IS MULTI-TASKING ALSO PARALLELISM?

Corporate Team building framework infographic

IS MULTI-TASKING ALSO PARALLELISM?

WRITTEN BY: ADAM CHAN

                                                                                                         Is Multi-Tasking also Parallelism?
                                                                                               Multi-tasking may not be what it seems to be.
                                                                                                                           by Adam Chan

The Urban Myth – Multi-tasking?
The phrase “multi-tasking” is commonly used by corporate executives and managers who are perpetually laden with huge amount of tasks to be achieved in parallel hence the implied responsibilities and the impending rewards should successes are obtained. It seems like a great sense of accomplishment awaits any corporate executive or manager if many high value tasks are carried out in parallel. After all, any company leader would yearn for such executives to undertake all the tasks he or she has in mind. Have you met one yet?

In everything we set forth to do, we would think about the process it takes to achieve our desired outcomes. It is easy to understand that with quality thinking it would lead to quality actions hence quality results. This phrase implies the importance of thinking and it suggests that with inaccurate thinking, unlikely any quality result can be expected. Would you agree?

During the pre-information era i.e. before the birth of internet, humans are merely connected through telephone, in-person meeting or writing letters. There is little chance of two persons living thousand miles apart to know of each other existence, let alone becoming friends. Their lives are simple and that may imply they have less tasks to perform but each task would probably take a longer time to complete.

Today, we can be chatting with someone in the cyberspace without the need to know the respondent’s real identity. Making friends (connections) has taken on a brand new meaning. The purpose of chatting has transformed surely. The internet also allows us to perform numerous transactions that we would normally need to schedule time to attend to them in the past. Going to the bank and shopping are two perfect examples.

Although the internet has provided these apparent convenience, did it generate more time in our hands? Have you ever been caught in a situation where you need to pay bills over the internet, i-chatting with a friend, downloading some stuffs, typing an email, browsing ebay for cheap deals and navigating through Amazon for the best buys? Finally you are done with all the transactions, chatting, typing and searching but you discovered that your dirty laundry is still dirty, the morning’s newspaper is in its original delivered state, the oil on your dishes has turned in sludge or you have no more pressed business shirt for tomorrow’s meeting. The key difference between life in the past and modern city living is we now have more tasks to perform and with the help of technology, each task suppose to take less time. How well do you think the city dwellers perform in multi-tasking?

What is Multi-tasking?
I would like to present two anecdotes that are totally different but they appear to converge at the essence of suggesting what Multi-tasking might be.

The first anecdote; let’s look at the central processing unit a.k.a. CPU. This term is known as the brain of the computer system. The most illuminated feature of a superior CPU is its ability to compute numerous operations simultaneously. This non-negotiable feature is fundamental and expected and consumer will not part with his or her money unless this is fulfilled. Would you purchase a computer system that computes the operations one at a time?

Interestingly, here’s what Wikipedia says about computer’s mutli-tasking.

“In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn. The act of reassigning a CPU from one task to another one is called a context switch. When context switches occur frequently enough the illusion of parallelism is achieved. Even on computers with more than one CPU (called multiprocessor machines), multitasking allows many more tasks to be run than there are CPUs.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Have we all bought wrong computers or we simply started off with some common but inaccurate assumptions (thinking)?

The second anecdote; we will now examine a famous performing act, juggling. The phrase multi-tasking is synonymous with the act of juggling. Let’s see if everything actually happens at the same time and space?

Wikipedia says this about juggling.

“Juggling is a physical human skill involving the movement of one or more objects, usually through the air, for entertainment (see object manipulation). The most recognizable form of juggling is toss juggling, where the juggler throws objects through the air. Jugglers often refer to the objects they juggle as props. The most common props are balls, beanbags, rings, clubs, and bouncing balls. Some performers use dramatic objects such as chainsaws, knives and fire torches. The term juggling can also refer to other prop-based circus skills such as diabolo, devil sticks, poi, cigar box manipulation, fire-dancing, contact juggling, hooping and hat manipulation.

The word juggling derives from the Middle English jogelen to entertain by performing tricks, in turn from the French jongleur and the Old French jogler. There is also the Late Latin form joculare of Latin joculari, meaning to jest. “Juggling” has come to mean, colloquially, any activity which requires a constant refocusing of one’s attention from an overall goal to multiple subsidiary tasks, for example “Juggling Work and Family”, the title of a PBS documentary. This colloquial meaning is similar to the non-computer use of the word multitasking.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

In the act of juggling, the objects to be tossed spend a regular duration in mid air and also a regular duration in the hands of the juggler. Let’s view the balls as tasks we wish to accomplish. Each landing in the juggler’s hands means the task has made progress and the balls in mid air simple mean task progression is halted until the next landing. Does it make sense to perceive that task progression is happening at any and every moment of the juggling act? Chances are the juggler would miss catching all the balls if he attempts to catch two balls with a single hand. At any point of time and space, there is only one ball in one hand of the juggler. This metaphor of one ball one hand is pretty obvious in defining multi-tasking.

Although CPU and juggling are two very different subjects but they appear to possess similar metaphor when relating to mutli-tasking.

What about human multi-tasking? Along our education and career path, someone told us that we humans can do many things simultaneously and there is value in this ability.

Here’re another excerpt from Wikipedia on human multi-tasking.

Interestingly, here’s what Wikipedia says about computer’s mutli-tasking.

“In computing, multitasking is a method by which multiple tasks, also known as processes, share common processing resources such as a CPU. In the case of a computer with a single CPU, only one task is said to be running at any point in time, meaning that the CPU is actively executing instructions for that task. Multitasking solves the problem by scheduling which task may be the one running at any given time, and when another waiting task gets a turn. The act of reassigning a CPU from one task to another one is called a context switch. When context switches occur frequently enough the illusion of parallelism is achieved. Even on computers with more than one CPU (called multiprocessor machines), multitasking allows many more tasks to be run than there are CPUs.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking
Have we all bought wrong computers or we simply started off with some common but inaccurate assumptions (thinking)?

The second anecdote; we will now examine a famous performing act, juggling. The phrase multi-tasking is synonymous with the act of juggling. Let’s see if everything actually happens at the same time and space?

Wikipedia says this about juggling.

“Juggling is a physical human skill involving the movement of one or more objects, usually through the air, for entertainment (see object manipulation). The most recognizable form of juggling is toss juggling, where the juggler throws objects through the air. Jugglers often refer to the objects they juggle as props. The most common props are balls, beanbags, rings, clubs, and bouncing balls. Some performers use dramatic objects such as chainsaws, knives and fire torches. The term juggling can also refer to other prop-based circus skills such as diabolo, devil sticks, poi, cigar box manipulation, fire-dancing, contact juggling, hooping and hat manipulation.

The word juggling derives from the Middle English jogelen to entertain by performing tricks, in turn from the French jongleur and the Old French jogler. There is also the Late Latin form joculare of Latin joculari, meaning to jest. “Juggling” has come to mean, colloquially, any activity which requires a constant refocusing of one’s attention from an overall goal to multiple subsidiary tasks, for example “Juggling Work and Family”, the title of a PBS documentary. This colloquial meaning is similar to the non-computer use of the word multitasking.”

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juggling

In the act of juggling, the objects to be tossed spend a regular duration in mid air and also a regular duration in the hands of the juggler. Let’s view the balls as tasks we wish to accomplish. Each landing in the juggler’s hands means the task has made progress and the balls in mid air simple mean task progression is halted until the next landing. Does it make sense to perceive that task progression is happening at any and every moment of the juggling act? Chances are the juggler would miss catching all the balls if he attempts to catch two balls with a single hand. At any point of time and space, there is only one ball in one hand of the juggler. This metaphor of one ball one hand is pretty obvious in defining multi-tasking.

Although CPU and juggling are two very different subjects but they appear to possess similar metaphor when relating to mutli-tasking.

What about human multi-tasking? Along our education and career path, someone told us that we humans can do many things simultaneously and there is value in this ability.

Here’re another excerpt from Wikipedia on human multi-tasking.

HOW TO MAINTAIN YOUR HIGH LEVEL OF ENERGY!

Corporate Team building framework infographic

HOW TO MAINTAIN YOUR HIGH LEVEL OF ENERGY!

WRITTEN BY: JOHN SEAH

                                                                                            HOW TO MAINTAIN YOUR HIGH LEVEL OF ENERGY!
                                                                                                                              By John Seah

I was just browsing through the web in search of ideas for a new energizer, when it hit me that sometimes we, as Facilitators, need our very own Energizers as well. I for one, require an Energizer myself everyday after lunch (to which totok will suggest doing body parts to body parts) As such, I diverted my focus, to searching for the most efficient and time saving ways (given our very busy schedules) that we can maintain our high levels of energy. Many solutions surfaced as I browsed through the different websites and here are solutions that most websites speak of:

  • Learning something new
  • Focusing on what gives you joy in your work
  • Setting a new goal
  • Doing something that will make a colleague happy
  • Making time to show gratitude to someone you work with
  • Seeking feedback
  • Reflecting on how you make a difference at work
  • Reflecting on the meaning of your work

ABSOLUTELY TRUE

However, how many of these solutions are actually feasible?(except for the last point) And those that are actually feasible, in my opinion, don’t really increase energy level (i.e seeking feedback, that of which might deplete energy level altogether hahahah although feedback is still important and most welcome nonetheless! Just not in aiding our cause of maintaining high energy levels )

So I continued searching until I came across this website which gave just 3 simple ways to manage our energy levels. (thus amplifying the power of the Power Of 3 – different story for a different day)
In summary:

  1. Manage your glucose level– One of the things that impacts on our energy levels is the amount of glucose that we have in our blood. The reason for this is that our brains exist on glucose and nothing else. Our brain makes up about 2% of our body weight therefore consuming more than 20% of the glucose that we ingest. The problem with this is that our glucose levels fluctuate during the day; in particular we see a slight drop at 11am and a huge drop at 3pm. How often do you get tired at 3pm? When our glucose levels are low we feel tired, cant focus, and generally our productivity stinks. Obviously we are aiming for stable and steady glucose levels. Two things will help you to achieve this: EATING EVERY 4 HOURS and HAVING LOW GI FOODS

-Eat every 4 hrs- Research tells us that eating approximately every 4 hours is an effective way to stabilize your glucose levels. This means that if you have breakfast at 7am, the next time you eat is 11am, then again at 3pm and finally at 7pm. What you notice is that this encourages you to have two lunches. Yes two lunches. The return on this investment will be huge, and you will get back the time you spend eating back in productivity, ten fold over. Schools are now starting to get on this band wagon and they are starting to bring lunch forward to 11am. What they are finding is that their ability to focus and learn is far greater, and this is being reflected in improved test scores.

But given our busy schedule is it possible to have be eating every 4hrs? It is not set in stone that you must eat at those times, and have two full lunches. The next thing to look at is what you consume at these times.

Your meals in the day should be low Glycemic Index (GI). What is GI, it is the rate at which food that goes in your mouth becomes glucose in your blood. The slower the better. Examples of low GI meals are;
Fruit smoothies.
Chicken salad sandwich.
Muesli and yoghurt. – Cheap comfort food and easy consumption
Beef salad.

       In view of this, I will be purchasing yoghurt and muesli bars that can last us for the week, may be two weeks, only to be consumed at 3pm! And if it works may be Boss could look into sponsoring this cause, before I POK from buying all the yoghurt.

  1. Ease off regularly during the day– Stress is a sure fire way to kill your energy levels. So how can we control it? One mistake people make in stress management is that they put off relaxing to a time when they can take a lot of time out. For example most people work themselves to death thinking its ok “I have a holiday in 4 weeks I will relax then”. What happens when they go on the holiday? They spend the first 5 days of the holiday sick in bed. We don’t need to put off relaxation with the belief that we need large amounts of time to relax. Small moments of relaxation are just as effective as large breaks. So how do we do this? During the day allow for small moments of relaxation, we can relax in an instant. One of the easiest ways to do this is by slowing down our breathing. When we slow our breathing down, our physiology shifts to a more relaxed state. Take opportunities in your day to sit still for 5 minutes, slow your breathing down and relax. It will put your brain and body in a better state.
  2. Stay positive – (and I agree most with this) Negative emotions like fear, frustration, resentment, worry and sadness kill your energy levels. If you want proof just think of the last time you went through a relationship break up, how much energy did you have around that time? One of the most important things you can for your energy levels is to reduce the amount of your day that you spend in negative emotion. How do we do this?

One of the easiest ways to avoid negative emotion is to maintain a sense of perspective about what is important. So often during the day little things get us off course and we slip into negative emotion. Someone drives too slow in traffic and we drop our bundle, start to get angry yell and scream and spend the next 30 minutes thinking “how could they do this to me”. This lack of emotional intelligence leads to a large amount of stress hormones cursing though our veins that suck the energy out of our bodies. Do you really want to be that flippant with your energy levels? Start to be ruthless with your energy levels and don’t waste them on small insignificant events that happen in our day. So build a bridge get over it and get back into positive emotion!

HOW HARD SHOULD I WORK

Corporate Team building framework infographic

HOW HARD SHOULD I WORK

WRITTEN BY: JOEY NG

Everyday, we go to work, but, why do we go to work? Because we have to, or, because we want to? We can simply define ‘Have to’ as a need, and ‘Want to’ as a choice.

 

Whether it is ‘have to’ or ‘want to’ depends on the factors that motivate us to go to work daily. These factors can be categorized into 2 categories: Intrinsic and Extrinsic.

 

Example of Intrinsic factors:  Passion, Self-Fulfilment and Mastery of Subject.

 

Example of Extrinsic factors: Monetary Reward, Threat of Punishment.

 

Studies have shown the when one is intrinsically motivated, greater effort and desire will be put into the task and often, leading to greater output. People who are intrinsically motivated believe that the output is in their own hands. Researchers have also found out that these people approaches stress with stride and handle it in a positive manner.  Studies also reveal that when one is motivated by extrinsic factors, he will pay less attention to enjoyment and satisfaction from the task perform. People who are extrinsically motivated will based their performance on extrinsic factors. Performances and returns share a positive relationship for people in this category. For example, if a worker’s pay is halved, expect him to only produce half the original output. Coercion is a good means to drive output from people under this category, albeit it is a short term solution.

 

It is rare for one to be employed solely on intrinsic motivation alone. We often hear, ‘You should do something that you are passionate in’. In reality, for most, passion alone does not fill the rice bowl. So, the question is, how do one find the balance?

 

One of the tools we can use to evaluate this balance is the Equity Theory.

 

Individual’s Output = Partner’s Output

Individual’s Input       Partner’s Input

 

Equity Theory is based on how fair one perceives his ratio of input and output against another person’s ratio. Output refers to the outcome of one’s effort and input refers to the work put it. Output and input can either be tangible, intangible or a combination of both. Example of outputs includes salary, satisfaction, acceptance and promotions. Examples of inputs are time, effort and money. The subject of comparison does not have to come from the same industry. Perception and relativism are highly significant in this theory because of the intangible elements and the relative nature of the equation.

 

Fairness exists because of relativism. In retrospect, it seems like it is not a matter of how and how much we are rewarded, but, how the other parties are.

 

HIRING MYTH: ABILITY VERSUS SUITABILITY

Corporate Team building framework infographic

HIRING MYTH: ABILITY VERSUS SUITABILITY

WRITTEN BY: ADAM CHAN

                                                                                                      Hiring Myth: Ability versus Suitability
                                                                                                                         By Adam Chan

If you ask any Human Resources (HR) Department why they are hiring people to join the organization, you will receive common responses like, to fill up the vacancies, as part of expansion plan, new functions creation, etc. These are indeed corporate jargons; they presented the obvious reasons for hiring but did not address the crux of the matter. It is liken to the notion of “Live to Eat”. The notion has relegated the need for eating to one which takes a secondary status. We all know that eating to stay alive is a primary need. However, few would prefer to spend time and effort to discern the roots of the matter. Perhaps it is not obvious to our conventional intuitive thinking.

So what are the real reasons for hiring? The obvious reasons are the causal factors or triggers for the hiring process to take place but hardly the real reasons. Locating the right focus will result in the right approach. Instead of seeking for the real reasons, HR practitioners should seek for the right focus and approaches. It is like the saying, perfect practice makes perfect. In the past, hiring is usually the conventional process in sifting through resumes, interviewing the applicants and eventually concludes the hiring process with the “selected applicant”. Below are some hiring approaches being used widely.

–

Individual interviews

–

Group interviews

–

Administering Psychometric tools (not as determinant factor)

–

Topics Presentation

–

Scenario play

–

Residential selection camp

–

Trial attachment

However the buck doesn’t stop here. So where does the buck stop? To address this question, it can be as easy as ABC or it can be as complicated as the theory of relativity. Some say when the position is being filled. Some would argue that results or productivity within a fixed timeframe of the new hire as indicators for a success hire.

Staying with one company to materialize one’s career aspiration is in the past. In today’s volatile society, the presence of head hunters created a new trend. A trend that alarms many HR practitioners; i.e. protecting their talented workforce from these head hunters has never been more critical.

It is common to rely on the impression generated by the resumes as the initial filter. With a few rounds of interviews, it will seal the process. Like in the West, ability of the applicant is everything that is needed as selection criteria. It doesn’t matter if the person is difficult work with, as long as he or she delivers. It was the proven way to go, therefore ability should receive prime standing as the right focus and evaluation will be right approach.

Sifting ability alone; is it adequate to determine if the hiring decision is right? It was probably true a decade ago especially in Singapore but in today’s volatile job market and the presence of head hunters, the former hardly holds truth anymore. This notion has been augmented by the emphasis on finding the “perfect fit” echoed by many recruitment firms. It is all too obvious that ability alone doesn’t give a perfect fit.

What is the mysterious criterion other than the evaluating ability?

In the book authored by three HR gurus, namely Ulrich, Meisinger and Losey, titled The Future of Human Resources Management suggested that a shift in hiring trend in recent years where the “West Meets East” is emerging evidently. It emphasizes on the how well the person “fits” with the corporate and company values and how well the person gets along with others. The shift can be seen in the methods of hiring are being employed in recent years. This shift is not a local trend but a global one.

When one quits, usually he or she usually doesn’t quit the job but the boss or the colleagues. What is the implication to hiring from this aspect? It could very well point to the relationship between the boss and direct reports. The value trust, is the bedrock value that binds everyone to a common vision, impel employees to commit and stay engage at work. In the absence of trust, disengagement from work sets in. It will lead to low productivity, sub-standard results, prone to making errors, distrusting among co-workers, eventually to resignation or termination.

Absenteeism, a by-product of disengagement, in a 2004 survey (HRM magazine, issue 4.11) conducted by Robert Walters, Singapore topped the survey over other countries like NZ, Australia, UK, etc by an astounding 23.8% of the respondents admitted that they will take sick leave but none of them are really sick. Is it ability or suitability? Is it due to relationship issues at work or competency in performing the assigned work? This is a telling indicator to any HR practitioners that the hiring process deserves a second look.

Another global survey in 2004 released by the Conference Board (HRM magazine, issue 4.9) posted to 539 CEOs around the globe, asking for their top ten concerns. Employee loyalty/commitment/job satisfaction was cited as of greatest concern by 32% of the CEO in Asia. Sufficiently telling, the concern is hardly about competency.

Disengagement, absenteeism and CEO’s greatest concerns; what have these factors got to do with the right focus and approaches to hiring? Although they are not the sole determinant for wrong hiring decisions, surely the discussed factors tell us about the implications of wrong hiring and also the need for tighter hiring filters. As echoed by many recruitment firms, finding the “perfect fit” is both art and science. It is obvious assume that “art” refers to soft facts like getting long with one another, one’s value system, etc.

Multi-national corporations (MNC) are investing enormous amount of resources in their hiring process. Knowing too well that a wrong hire will result in considerable loss of time and money, the effort was focused in revamping the hiring process to focus beyond their past work achievements. The applicants are subject to other challenges that demand for their interpersonal skills and surfacing their value systems thus the hiring process captures valuable observable evidence beyond one’s ability. Some companies went to great length in the selection process by staging selection camp that last for days, compacting multi-disciplines challenges in order to observe the applicants’ in different critical dimensions. Group interview processes can be effective in observing interpersonal attributes that are desired by the hiring parties and it is widely used too.

Companies with niche business focus like adventure learning have unique selection processes to capture the right candidates. Major airlines have been known to include character development as part of pilots’ new entry training. Gains from such training are intangible to the organization which is difficult to measure. However it still being recognize as essential.

While there isn’t one water tight hiring process that would fit all companies and the applicants they seek, it would be unwise to rely only on the conventional interviewing process to determine the human capital investment. The hiring process should be equipped with means to surface interpersonal attributes for the hiring managers to observe. Some companies even make efforts to quantify such attributes to create consistency in observing such intangibles. By introducing mechanics to identify the desired interpersonal attributes, it serves as an additional layer of hiring filter thus making the overall hiring process a tighter one. With tighter hiring filters it will likely lead increase the chances of getting the right fit. In the sense, suitability is the right focus and identifying the desired attributes is the right approach.

Is it “ability versus suitability” or “ability and suitability”? With the right focus, with the right approaches for hiring, finding that impetus to make the hiring process worthwhile will never be easier.

Finally, hiring it is not just evaluating ability alone, suitability of each applicant is as critical if not more. While having a sound selection process to evaluate ability is liken to the saying of practice makes perfect, making sure that there are mechanics to identify the suitability would be like perfect practice makes perfect.

HERZBERG’S TWO FACTOR THEORY AND WORKPLACE SATISFACTION

Corporate Team building framework infographic

HERZBERG’S TWO FACTOR THEORY AND WORKPLACE SATISFACTION

WRITTEN BY: DAMIEN TEONG

My interest and inquisitive nature in a deeper understanding of people spurred me into studying psychology for my bachelors, and throughout my studies I have always been curious about motivational psychology and social behaviors. It wasn’t long before this curiosity led me to come across Herzberg’s two factor theory; and as all conventional and modern psychology theories related to motivation goes, it is undeniable that this theory was clearly influenced by Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory. And while Maslow’s theory was build on a foundation of 5 levels of needs, Herzberg went on further to add another dimension to these needs and hence giving birth to his two factor theory also known as Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene theory.

Among students studying psychology, it seems almost general knowledge that there are always two sets of factors that affecting any individual on any given day. External factors refer to external or things that you do not have control over, such as natural disasters, accidents or in the context of this article such as business climate and economic conditions; while internal factors refers to one’s resilience to different aptitudes among other intrinsic factors.

As mentioned earlier for his theory, Herberg divided the needs into 2 sets of factors:

– Motivators (examples of motivators are challenging work, recognition for personal or individual’s achievement, responsibilities, involvement in decision making, meaningful work and sense of importance and significance to his/her organization) are efforts that contributes to positive satisfaction but are derived directly from the intrinsic conditions and aspects of the job itself, such as acceptance, recognition, achievement, or personal growth, and

– Hygiene factors (examples of hygiene factors are status, job security, salary, fringe benefits, work conditions, good pay, paid insurance, vacations) are factors that do not give positive satisfaction or lead to higher motivation, and their absence will lead to dissatisfaction. Herzberg used the term “hygiene” in the sense that these are maintenance factors. These factors are primarily extrinsic to the work itself, and include aspects such as company policies, supervisory practices, or wages/salary. Interestingly and not without rationale, Herzberg often referred to hygiene factors as “KITA” factors, which is an acronym for “kick in the ass”, the process of providing incentives or threat of punishment to make someone do something.

According to Herzberg, discrepancies in the hygiene factors causes dissatisfaction among employees in a workplace. In order to remove dissatisfaction in a work environment, these hygiene discrepancies must be eliminated. Herzberg mentioned that there are several ways that this can be done but some of the most important/sure-fire ways to decrease dissatisfaction would be to pay reasonable wages, ensuring job security for the employees, and to create a positive culture in the workplace.

Through his studies and stronger empirical support (compared to Maslow’s theory), Herzberg considered the following hygiene factors from highest to lowest importance: company policy, supervision, employee’s relationship with their boss, work conditions, salary, and relationships with peers. Reducing/removing dissatisfaction is only one half of the task of the two factor theory. The other half requires increasing satisfaction in the workplace. This can be done by improving on or increasing motivating factors. Motivation factors carry an imperial importance to motivate an employee to higher performance. Herzberg went on to further elaborate and classified our actions and how and why we do them, for example, if you perform a work related action because you have to then that is classed as “movement”, but if you perform a work related action because you want to then that is classed as “motivation”. In other words, the initiative taken behind an action classifies whether an action is a movement or motivation. Herzberg thought it was important to prioritize eliminating job dissatisfaction (eliminating discrepancies in the hygiene factors) before going onto creating conditions for job satisfaction simply because the efforts behind the two would work against each other.

According to Herzberg’s Two-Factor Theory there are four possible combinations:

  1. High Hygiene + High Motivation: The ideal situation where employees are highly motivated and have few complaints.
  2. High Hygiene + Low Motivation: Employees have few complaints but are not highly motivated. The job is viewed as a form of sustenance or a paycheck.
  3. Low Hygiene + High Motivation: Employees are motivated but have a lot of complaints. A situations where the job is exciting and challenging but salaries and work conditions are not up to par.
  4. Low Hygiene + Low Motivation: This is the worst situation where employees are not motivated and have many complaints.

 

Herzberg’s theory focuses on the importance of internal job factors as motivating forces for employees. He designed it to increase job enrichment for employees. Herzberg wanted to create the opportunity for employees to take part in planning, performing, and evaluating their work. He suggested a few ways of doing this:

– Removing some of the control management has over employees and increasing the accountability and responsibility they have over their work. This would lead to an increase in employee autonomy.

– Building and creating natural work units where and when it is possible. An example would be allowing employees to create a whole unit or section instead of only allowing them to create part of it.

– Providing regular and continuous feedback on productivity and job performance directly to employees instead of through supervisors.

– Encouraging employees to take on new and challenging tasks and becoming experts at a task.

Critics:

Although Maslow and Herzberg’s theories have been significant to the humanist and motivational psychology; it has been pointed out repeatedly that there are inadequacies in the need for hierarchy and motivation-hygiene theories. The most common criticism for both of these theories is that it contains relatively explicit assumption that happy and satisfied workers produce more, even though this might not be the case; and that happier workers may not be more productive.

Another alarming criticism is that these and other statistical theories are preoccupied with explaining “average/common” behaviour, despite substantial differences between individuals that may impact one’s motivational factors. For instance, what might be a motivational factor for an individual may not be another’s motivator. An example of this is that in their pursuit of status a person might take a balanced view and strive to pursue several behavioural paths in an effort to achieve a combination of personal status objectives.

 

GROUP JUGGLE

Corporate Team building framework infographic

GROUP JUGGLE

WRITTEN BY: ANDY PAN

                                                                                                                                Group Juggle:
                                                                                         An application of the DISC personality profiling system
                                                                                                                                  By Andy Pan

In brief, Group Juggle is an activity that involves the throwing and catching of different objects while participants are standing around in a circle.

Activity objective:

– To pass an object around a circle of participants from start to finish without anyone dropping the object

– Progressively, more objects will be added into the circle.

Elaboration:

  • One participant would have to be selected as the start and the end point.
  • He/she would have to pass an object (e.g. tennis ball) to another person. However the receiver must be someone who is opposite him and MUST not be on his immediate left or right. This applies to everyone.
  • A sequence must be established until the first person receives the object again to signal the end of the round.
  • Ask the group to practice with 1 object again.
  • Introduce a 2nd object (e.g. stress ball) and have it passed around in the same sequence immediately after the 1st object has left the first person’s hands.
  • Subsequently, introduce more objects, 1 or 2 more at a time, which still MUST be passed around simultaneously until the last object reaches the first person.
  • Whenever an object drops onto the floor, the process would have to be restarted.
  • Whenever an object is passed, the thrower must call out the receiver’s name first.
  • Whenever an object is received, the receiver must say “thank you”.

Observations:

  • This activity is preferably done with small groups of not more than 20 pax, because behavioural observations can be performed effectively and debriefed upon.
  • Group Juggle is commonly used for experiencing team elements like the ability to multi-task and communication.
  • However, observable behaviours that arise from the DISC personality styles can also be discerned. For example, when a second object is added into the circle, a team would usually fail almost immediately. It gets tougher when a third object is added.
  • At this moment, the facilitator can interject and ask the team about some possible reasons for the difficulties that the team is now facing.
  • More often than not, one main reason for dropping objects is that some people are actually more concerned with objects coming towards them, while some are more concerned with objects going away from them. The former is a tell-tale sign of being task-oriented while the latter being one of people-oriented.
  • Why? Because the task-oriented folks would place priority in performing their individual task well by catching the objects that come their way but place less emphasis on throwing the objects to their intended targets. On the other hand, people-oriented folks would place priority in making sure that their intended receiver is ready before they release the object, hence placing less emphasis on objects coming towards them.
  • Therefore, due to this behavioural contradiction, objects start dropping and the objective seems impossible to meet. It is only when a mutual understanding is established among all members that the job becomes easier.
  • Often, after a sharing of these observations, teams would succeed even as more objects are added.
  • This activity highlights and reinforces the personality differences between a D/C and an I/S. It is only when a team is completely aware of their individual differences and work on them, would it be able to achieve team goals and objectives.

GAME THEORY: AN APPLICATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

Corporate Team building framework infographic

GAME THEORY: AN APPLICATION IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOUR

WRITTEN BY: ANDY PAN

                                                                                Game Theory: An Application in Organizational Behaviour
                                                                                        A hypothetical but original concept by Andy Pan

What is Game Theory?

Game Theory is a mathematical concept that was made popular by actor, Russell Crowe, in the hit film “A Beautiful Mind” that was screened in 2002. Some of us might have even studied this particularly interesting theory while in school. While some of us may even be practicing and/or applying it right now at work without us knowing. It is a theory that can hide it conspicuous head in the everyday things that we do, from strategic planning to even the making of simple daily choices. So what exactly is Game Theory?

A Game Theory can be defined as a means of analyzing strategic actions that, more often than not, result from the consideration of the expected behaviour of others; or simply, the decisions that is made by one, taking into account the response from a would-be affected party by one’s decision. Got it? I know this sounds a little confusing but many of the current global economic policies and even between rival companies, game theories have often been used to make effective, calculated decisions. A game, in economics, is defined as a situation whereby rules, strategies and payoffs are involved for parties to make beneficial decisions. In this context, of course, “beneficial” is subjective. Why? Let’s take a look at the following example.

The Prisoners’ Dilemma

This classic illustration has been widely used as a simple yet effective explanation of a game theory.

Once upon a time, there were 2 thieves who were caught while trying to steal a car. The Judge decides to sentence them to a 2-year jail term each. However, the Prosecutor suspects that these men were also responsible for an unsolved bank robbery some years back but he lacks concrete evidence that can tie the men to the case. The Prosecutor then devised a plan with the Judge which he hopes would make the thieves confess to their previous crime.

The Prosecutor first places the 2 prisoners in separate rooms so that they cannot communicate with each other. Each is told that they are suspected of an earlier crime and are also told the following:

1.

If each confesses to the robbery, each will get a 3-year jail sentence.

2.

If 1 person confesses and the other does not, the one who confessed will get only a 1-year sentence while the other will serve 10 years in jail.

3.

If neither of them confess then each will only be convicted for the car theft and will be sentenced to jail for 2 years.

If you are one of the prisoners, what would you do?

The payoff matrix is as shown:

Prisoner A’s Strategies

Prisoner B’s Strategies

 

Confess

Deny

Confess

3, 3

10, 1

Deny

1, 10

2, 2

Now if I were any of these prisoners, I would be either trying to maximize gain for myself independent of my accomplice’s decision or I would have to make my decision based on how much I trust him. Do I anticipate him to deny so that I can confess and enjoy the shortest of the jail terms? But what if he confesses and I confess as well and my jail term increases to 3 years? So in that case, shall I deny and hope that he denies as well so that we both need only to serve 2 years in jail? But what if he confesses and now I get a 10-year sentence?! Tricky, isn’t it? Hence, the Prisoners’ Dilemma.

The optimum solution to this problem is actually to find its equilibrium. The equilibrium in a game is also known as the Nash equilibrium, named after John Forbes Nash (the character portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie). This balance occurs when one takes the best possible action given the action of the other party and vice versa. In this example, a dominant strategy exists for each prisoner. This means that in this dilemma, no matter what the other prisoner decides, one would choose to confess because it is the best course of action. Thus, the equilibrium of the prisoners’ dilemma is that each prisoner confesses.

Yes, I know what you’re thinking. Why shouldn’t the equilibrium be the situation if each prisoner denies? If so, both would only serve a 2-year jail sentence compared to a 3-year one right? Take note that the Nash equilibrium is not achieved with actions that would generate the best payoff. Remember the prisoners are kept in separate rooms and trust is an issue here because if I trust that my accomplice would deny along with me, but if he doesn’t, then I am in for a decade behind bars.

This game model is essentially a non-zero sum game, which means that a gain by one player does not necessarily cause a loss in another player. In other words, win-win scenarios exist. On the other hand, there are also zero-sum games, whereby a player gains at the equal expense of other players. An example would be Poker. If I win with a good hand, then I would gain all bets that the other party has made at the table. So with all these “mambo jumbo” about a less-than-interesting economic theory (for some), what does it have to do with organizational behaviour?

Internal Strife

Game theories have been used extensively to study the behaviours of companies in an oligopoly. An oligopoly is a market or industry that is dominated by a few firms. More often than not, the price strategies of these firms are heavily influenced by that of rival firms. An obvious example would be the local petroleum market that is dominated by the likes of Shell and Caltex. Ever noticed that when one of these companies decides to lower its price of petrol, the rest would follow suit? However, the reverse would never happen. Why would any company in an oligopoly be in the right mind to raise prices? Would its rivals follow suit? However, you can try working out a payoff matrix for a hypothetical scenario and you would be able to appreciate the effectiveness of a game theory.

Although several other real-world applications exist, another of a game theory’s application is present as well. One that does not involve comparison between firms but it is one that can help explain the rise of conflicts within an organization.

Have you ever heard or even witness business functions of an organization “backstabbing” one another? Maybe it could be the sales department having constant arguments and disagreements with the production department? Maybe it could also be a case whereby the management fails to work in line with its ground staff? Ever since I became a facilitator, I, personally, have had corporate clients complaining about the friction between one department and another and in some cases, internal competition seems to be the norm as department heads contest with one another, thus putting a huge strain on the entire organization. It has almost gotten pretty cliché with regards to the common troubles that these organizations face. Maybe with an understanding of game theory, “rival” functions within any organization can learn that such conflicts arise from familiar roots.

Let’s say we have a scenario where the product department and the marketing department of a fictitious organization are at loggerheads which each other. The product people are in charge of creating new products while the marketing folks are responsible for selling whatever the product people came up with. However, perhaps due to some misunderstandings and accusations between the two, relationships start to break down and internal strife ensues. The situation gradually escalates to a point whereby both teams must make a decision on whether, they want to cooperate or refuse cooperation with each other. Cooperation here can refer to information-sharing, effective communication etc. Hence the following scenarios, with regards to probable effects each decision has on the organization’s performance as a whole, might just turn out.

1.

If both departments choose to cooperate, each department would contribute $5 million in revenue to the company directly and/or indirectly.

2.

If one department chooses to cooperate and the other does not, the department that chooses to cooperate would add $7 million to the company’s coffers, while the other contributes $1 million to the organization, whether directly and/or indirectly.

3.

If both departments choose not to cooperate then each will only contribute $1 million to the company, once again either directly and/or indirectly.

The payoff matrix is as follows:

Marketing department’s choices

Production department’s choices

 

Cooperate

Refuse to cooperate

Cooperate

5, 5

Scenario A

1, 7

Scenario B

Refuse to cooperate

7, 1

Scenario C

1, 1

Scenario D

So in this case, what do you think is the Nash equilibrium? In terms of game theory, the Nash equilibrium in this situation would, of course, be the point when both departments cooperate. This is so because no matter what choices that the other department makes, one would choose to cooperate in order to maximize one’s gains. In addition, the organization benefits from the highest total revenue with mutual cooperation, as compared with the rest of the other scenarios. However, would this be the dominant strategy for both departments?

In theory, any business functions within the same organization would decide to cooperate to avoid conflict and at the same time, generate win-win results. However, how often have we witness Scenario D as the eventual outcome? Simply because Scenario B and C, more often than not, do not exist in the real world and the fact is that we live in a “tit-for-tat” society. This is what I call the Pan Disequilibrium. Okay….I’m just kidding. Let’s just name this point as the Organizational Disequilibrium.

Firstly, any CEO would tell you that in situations like this, product folks have to learn to co-exist and collaborate with their marketing counterparts because these two key departments are interdependent with each other. However, if one department refuses to cooperate, do you think the resulting party would not follow suit? Assuming ceteris paribus (all things remaining the same), any person would retaliate in response to hostility towards him or her. Eventually, a “bloodbath” begins, leaving both parties crippled, whilst generating negative results.

Why then do teams degenerate to such a state? We will find the answers in the deeper roots of such organizational relationships. These answers lie with two very tenuous components in relationship-building and you can find them in my earlier pages. The words are highlighted and I’m sure anyone can spot them.

You got them? If you did, then scroll down to the next page to verify your answers. No prizes for getting them correct though.

BINGO!

The two critical factors that determine any positive relationships are:

1.

Communication and

2.

Trust

In the Prisoners’ Dilemma, communication was cut off between both prisoners and thus, trust became an issue. This setting then led us to the Nash equilibrium of when both prisoners confess. In the product/marketing analogy, wouldn’t communication be readily available to allow both departments to produce win-win results? Strange isn’t it? In today’s organizational environment, with the widespread availability of communication technologies, why should communication be of any concern? Why, even with communication, our product and marketing teams would still end up in Scenario D?

What is communication?

First of all, let us define communication. According to Dictionary.com, the word “communication” is defined as the imparting or interchange of thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs. However, do you think that communication would be more of an “interchange” instead of an “imparting”? In this case, is sending an e-mail message or posting a notice a form of communication? Is holding an “informative” meeting a form of communication? The answer: no. These are mere forms of notification. Why? Let us take a look at the following model which illustrates the Communication Cycle.

Team building framework infographic

Effective communication entails a sender to transmit a clear message for a recipient to understand and not just be heard. Upon receiving the message, the intended recipient would be able to acknowledge the message and/or provide feedback if need be back to the sender. Nonetheless, if you agree with me on this specific definition, how many of us do practice effective communication?

Sometimes? All the time? None at all? But how important is communication in an organization? This next case study will demonstrate the significance of organizational communication.

Case Study: The Re-birth of Continental Airlines

The following details the profile of Continental Airlines, one of the best airline companies in America and the world currently.

–

No. 1 U.S.-based Airline
Nikkei Business Magazine survey (December 2003)

–

Best Transatlantic Airline
2001 OAG Airline of the Year Awards (February 2001)

–

Top International Airline
National Airline Quality Rating Study (April 2000)

–

Best Executive/Business Class
OAG Airline of the Year Awards (2003, 2004, 2005, 2006)

–

Best U.S. Airline for Business Travel
SmartMoney (February 2000)

–

No. 1 On-time Performance in 2000
U.S. Department of Transportation

–

No. 1 Most Admired Airline
FORTUNE magazine (March 2006)

The following details the profile of Continental Airlines, one of the best airline companies in America and the world currently, in 1994.

–

Experienced 10 changes in leadership in 10 years.

–

Went through bankruptcy proceedings twice.

–

Has not made a profit in 10 years.

–

Customers were shunning the airline.

–

Arrival and departure times were very unpredictable and as the then CEO commented, that their planes “came and went as they happened to”.

–

According to the Department of Transportation, Continental Airlines was ranked last among the country’s 10 biggest airlines.

–

The company received almost 3 times as many complaints as the industry average and more than 30% more complaints than the ninth-placed airline.

During these trying times, Continental Airlines was undoubtedly THE worst airline in the whole of America. With abysmal morale, non-existent cooperation among employees and a barrel full of lies from the management, the company was in total chaos. As then CEO, Gordon Bethune, once remarked that it was “a company with a lousy product, angry employees, low wages, and a history of ineffective management.”

Faced with an organization in dire straits, Bethune knew he had to radically change the company culture and communication was the key to Continental’s survival and revival. He knew that positive, healthy interaction was vital in turning things around and interestingly, the first thing that Bethune did was to open up the executive offices to all employees.

In the past, the twentieth-storey office for Continental’s top management in Houston was like a fortress. Its doors were shut from prying eyes as surveillance cameras prowled the place like tigers searching for a prey. No one could enter this area without a security pass and this was not exactly the most inviting place to be for any employee. However, in a symbolic gesture, Bethune literally opened the once-locked doors to the entire company. Thereafter, open houses were organized for employees in order for employee-management barriers to be broken and thus allow trust to, once again, be built.

Nonetheless, the road to restoration was not always a smooth-riding one. However, Continental’s leaders kept up with their regular meetings with their people, as views were aired and shared. Honesty and patience were a priority as the management revealed everything to its employees, good news or bad. Bulletin boards were also put up in every employee area that displayed the company’s ratings for the previous year, as assessed by the Department of Transportation; and daily company news updates. Additional forms of communication were also put in place, including monthly and quarterly employee newsletter which were mailed to each employee’s house and even 800-number hotlines for any employee to enquire about anything from anywhere in the world. Bethune’s communication policy was simple: “Unless it’s dangerous and illegal for us to share it, we share it.”

As weeks become months, slowly but gradually, Continental finally began to function as a team. In the year that Bethune took over the reins of CEO, 1994, the company lost US$204 million. By the end of the next year, Continental posted a profit of US$202 million. Subsequently, for the next half a decade, Continental posted twenty-four consecutive profitable quarters in a time when their competitors struggled to remain afloat.

An Afterword

People often ask, “Why is there a need for teamwork?” “Why can’t we focus just on ourselves and generate higher returns?” “Everyone wants to win and for every winner, there will be a loser, isn’t it?” As human beings, even as employees within a company, we often assume that we are constantly being engaged in zero-sum games, when in fact non-zero sum games exist and these should be the mode of operation in order to maximize gains, both individually and organizationally.

But for a beneficial equilibrium to be achieved, communication is vital. In fact, effective communication must be present for a borderless team to function well. If the management of Continental Airlines still persisted with a strict top-down approach with information flowing through a one-way route, I don’t think it could turn things around so quickly. If communication barriers are erected, distrust will permeate through every member, every department; and if trust becomes an issue, then the organization will, without a sliver of doubt, slip into a chaotic disequilibrium, fueled by retaliation. In order to for you to digest this lengthy article easily, just remember the following three pointers:

1.

For every hostile action, there will be an equal (sometimes more) and opposite retaliation.

2.

Communication builds trust and trust builds successful organizations.

3.

Do not forget Points (1) and (2)

So folks…remember to be nice. Being nice does have its bottom-line benefits as niceness begets niceness as hostility begets hostility; and if in doubt check with the Game Theory.

 

References:

1.

Michael Parkin, (1993), “Economics (Second Edition)”, Addison-Wesley Publshing Company (13 March 2008)

2.

John C. Maxwell, (2001), “The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork”, Nelson Business (18 March 2008)

3.

Continental Airlines, (2008), About Continental > Company Profile > Awards.
Available from: http://www.continental.com/web/en-US/content/company/profile/awards.aspx

 

FUNDAMENTALS OF TEAMBUILDING

Corporate Team building framework infographic

FUNDAMENTALS OF TEAMBUILDING

WRITTEN BY: DAMIEN TEONG

As we identified ourselves as Adventure Learning facilitators whom organize and customize Teambuilding programmes on a regular basis, I came to realization that our learning curve here though steep, carries a very different model of learning. The current model of learning requires On-The-Job Trainees to experience the different elements of a programme before undergoing a deeper understanding of theoretical models and the rationale, needs and uses of these models; this begs the understanding of the general concepts developed by social scientists and how we should apply these concepts into our daily programmes, and if so, which of these concepts are more relevant to us.

Teambuilding is defined as the process of utilising various methods of interventions that are targeted at enhancing social relations and clarifying team members’ roles with the ultimate objective of increasing efficiency and effectiveness in achieving the organisation’s objectives, mission and vision.

Traditionally, these activities usually assign tasks to different members of the team to solve through collaborative means. Teambuilding activities are deliberately structured to surface interpersonal problems that affect functionality of the team and while facilitating this process could address current and potential issues; it also carries the possibility to resolve these issues as well.

Teambuilding, as according to Klein is commonly used for group development interventions in organizations today. Of all organizational interventions, team-development interventions were found to have the largest effects on financial measures of organizational performance.

Team building generally sits within the theory and practice of organizational development; it could be employed in many organisations or non-formal organisations and is applicable to sports teams, school groups, armies, flight crews and other contexts. Although past literature has raised many issues on the conceptual definition and understanding of team building, there is now, consensus and conceptual clarity about what team building is composed of. Its four components are:

  • – Goal setting: Aligning around goals
  • – Interpersonal-relationship management: Building effective working relationships
  • – Role clarification: Reducing team members’ role ambiguity
  • – Problem solving: Finding solutions to team problems

 

Goal setting refers to a form of intervention that emphasizes on setting objectives and developing individual and team goals. Team members become involved in action planning to identify ways to achieve goals. It is designed to strengthen team member motivation to achieve team goals and objectives. By identifying specific outcome levels, teams can determine what future resources are needed. With a clear action plan and objectives, resources would be more focus on achieving the specific objectives. Individual characteristics (e.g. team member motivation) can also be altered by use of this intervention. Successful goal settings help the teams to work towards the same outcomes and make them more task and action oriented.

The second component, role clarification refers to a form of intervention that emphasizes increasing communication among team members regarding their respective roles within the team and identifying their individual roles and possible contributions. Team members improve their understanding of their own and others’ respective roles and duties within the team. It includes an understanding of the talent that exists on the team, and how best to use it, and allows members to understand why clear roles are important. The members should also realize that they are interdependent and the failure of one team member leads to the failure of the entire team.

Problem solving is a form of intervention which emphasizes identifying major task-related problems within the team. Team members become involved in action planning, implementing solutions to problems identified, and evaluating those solutions. Problem Solving, as a form of intervention is also critical as it requires the team to self-diagnose and self reliant. If teams are good in problem-solving skills, they are less likely to need external interventions to solve their problems and in the future, much more cost efficient.

Interpersonal relations management refers to the intervention which emphasizes increasing teamwork skills (i.e. communication, open sharing and mutual understanding). This intervention is to help team members develop trust in one another and increase confidence in the team. It requires the use of a facilitator or a third party to develop mutual trust and open communication between team members. As team members achieve higher levels of trust, cooperation and team characteristics can be changed as well.

In other words, a Teambuilding session must be able to address at least 1 of these components, or in part, able to subtly suggest or surface probable underlying conflicts or in the very least, suggest propensity towards resolving situations or conflicts lying within the environment of team building.

Klein, C., Diazgranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C. S., Lyons, R. & Goodwin, G. F. 2009, Does Team Building work?. Small Group Research

Salas, E., Diazgranados, D., Klein, C., Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Goodwin, G. F., & Halpin, S. M. (2009, 12). Does Team Training Improve Team Performance? A Meta-Analysis. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(6), 903-933. doi: 10.1518/001872008X375009

To lead an orchestra, you must turn your back against the audience.

People in your organisation are not sugarcane, they are your trees. You are the gardener, while your job is to facilitate their growth while they are your biggest assets.

Team building differs from team training in a number of ways, it is not necessarily formal or systematic in nature; it does not necessarily target skill-based competencies, and is generally conducted in settings that are not in the actual environment where the team conducts its day-to-day operations.

Team building core principles

Among the 4 components, it would seem that the easiest component one can manage on his/her own to the biggest extent would be arguable interpersonal relationship management. While in a team setting, strong and positive interpersonal relationship management might not surface strong return on investment, it is more than necessary for a team to run in the long run.

In Stephen M.R. Convery’s book “The Speed of Trust”, he theorizes that trust always affect two outcomes, namely speed and cost.  economics of trust in which more trust equals to less speed and less cost.

While team building doesn’t necessarily defines as building up the individual’s competency in his/her skills set to increase the productivity of the team; it does however, requires each individual to contribute their strengths (and plausibly individual’s weakness as well) to complement the rest of the team.

Trust and its importance in the process of Team building

4 components, of which, the most xxxxx is : Interpersonal – relationship management

There are 2 types of trust in a work place: Namely, trust in your competency and trust in your character. Cost of trust is xxxxx, and interpersonal relationship is built on this trust.
Prove that social emotional learning will help interpersonal –relationship management.

These team-development interventions have proven to have positive effects on cognitive and effective processes and performance team outcomes.

While team building doesn’t necessarily defines as building up the individual’s competency in his/her skills set to increase the productivity of the team; it does however, requires each individual to contribute their strengths (and plausibly individual’s weakness as well) to complement the rest of the team. More importantly, it requires each individual to be socially aware of their personal and team mates’ strengths and weakness. According to the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (www.casel.org), Social and Emotional Learning core competencies are made up of five interrelated sets of cognitive and behavioral competencies; namely, self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision making.

Self awareness refers to the ability to recognize and detect one’s emotions and thoughts and their influence on behaviour while accurately assessing his/her strengths and limitations and possessing a well grounded sense of confidence and optimism.

Self-management refers to the ability to regulate one’s emotions, thoughts and behaviours effectively in different situations; including managing one’s stress, impulses and motivation while working towards his/her goal.

Social Awareness refers to the ability to empathise with other’s perspective while understanding the social and ethical norms of behaviours of other cultures.

Relationship skills refer to the ability to establish and maintain healthy and rewarding relationships with diverse individuals including a strong ability to communicate clearly and negotiate constructively and seeking and offering help when needed.

Responsible decision making refers to the ability to make constructive and respectful choices about personal behaviour and social interactions under the consideration of ethical standards, societal norms, well-being of others and consequences.

Increasing the key domains of Social and emotional skills would increase interpersonal-relationship management.

There are five interrelated sets of cognitive, affective and behavioural competencies in SEL and they are clustered as five key domains of social and emotional skills.

Key Domains of Social and Emotional Skills

Description

Self Awareness

Identifying and recognising emotions

Accurate self-perception

Recognising strengths, needs and values

Self-efficacy

Spirituality

Social Awareness

Perspective taking

Empathy

Appreciating diversity

Respect for others

Self Management

Impulse control and stress management

Self-motivation and discipline

Goal setting and organisational skills

Relationship Management

Communication, social engagement and building relationships

Working cooperatively

Negotiation, refusal and conflict management

Seeking and providing help

Responsible Decision Making

Problem identification and situation analysis

Problem solving

Evaluation and reflection

Personal, moral and ethical responsibility

 

Team building was originally a group process intervention aimed at improving interpersonal relations and social interactions. Over time, this activity has developed to address best practices for achieving results, meeting goals and accomplishing tasks. It refers to the activities in which teams can engage to change their context, composition or team competencies to improve performance. It is distinct from team training, which is also a team-development intervention that is designed to improve team functioning and effectiveness.

Team building differs from team training in a number of ways. Team building is not necessarily formal or systematic in nature, does not target skill-based competencies, and is typically done in settings that are not in the actual environment where the team works on the task.

Team building generally sits within the theory and practice of organizational development, but can also be applied to sports teams, school groups, armies, flight crews and other contexts. There have been many issues in past literature about the conceptual definition of team building. However, now there is consensus and conceptual clarity about what team building constitutes. Its four components are:

  • – Goal setting: Aligning around goals
  • – Interpersonal-relationship management: Building effective working relationships
  • – Role clarification: Reducing team members’ role ambiguity
  • – Problem solving: Finding solutions to team problems

 

These team-development interventions have proven to have positive effects on cognitive and effective processes and performance team outcomes. Team building has seen the strongest effect on effective and process outcomes. According to Klein et al. (2009), team building is one of the most widely used group development interventions in organizations today. Of all organizational interventions, team-development interventions were found to have the largest effects on financial measures of organizational performance.Recent meta-analyses show that team development activities, including team building and team training, improve both a team’s objective performance and supervisory subjective ratings on performance.

 

The four approaches

The following are a summary of the four approaches as described by Salas and his team:

– Goal setting: this intervention emphasizes setting objectives and developing individual and team goals. Team members become involved in action planning to identify ways to achieve goals. It is designed to strengthen team member motivation to achieve team goals and objectives. By identifying specific outcome levels, teams can determine what future resources are needed. Individual characteristics (e.g. team member motivation) can also be altered by use of this intervention. Many organizations insist on teams negotiating a team charter between the team and responsible managers (and union leaders) to empower the team to accomplish things on behalf of the organization. Successful goal settings help the teams to work towards the same outcomes and make them more task and action oriented.

– Role clarification: this intervention emphasizes increasing communication among team members regarding their respective roles within the team. Team members improve their understanding of their own and others’ respective roles and duties within the team. This intervention defines the team as comprising a set of overlapping roles. These overlapping roles are characterized as the behaviors that are expected of each individual team member. It can be used to improve team and individual characteristics (i.e. by reducing role ambiguity) and work structure by negotiating, defining, and adjusting team member roles. It includes an understanding of the talent that exists on the team, and how best to use it, and allows members to understand why clear roles are important. The members should also realize that they are interdependent and the failure of one team member leads to the failure of the entire team.

– Problem solving: this intervention emphasizes identifying major task-related problems within the team. Team members become involved in action planning, implementing solutions to problems identified, and evaluating those solutions. They practice setting goals, developing interpersonal relations, clarifying team roles, and working to improve organizational characteristics through problem-solving tasks. This can have the added benefit of enhancing critical-thinking skills. If teams are good in problem-solving skills, they are less likely to need external interventions to solve their problems.

– Interpersonal relations management: this intervention emphasizes increasing teamwork skills (i.e. mutual supportiveness, communication and sharing of feelings). Team members develop trust in one another and confidence in the team. This is based on the assumption that teams with fewer interpersonal conflicts function more effectively than teams with greater numbers of interpersonal conflicts. It requires the use of a facilitator to develop mutual trust and open communication between team members. As team members achieve higher levels of trust, cooperation and team characteristics can be changed as well.

Written by Damien TEONG (Facilitator)

 

FOCUS CONSULTATION

Corporate Team building framework infographic

FOCUS CONSULTATION

WRITTEN BY: DEAN MARTIN

Future
Opportunity
Changes
Unique Selling Points
System Thinking

The Future:

Organizations and Companies always look to plan for the future. It is becoming increasingly common for people to research past trends to determine where the company maybe heading in future. But while analyzing the past is one way through which the future maybe predicted, it is often not accurate and does not portray adequate representation about the kind of challenges a company may face.

The future thus remains unknown and we are vulnerable to a number of invisible forces which could either improve our business tremendously or have detrimental effects leading to total disaster. The question is what are the steps that should be taken to mitigate a possible disaster?

Every organization that aspires to avoid such disaster and move into an era of unparalleled success would need to develop a system by which this could be achieved. Success could mean
different things to different people and organizations. To some, success could mean achieving additional revenue and larger profit margins during that particular financial year, to others, it could also mean providing employment opportunities or developing people or exercising social responsibility. The next question is how do we get there? Do we have what it takes to get there? How can we go about expanding our capabilities such that we can reach those goals?

Scenarios which involve so many questions usually bring about a certain fear among managers and staff. People will automatically go into the problem solving mode and start to set targets so as to achieve their ultimate goals. However, sometimes we tend to put so much emphasis on these targets, goals and outcomes that we fail to concentrate sufficiently on the planning process itself.

Scenario Simulation:

Top and middle management staff could imagine various different scenarios of success or failure in order to be proactive when facing the future. Scenarios of success could determine the kind of profits which the company may see, and the costs it would incur to meet the demand for its goods or services. It could also further explore different areas of business into which it could expand into. Scenarios of failure could also be injected into planning for the future. Scenarios of failure would allow the management to foresee the different issues that may arise and formulate actions that could be taken to prevent the threats even before they become apparent.

Inventing Timelines:

After the use of Scenario Simulations, management teams would need to come up with certain targets or timelines to guide their employees towards the ultimate goal. Timelines also provide motivation for the team to persevere in achieving the smaller milestones along the way. It gives an organization the ability to understand where it is going and approximately how long it will take to get there. A timeline could also be the method of judging progress towards the objective and could provide valuable insight if there is a need to investigate the landmarks along the way. Timelines are crucial to ensure that we remain committed to the mission and do not get distracted by our routine tasks and activities.

Plans:

The planning process is the stage in which we actually decide on how we move forward. However, while we should think ahead and remain committed to our convictions, we must understand that these plans will need to be flexible in order to absorb the impact of something unforeseen coming in to hinder our progress. We need to remain open to the possibility of new technology being released into the market or our competitors making unexpected moves which could tip the scales in their favor. It is not wise to assume that strategies which worked in the past will work in the future and thus, it is important for managers to look beyond what is expected and to think outside their everyday realities.

Trends:

As mentioned earlier in this article, a trend refers to a recurring scenario which seems similar to the situation faced by the organization a few years down the timeline. Managers and staff can then research the scenario from the past, in the form of a case study and extract some of the ideas or concepts which were used in the past. After extracting these ideas and concepts
however, it is important to understand them, analyze why they were successful or unsuccessful and to know whether they are still applicable in the current situation. However,  sometimes past Author: Dean Marcelino Martin trends tend to be inaccurate representations of the present and thus any idea or concept applied from there would need to be adapted considerably.

Sometimes a trend could also refer to a change in the market condition which could have certain effects on the company’s progress. Management needs to be aware of trends which are
developing in the market, trends that are already present in the market as well as trends which will seem to appear suddenly. Take the example of the Apple IPod! When it was being developed, people were aware of it and there was a considerable amount of hype created about it, however, Creative which also manufactures MP3 & MP4 players failed to see them as
competitor n and take steps to preserve their market share which resulted in chaos within the company after the product release by Apple. The shares fell tremendously and thousands of
people were affected. All this could have been avoided if action was taken during the emergence of the trend.

The Opportunity:

The world of the 21st century moves at such an incredible pace that many of us find ourselves struggling to keep up. Opportunities as well as threats are presented to us almost all the time. However, it is very hard to take advantage of all our opportunities and avoid the threats. Therefore, some people choose to compromise and let go of some opportunities in order to fulfill others which may seem more beneficial to themselves. Some people are not aware of the opportunities which are in front of them and some are ignorant of how to make use of the
opportunities they are presented with.

In the interests of making the right choices for ourselves, we tend to focus on the opportunities which we perceive, will be most beneficial to us. The issue here is that everyone in an
organization tends to view the circumstance as it would affect them and not the company as a whole. As such managers in various departments would make decisions which would further their own aspirations while ignoring the requirements and needs of the other departments, thus creating a rift in the process of achieving the ultimate goal. While it finally may work in favor of the company itself, it is obviously a very inefficient method.

Opportunity cost is another factor which we need to pay close attention to. This refers to the amount of time, money and man hours that we choose to dedicate to the opportunity. Another consideration would be the practicality of a particular decision. There may be many other factors which could be considered, but of all these missing a potential opportunity due to ignorance could probably be the worst. How do we overcome the possibility that a potential opportunity may pass us by? How do we determine the costs of a particular opportunity versus another? How do we ensure we are maximizing the resources we have at our disposal to take advantage of as many opportunities as possible?

Scenario Simulation:

Once again, with the use of a little imagination and research on the failures or successes of companies who may have faced similar opportunities or threats in the past, we could recreate the position for ourselves and through this process actually understand the advantages or disadvantages of choosing certain opportunities over others and make our decisions relatively
easier. However, this is a double edged sword as well because sometimes the information maybe conflicting and could leave us second guessing ourselves about the choices we have made. However, scenario simulation is still one of the most effective ways to make informed decisions and actually calculate the risks we would need to face based on our actions. The more important part now is differentiating the threats from the opportunities that we might be presented with, and how do we control our largest limiting belief or factor, perception.

Opportunity Cost:

One of the biggest challenges a manager faces is deciding the value of taking up one project while rejecting another. It requires a great deal of projection and research based on companies
that may have faced similar situations in the past. The reason why it is a difficult task is because data on such matters are not easily available and sometimes might not be available to the public. It is also a challenge to sort through the information which is received to find the useful information and discard that which is not necessary. It is also important to note that managers are held responsible for the decisions that they make and as such must take control and make decisions with as much information as they can possibly obtain. Risk is sometimes good, but it is critical that we do not leave the future to chance and are actually able to accept certain calculated risks which inadvertently come with progress.

Data Mining & Market Research:

As mentioned earlier, it is especially important for managers to work with the right and accurate information which could allow them to make more informed decisions or choices. One way through which we could effectively position ourselves is through the use of professional and experienced marketing research companies, these are people who dedicate their entire careers to assist organizations not only collect but also sort through and understand the data which is received. Through the use of statistics and some estimation, they would be able to give you a clear indication of what market move could present itself as an opportunity and which could pose a threat.

Such companies almost always use surveys, focus groups, seminars as well as consumer behavior related data mining software to gain the information necessary. This could be offensive
to some customers who prefer to maintain their privacy and do not appreciate having their behaviors studied. It must be understood as well that while these indicators would better enable us to take advantage of our opportunities, the operations required to obtain them efficiently could be expensive. In addition, there is no guarantee that the information gathered is a true representation of what might actually take place.

Creating Opportunity:

A very interesting kind of opportunity, that we must not ignore, is that which we create for ourselves. Using the simplest of all marketing and consulting frameworks, the SWOT analysis, we could be more aware of what threats we face, and how we could leverage on our strengths to create opportunity for ourselves. This could be done by various different means such as sending people for courses to further their knowledge of the industry, it could be done through making our own operations more efficient through activities which allow our employees to work closer together, it could be done by moving up or down the supply chain or it could be done by simply making changes to the way we perceive our current situation.

The Changes:

We all know that change is constant. The environment, the market, the people or the circumstances which we find ourselves in differ on an almost every day basis. It is important that
we adapt and change as well to remain competent and improve our operations such that we do not become invalid within our offices or our industry.

However, people largely tend to avoid and fear change. It is apparent that even a small change in the policies set out by the management could take weeks, months or even years to apply across a company. It is important for management to change not only its own way of thinking, but also the way the company’s employees think in order to adapt to the world around us, quickly and effectively.

A few things to consider in this section are; what are the changes that we face in terms of the macro-economic climate? What are the changes that we notice in our own industry? Are these changes going to affect us significantly? Are we correctly positioned to take advantage of these changes? If not, are we capable of adapting to the changes? How well equipped are we to change our operations? How long would we need? What are the resources we would require?

Scenario Simulation:

It has already been mentioned how scenario simulation can help us understand our position, our necessity to adapt to change and the speed at which we can observe and apply the changes in our everyday operations.

Belief Systems:

The biggest limitation for an organization to adapt to change is not the lack of resources or the time frame for the effects to take place. The biggest limitation is actually transforming our
mindsets and that of our employees to accommodate the need for change.

As mentioned above, people are the greatest limiting factor to change, because we tend to get too absorbed in our ways that we fail to stop and look at the possibility of doing it better. We are often unable to move out of our comfort zones and challenge the processe s to explore the possibility of improvement. The fear of the unknown and the uncertainty that is a result of change is what holds us back from taking advantage of the opportunities that present themselves.

It is thus of vital importance to change the way we perceive our surroundings and allow ourselves to think outside our limiting beliefs to truly move into the next phase of development. The ability of the management and employees to remain flexible and welcome the everyday changes and to adapt to make them advantageous for the company is something we must emphasize and note.

The Unique Proposition:

A unique proposition is an opportunity which can be exploited at a greater level to actually generate tangible results in terms of business growth and possibly even profit margins. It is
Author: Dean Marcelino Martin something which allows a company to stand out and shine among the rest of its competitors in order to receive more business and greater market share and is usually a product or service which leaves a lasting impression on the consumers involved.

It is important for every company to identify the opportunities they have or have created which could be converted into unique propositions. So the question then is, how do we exploit our strengths to make us different and better than the rest of our competitors? There are many ways of doing this, you could focus on making your employees more creative and innovative and thus have new and more exciting products or services to allow your company to stand out. It is possible to change the willingness of the people to accept alterations and train them to adopt a lifestyle where everyone is experienced and able to quickly adapt if things do not go according to plan, this too can be a unique proposition when promoting one’s self to potential clients. More technologically enhanced equipment or investment in such equipment could also be a unique selling point. Sometimes, location or even experienced people could be unique.

The Systems:

As organizations grow and start to bring in more people and set up various different divisions and departments, they start to evolve and become more and more complex. A system is a
management tool which could help manage the complexity to a certain extent and create a process which can be understood and followed by everyone.

It is important to note however that systems are made by people, and the people who are involved in creating the systems must have an intimate understanding of every process that
occurs within the company on a day to day basis. They must also be able to maintain a unbiased point of view to create a system which would work for everyone and not something which will be appreciated by some and rejected by others. The system must also be created with the flexibility to evolve as the needs or functions of the organization change.

These are the different services provided by FOCUS Consultancy which will allow the company a more holistic and comprehensive solution for the future. In addition to this the company also provides a wide range of teambuilding and other services which could encourage the organization and its people to identify the difficulties in its current operations and through this experiential learning use the points brought up to develop itself even further. It would also be beneficial for the consultant, or facilitator, to join the company and work with them for a month or so to have firsthand experience of the office environment, the hierarchy and develop a clearer understanding about the systems and processe s which are already in place.

FANNING THE FLAMES

Corporate Team building framework infographic

FANNING THE FLAMES

WRITTEN BY: ADAM CHAN

                                                                                                                            Fanning the Flames

                                                                                                              Small acts that create enduring effects

The Myth of Productivity

What we know of productivity is its direct relation to company performance. A highly productive workforce would almost guarantee good company performance although it may not be necessary true for all situations. However, the positive correlation between productivity and company performance has led us to believe and act on it. After all, which Boss doesn’t yearn for a highly productive workforce? The reality is all but ideal.

To attain high productivity is not about chances and luck. The desire must be strong enough to drive the needed actions to get there. It is easy to guess that the path towards high productivity will not be plain sailing. Inherently, there will be obstacles.

The next logical thing to do is to remove the obstacles. At least most people would agree to that, right? However, I would like to get you to think about the term used herein; obstacles. How do you recognize the obstacles? How do you know that these are the obstacles?

Peter Senge’s suggested in his book, the Fifth Discipline, there are eleven natural laws in this world he called system. The eightieth law states, “Small changes can produce big results, but the areas of highest leverages are often the least obvious.” Recognizing these small areas as leverages to create big results doesn’t come natural to us. What are leverages exactly? Leverage is a noun by English language. It can be tangible or intangible. It can be as tactual as the fulcrum of a see-saw you see in any playground. Or it can be as abstract as applying the right strategy in conducting marketing initiatives. In a nutshell, leverages are ideas, insights, decisions, comprehension, revelations, etc. we obtained through experiencing a given situation that require some actions to address it. These leverages are areas where the biggest impact can made when addressed.

What has obstacle got to do with leverage? In the pursuit for high productivity, it is usual for any company to have a plan or strategy to do so. The strategy would be translated into daily activities carried out by various functions in the company. Making conscious effort to align these activities to the strategy set forth is critical in ensuring success in executing the strategy. Suffice to say that the pursuit would not be without obstacles. Naturally people would remove the obstacle. Invariably, that is provided they can recognize the obstacles to start with. Wanting to remove the obstacles is undoubtedly a good intend but can we effectively identify which obstacles to get rid of? The search for the right one to remove is the search for leverage.

If a certain workgroup identifies the presence of some rifts in their working relationships, which one should be dealt with first? Interpersonal issues are filled with subtleties. These issues are usually implied and subterranean by nature. This makes recognizing them difficult. Much energy is required to detect them.

We are pretty confident to say that fractured working relationships make the workers unhappy. Disgruntled workers are no productive workers. Naturally the company performance will slide southwards. Can sound business strategy alone turn the south-bounding productivity around when the workforce is disgruntled?

If we can agree that sound business strategy is not effective against rifts in working relationships, we would have to identify the critical obstacle to focus on. However, it is not easy to determine the critical obstacle. This is similar to the concept of leverage. Hard to determine but it is the most effective mean to adopt. I hope at this point, the myth of productivity is adequately addressed.

In the following sections, I would like to discuss on those subtleties, often embedded within interpersonal relationships and in what way we might trigger a chain reaction without the consciousness of the subtle act. I will term such subtle acts fanning the flames.

Potential Flames

As emphasized in the opening section, interpersonal issues are filled with subtleties. I will attempt to illuminate some areas of potential where such interpersonal issues often lurk in subtle layers that are beyond our consciousness. If you find these anecdotal illustrations uncannily familiar, likely you are involved or you have observations that offer support to its existence.

Overstepping Territory

In any common dictionary, territory is defined as a region marked off for administrative or other purposes. As we rose through the corporate hierarchy, we gain in both knowledge and competence. Along with it comes the authority to make decisions and influences. Invariably, authority offers us options. So what do we do with the options at hand?

Being overwhelmed by the options generated with greater authority can lead us to take options that we perceived as essential. However that is far from the reality. In the aspect of interpersonal relationships, there can be situations where authority is exerted merely because of preferences. Such acts can undermine the receiving end’s effectiveness tremendously. Apparently the exerted authority seems legitimate but over time, the involved team members would detect discrepancies in the act as compared to the team’s implied operating principles or their values. The existence of such act of overstepping territory can be further supported by the diminished returns of business results.

Delegating Responsibilities

In all business related matters, delegating responsibilities is done to achieve optimization in handling business operations and initiatives. When one delegates, it implies the intent to develop the delegate as well. The receiving end of the responsibilities should have the readiness to handle the challenges with adequate parameters being communicated. Empowerment is thus achieved.

Imagine if you’re given a task to take over as chairperson of the regional meeting when the only experience you ever had was to sit in a section meeting. Should this act of delegation be viewed as an opportunity for your personal development?

In the quarterly regional meeting of a local SME, the Human Resources (HR) department was tasked to organize the entire event. Needless to say that the human resources will have a segment in the meeting to provide updates to the regional business heads. At the eleventh hour, the Group Human Resources Manager called the HR department and informed the rest of the team that he was unable to turn up for the meeting. The buck was passed to an Asst. HR manager who only covers local operations. No opportunity was offered to this Asst. HR manager to study the presentation slides and the chairperson of the regional meeting wasn’t informed of his absence. Was that delegation?

An account manager is due to make a presentation to the clients but was not present at the venue of the presentation. Inevitably another account manager has to step in to fulfill the responsibilities with very little knowledge of the account. The outcome should be predictable, isn’t it?

Making promises and commitments to the clients and only to pass the buck to other colleagues who have little or no knowledge of the entire initiative and expect exceptional results is not only demeaning, such act also contains all required ingredients to derail the interpersonal relationships between team members.

Fabricated Truths

How many times have you heard of the truth? I am not sure about you but these days, truth is a rare commodity or it may be extinct in the corporate setting. In the courtroom you can hear many versions of fabricated truth, don’t you? What about in the daily interactions among team members? You can assure of its existence and its enduring effects too.

By now, you should know that the term fabricated truth is an oxymoron. It has its roots stemmed from the sense of insecurity. To feel insecure, one must perceive that loosing one’s standing or assets is inescapable. This will set off the defensive mechanism in us. One of the ways to guard our perceived threatened well-being is to fabricate truths to misdirect the attention to others.

Our minds are responsible in informing us of what we perceived from the world. Even the perceptions may not be necessary what is reflected in the world; invariably we would be told by our minds that the perceptions are the reality. Unless we challenge the authenticity of our perceptions, we will find no anomaly in our perceptions.

For people who are influenced by sense of insecurity would naturally set up a defense mechanism to allay their fears. Chances are these people would not be conscious of the fabricated truths they have used for defense. This unconsciousness results in those small acts of flame fanning. It can take place anywhere, anytime via any communication means. Unless the perceived reality is debunked, such acts will persist and propagate. To others within the circle, they might be influenced by this small pervasive act. You can imagine the capability in spreading. Is it not a chain reaction? By informing the insecure individuals the potential rifts that are brought about by such fabricated truths may help to keep it at bay.

Putting Out The Flames?

If you witness a flame burning within your workplace, the immediate action is to put out the flame, right? The aftermath created by flames is wide-spread damages. By putting it out doesn’t prevent damages. It only reduces the amount. Putting out flames is a reactive approach. Unless we tolerate damages, we should avoid taking the reactive approach.

No wind no fire. If we raise our awareness in detecting these subtle interpersonal issues, there might be no flames to put out at all. To prevent is always better than cure. Beyond prevention, teams should strive enhance the interpersonal relationships. A healthy heart never fails.

As a personal effort to enhance interpersonal relationships, we should never fan the flames by committing those tiny acts mentioned in the previous section. No doubt they are subtle in nature, we should not allow them to creep in and exercise their effects on the workforce to undermine the overall productivity. Nobody wants to be in a non-performing team. However, not everyone is conscious about the acts which are contributing to the non-performing status of the team. Hence, we can be puzzled by the anomaly of achieving diminished business results even the business strategy was sound.

Don’t fan the flame ….