power and influence. New dimensions, like a superior knowledge base, call for new concepts and new strategies to accommodate them.

Members must be open to feedback from the collective, without feeling personally attacked, and becoming angry or otherwise defensive.

It needs a strong commitment to learning, to build interpersonal networks and share knowledge across the system, to shake out of apathy, and to develop talent resources. The longevity of the organization depends on it.

Comments/Opinions, Anyone??

Talent development: Does anybody really care?

Summary: : Researchers harp on the development of people. Fact is the employers want finished products, and employees have learned ‘presenteeism’.

Really, who cares about talent development?

Research conclusions

Researchers feel they do, because they conduct surveys and amass data. What talent management essentially is about, they explain, is developing people in the fold, to help move the business forward.

They conclude that leadership lacks understanding of critical jobs and succession planning, hence is unable to manage their people and get the best out of them.

They recommend that strategies for talent and business managements be aligned… But then they’re outside the system.

Focus is exclusive

In vast majority, it appears, the employers don’t really care. Although many say ‘talent’ is necessary, they do little about developing it throughout the organization.

Focus is usually exclusive in investing time and resources. Only those ‘stars’ slated for top management positions may be groomed for future roles.

Threatened

Every company wants the finished product. Investing resources on developing human capital doesn’t guarantee company loyalty. The fear is ‘talent’ may just be lured away after the elaborate learning process is complete.

So doing anything about indigenous development just isn’t on the radar. Besides, ‘upstarts’ with newfangled ideas might threaten one’s own position.

The silo

Fact is managers often don’t know how to handle the issues of categorizing performance or identifying talents relative to the business.

They’re used to convergent thinking - the silo mentality, in other words. Unchallenged in their little fiefdom, they expect that talent, as and when needed them, will be headhunted from competitors.

The only concern then is whether company image or the package offered is attractive enough to ensnare the catch.

Pretend knowledge

And, it seems that by their socializing, the employees really don’t care either.

Some companies that attempt a generalized improvement of the knowledge base – for example, by introducing online academies to educate the staff - soon find that the opportunity provided largely goes a-begging.

Employees are aware of the competitive market. But owning up to inadequacies may be foolish in the context of organizational survival. So they might simply pretend knowledge instead.

Presenteeism

Besides, upgrade or study anew - even at company expense – may be career ‘suicide’, because the boss could take the action as their genuinely lacking in competence, attempting to be better than superiors, or preparing for a career change.

‘Presenteeism’ is valued. Loyalty to the boss is crucial for a good performance appraisal. Many managers also believe that following their directives is adequate ‘learning on the job’; improving yourself in other ways isn’t appreciated.

No time?

Questions arise:

• Can the company really accommodate a superior knowledge base?
• Are the upper echelons comfortable with 360 degrees feedback as an actual organizational process?
• Are employees really committed to organizational objectives?

Perhaps not, since the singular excuse proffered for the lack of change, is a lack of time because of the work pressures.

Cont’d 2…the issue of apathy

"This is India!"

Summary: Indeed the ‘needs hierarchy’ seems to turn upside down in many third world countries. Self-actualizing clearly doesn’t wait to emerge last.

Lee from California shared some pictures on India she found on the Web. Most Westerners will probably find the images shocking, even scary (“Yikes!” said Burke.)

Contradictions

The bottomline:

This is India. It's where you call when you have a technical problem with your computer.

Ah yes, you need a very strong stomach to deal with the unbelievable contradictions of India’s diversity –

• An economy on the march and no social security,
• Limited infrastructure and a state-of-the-art IT industry,
• Teeming millions below the poverty line, and intellectual excellence in space research.

Creativity

In the picture above, notice the simple bamboo ladder overhead serving as a grid across the alley? I particularly liked the innovative display of a people naturally creative because they make do with almost nothing.

Global entrepreneurs

These are the stark conditions that the people of this nation live and work in.

Yet the entrepreneurial spirit doesn’t flag. Lightning strikes many times, but still they resume connectivity to compete once again in providing problem solutions across the globe.

Indeed the ‘needs hierarchy’ seems to turn upside down in many third world countries, besides incredible India, that are assumed to be developing yet! Their drive to self-actualizing clearly doesn’t await last emergence.

Comments/Opinions, Anyone??

Interactions: Change focus, not just accent

Summary: [You might view the earlier post "Interactions: Medium of influence" before this.] Interactions improve business. But companies still tend to base interactions solely on costs. Systems need to change focus to realize interactions have their own economic power.


Interactions have to be handled right to be successful. This requires divergent thinking, ability to integrate diverse knowledge, and astute judgement.

Customer disconnects

Outsourcing hit mainstream mainly because labour is cheap on the other side of the world. ‘Training’ for call centre employees in third world countries means imbibing the accent – American, British and what-have-you - so the ‘contact’ makes customers feel at home.

But high-speed transmissions aren’t the automatic guarantee of effective interactive capability. What to say or how to say it remains the people’s issue – it doesn’t arrive with changing the accent!

When knowledge of the business, idiomatic expression and the culture is limited, these processes may simply be earning customer disconnects at high speed.

Basing solely on costs

Yet…Interactions have always spelt costs for management. The decision to outsource is based on costs. And the recruitment and retention of expertise is also based on costs.

In earlier times they worried about contracting specialists particularly if there were geographical distances between them - they still do.

Despite the changes in global scenario, managerial measures and mindset remain the same. Thinking centres on money, rather than the value of skills and thought development.

Cheap to interactive

The traditional focus on ‘threat’ generates fears - of losing margins. This ‘cost’ perspective guides decisional strategy. The ROIC companies tend to seek are not in long-term value but in profitability.

Manipulating data is preferred to learning to interact with other people. In cost cutting exercises, transnational expertise is usually undervalued even in firms that seek a global presence.

Corporate leaders put in time, energy and other resources to build the business, so focus rivets on internal processes rather than on the environmental reality. The unexpected generally isn’t anticipated, even with new challenges.

Thus the organization that opts for the stereotypical in a diverse world sets to also lose its competitive edge, as it fails to capitalize on the quality of insight and knowledge of its best resources.

Changing economic power

The ongoing action process may be building up to future failures. Computing technology can’t provide the thought development required in knowledge-based diversity.

Management needs to be prepared for 'when' not 'if' reality changes. Systems need to adopt new mindsets and new measurements, besides new vocabularies, to realize the economic power of interactions.

They need to evolve, so to speak. And, with time and technology, to change the operative focus from cheap to interactive value.

By increasing the quantity and quality of interactions in business, they could better manage their talent resources and their customer service. And ultimately, perhaps even hold the line on costs.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

Interactions: Medium of influence

Summary: Interactions are as crucial organizationally as in our personal spheres. Greater exchange of ideas, services and goods means more business.

We keep organizational interactions to a minimum, to just as far as we think we have to… and we’re wrong.

Energy exchange

The word ‘interact’ is defined by Webster’s dictionary as ‘to act on each other’. Meaning that there is mutuality, reciprocity in the process of being with people, talking with them, sharing thoughts and experiences.

Interactions mean a lot to us in our personal spheres in making or breaking relationships. With family and friends, there are plenty of highs and lows in the energy exchange.

But by habit or by learning, we’re guarded at work.

Business activity

Interactions relate to the exchange of ideas, services and goods. Fact is they are the point in business influence today.

Figures reported in 1997 (McKinsey Quarterly) mentioned how interactions are or should be, at various levels of the business world:

economy level: 36-53 percent

industry level: 35-50 percent

firm level: 58 percent

individual level: 15 percent in physical labour jobs, 80 percent for managers and supervisors.

These interactions ensure that every organization goes about the tasks of searching for the right party to work with, managing its activities associated with the exchange, and monitoring the resulting performances.

Infrastructure transforms

Boundaries, geographical and organizational, are being loosened every day.

Much of the transformation is in infrastructure – the proliferation of networks, connectivity and bandwidth, new generations of routers, fibre-optic cables and wi-fi making our globally interactive capability easier, faster and cheaper by far.

Change in structure

The structure of organizations is also undergoing change. Smaller size now means greater agility.

Even larger companies are seeing value in horizontal integrations, shifting towards forms that are more networked, more loosely linked.

Added to this mix are demographic changes in society and the rising numbers in diversity at the workplace of people and skills.

Exchange of expertise

Information may be exchanged anywhere and anytime between points through intranet and websites.

Technology has created huge opportunities to interact. Skills transfer in the global marketplace becomes easier as costs of interactions fall.

Expertise is the most valuable asset sought and leveraged across borders – this, unimaginable before.

Business value

Crucial business interactions occur within different companies, between them, and in the marketplace right up to the consumer.

They take various forms – management meetings, conferences, phone conversations, sales calls, problem solving sessions, reports, memos, and so on throughout any working day.

Most importantly, they influence customer behaviour. Positive moves turn non-customers into active users, although negative impressions precipitate the search for new suppliers!

The point is with the information explosion, companies should value interactions much more in their businesses today, and make greater use of them.

Cont’d 2…Change focus, not just accent

Banking on senior citizens: Relationship management

Summary: [You might view the earlier post "Banking on senior citizens: The institutionalized process" before this.] Relationships matter, especially in Asia. Many of the high value account holders in India are senior citizens, missing the close interactions of family. They fulfil the social need becoming the new investors.


The undeniable fact is that in Asia in general and India in particular, “relationships” are a social strength.

Building relationships

This cultural trait has come handy for investment banking following global trends that focus on Asia’s new economic frontiers.

Banks have latched on to creating designated roles specifically for customer support. Relationship Managers, for example, adopt a very personalized approach with the high-value account holders.

The task of building rapport seems simple, but needs strong people skills, if it’s to be effective.

The lonesome elderly

In the new global reality in India, many of these account holders are the elderly.

They have not been overly active users, but are there in name as custodians of the family coffers while children and grandchildren are a part of the migrating knowledge-based workforce.

The economy is booming, but with the ‘empty nest’, their loneliness is acute, difficult to cope with.

Filling the social need

Perhaps inadvertently, Relationship Management has filled this new-age social need. It has helped to precipitate the change that transforms these ‘non-customer’ account holders into active investors. Senior citizens, many of who are not quite the outgoing types, are now regular visitors to their Bank’s local branches.

Not because they are constantly strapped for cash, but for the joy of a few moments of animated conversation. They begin to look upon their contact persons not merely as Bank representatives, but as members of their own circle, worthy of trust.

Mediate communication

Investment advice could very naturally follow. Investment advisors are a floating team of financial experts moving around the Bank’s various city branches, carrying various fund portfolios.

The Relationship Managers mediate in communications, facilitating interactions between these technocrats and the customers, who might otherwise have little indeed to say to one another.

Secure future

Banks’ elderly customers in India are becoming comfortable with market risks! They now have something worthwhile to do to secure the economic future for children and grandchildren.

In the process they are useful again… Would this work in a more individualistic society? We shouldn’t put our money on it, because social relationships tend to differ with culture!

Perhaps then, strategy in a global company needs to be thought out as a loosely linked collection of moves. Depending on culture and context, they may be differentially activated in any particular direction.

This would keep the system from becoming hidebound only to cut costs, and ‘institutionalize’ for each region, the process with the most effective fit.

Comments/opinions, anyone??

Banking on senior citizens: The institutionalized process

Summary: An institutionalized process implies that the policy-makers know best. When working with people, companies with a global presence have to be sensitive to the cultural contexts they come in contact with, which may be very different indeed from what they're used to.


We grew up believing that you stored money and valuables much as squirrels store nuts! The idea being that thus untouched, our savings in the Bank grow slowly, securely.

That process institutionalized in our minds.

Breaking tradition

Banks, assuming new avatars, are shaking up our traditional views. Now they themselves discourage you against things like long term fixed deposits or excessive liquidity.

Mutual funds are in high fashion, and ‘aggressive’ is the new banking catchword. Recently, Standard Chartered Bank won an award for investment advice in India, so obviously that’s what ordinary people are beginning to give the nod to.

Kudos for process?

In drawing in heavy investments from customers the powers-that-be might claim kudos for the new institutionalized process.

But I wonder, because on the other hand, SCB’s own credit card divisions in India seem, most intriguingly, to do their best to put off even existing customers!

Bound inflexibly

An institutionalized process implies that the policy-makers know best. following the overall business approach, strategy is thought out in fixed sequences - the same process formulation to be used everywhere, Asia, Africa, Europe, wherever.

Credit card schemes, for example, are bound inflexibly to the internally focused process with the new technology of call centres. Cost control finds them cheaper and recommends use, but customers and staff alike might agree that they’re rather ineffective for purpose – at least in India.

Cultural contexts

Management knowing exactly what to do and how to do it worked well in the days of the manual worker. But the new paradigm is that management does not know... diversity, for instance.

When working with people, companies with a global presence have to be sensitive to the cultures they come in contact with, which may be very different indeed from what they are used to.

For instance, the Western – e.g., UK/USA - view of company purpose generally is the short-term interest of shareholders; while in the non-Western view – e.g., Japan - it is seen more as the creation and maintenance of social harmony.

Depersonalizing process

Besides, management policy shouldn’t base solely on technology. As Peter Drucker said:

The foundations [of policy] have to be customer values and customer decisions…

Strategic decisions set to ignore the importance of context could well destroy the value for business it's expected to create.

For example, the credit card divisions in India probably fall down on customer satisfaction because of the telemarketing call-centres – since culturally neither maker of the call nor its receiver may be comfortable with the starkly depersonalizing process.

What’s missing is the face-to-face interaction that makes sense to the people of the region.

Cont'd 2...Relationship management