RIP Bell Curve, really?

Is there a substantial promise, or it's just companies playing the 'wordsmith'?

(Please note: Views expressed are purely personal, conceptual and not aimed at any particular organization)

Corporate circles have been abuzz about a few big organizations (news of Accenture) discarding the bell-curve (or similar) mechanism for conducting their annual performance reviews. As I read the news, tweets, blogposts from folks talking about this - I haven't come across anything different than 'this spells good news'.

For some reason though I personally feel think it sounds good and feels good, I was not able to unearth a more than 'skin-deep' feeling. The real substance was totally missing!

Always curious of how the users would respond to this, I did a quick check with few friends / colleagues. Here's how they reacted/ opined:

1. Great move! With this, I guess there will be change in hike and benefits based on performance.
2. Managers always say they can give top rating to one/ two persons only, and that is why every body is so disappointed about their ratings.  
3. This seems give managers more power. Now managers will have chance to give what they want without justifying or sharing information of other? Will the project dashboards showing individual productivity go too?
4. Looking forward to new process, only time will tell.
5. It doesn't matter as long as the manager is the same person :(

While those are some views... What's mysterious, and sounds tricky with this whole 'great metamorphosis' companies are embarking on is - that they have either skipped or haven't substantiated well enough their answers to the fundamental question: Why this change? What has the bell curve not delivered that it needs to be shelved? How better or worse is this new process (if some organization has formalized one yet) over the previous one? What are those values or principles that have changed or renewed which called for this change? Or, is it just a fad for them - like bell curve was, till now? The absence or unsubstantiated answers to these questions leaves one unconvinced as to 'why' a company is doing this!

Will continue this conversation... Stay tuned... 

Clarified but not Convinced

A lot of formal communication in any organization is by the management - flows top to bottom. Focused mainly on getting the management message across - primarily about objectives, results, strategies, scorecards, policies, procedures, news & updates, other etc., So the idea behind all is - 'Get the message across!'

Of course, one can't imagine discounting the little-bit of the feedback taken and surveys conducted to understand the employees' ranting and raving as well. What of the communication after surveys? Err.. wrong question! Be focused - the point I'm driving home is - the objective of communication is - 'Get the message across!', is it clear?

I've been having this 'clarified but not convinced' feeling reinforced specifically since the time India Inc., had started taking recession cover for various cost-effective measures. There's been a great deal of communication on these strict measures. But, as I observe hundreds of people around me, myself, working family members who keep watching how India Inc., is succeeding in bringing the expenses curve down, for them, the other economic costs have been going up. Even for these measure the great deal of communication that's been happening within the organization from top to bottom has been to elaborate the management's stand and to clarify... Unfortunately, management communication hasn't been able to convince anyone.

Guess the cost of convincing employees is too high! Any doubts? Is it clear? Yes, it's clarified, but, I am still not convinced..

Management indecisiveness costing employees!

As I read this week's Corporate Dossier (CD) (March 8, 09) of The Economic Times, it instantly connected with the thoughts going on in my head.. Here's few quotes from CDs main article 'Take the Lead'

As bad news flows in unabated and more and more management blunders come to light, it becomes amply clear that the leadership in many companies have been caught off guard. They are unprepared to deal with a crisis of this magnitude.

This simply states that companies have been growing and only focusing on adding to their revenues. Well, they've been putting in enough investment towards identifying and mitigating risks, but perhaps the focus of the management or the risk teams was not complete enough. This is true especially of the large-sized organizations, which have got impacted most, and running around to catch-up.. in a, what's the word - 'Knee-jerk reaction'.

Their cluelessness is confusing their workforce even more. The scrapped projects, brutal layoffs, drastic pay-cuts, sudden top management reshuffles and unrealistic cost cuts all seem like knee-jerk reactions, not the proactive leadership that is the need of the hour.

Literally, if one has to look at the various management decisions that come through impacting every nook and corner of the organization, one would stand in awe witnessing the incompetence of their management to gauge and forecast with little accuracy about what may happen, what steps are to be taken. The incompetence displayed in forecasting is simply frustrating to employees. Though CEOs and Management pundits have been harping that 'the crisis is unprecedented' and 'times are uncertain', given the rapidity of the financial crisis that has struck corporate India, managements not being able to even see through a month or two if not a quarter, is perhaps sheer incompetence. I never though some journalist could be so blunt in mainstream media in their critique about the 'management boards' of Business India, but I was happy it came out. I only few days back wrote about this pattern of new decision a day and how it's impacting employees psyche at work everyday they step into their offices to work.

All the jing-bang around proactive leadership by top management is demonstrated at such times. Which is absolutely 'non-existent' in many organizations. Ha! What's expected from the lesser managers!?!

As Warren Buffet famously said, “It’s only when the tide ebbs, you find who is swimming naked”. Sadly, in this moment of crisis, many leaders have been found without the proverbial fig leaf to hide their shortcomings.

Just a few days ago, that I quoted this to someone. Well, as aptly as it's put here, the world is watching which are all the companies that were swimming naked. This crisis, if not anything, will make the genuinely strong corporations stronger, and the naked ones to disappear.

In all this game of talent, moolah and market share, unfortunately the management indecisiveness is costing employees dearly. As the saying goes, what you sow today, you will reap tomorrow. All such indecisive managements of business organizations better beware!

Sanitizing your recruitment process behaviorally!

Recruitment and Salesmen, I don’t find much difference between them considering the tactics they apply to get their targets achieved.

For an individual, a new hire to an organization, there’s a great deal of value he attaches to his recruiter. To him, the recruiter is the first-touch-point of the organization; and given that the initial interaction was to build a long-term relationship with the organization, and the nature of interaction is such, that all expectations are constructed right there.

In a rush to complete his targets for hiring, the recruiter make promises of which significant details communicated are half-truths. The one getting hired is at fault too, that in the excitement of an offer, they forget many a question to ask and get complete details, say about organization policies, pay structure, benefits, eligibility for benefits etc., and given the chance, recruiter is not also bothered to give complete information to the employee with the fear of losing a potential hire.

If the recruiter fails to explain the complexities or the dynamics of the industry / organization culture, it’s a sure shot forecast that the new hire will result in infant attrite. Take BPO industry for example, while this industry does attract a lot of employment with all the hype around the pay, facilities, benefits etc., But when it comes to operations and business dynamics, people stand confused and utterly disappointed and start making judgements about the company and the management. And from there the internal fight starts - within HR between recruitment and Generalist HR executives, and then it's Operations versus HR, and then who's to own up to the attrition?

It's not only frustrating, but a lot of cost involved in there - in recruitment, hiring, inducting, training, readying for operations.. phew.. all of it to lose because the recruiter was not involved / trained behaviorally to set expectations right and focus on a short-term target achievement but in brand-building through their interaction and targeting at a long-term association.

The best way to deal with this is to link up new hires attrition to individual recruiters' at least for a period of 6 months to a year on parameters decided by the management to make recruiters more responsible, and sanitize the recruitment process behaviorally. How else would the HR man impact employees positively and engage employees actively if not starting with recruitment?

Theory X, Y & Z

Theory X & Y by Douglas Mc Gregory

Theory X & Y lay out two different attitudes different individuals might have, which can be understood proactively by managers in dealing with them and adopting managerial styles that are appropriate to get the best and desired outcome. The assumptions of X and Y types are given below.

Theory X Assumptions

• The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if he can.
• Because of their dislike for work, most people must be controlled and threatened before they will work hard enough.
• The average human prefers to be directed, dislikes responsibility, is unambiguous, and desires security above everything.

These assumptions lie behind most organizational principles today, and give rise both to "tough" management with punishments and tight controls, and "soft" management which aims at harmony at work.Both these are "wrong" because man needs more than financial rewards at work, he also needs some deeper higher order motivation - the opportunity to fulfill himself. Theory X managers do not give their staff this opportunity so that the employees behave in the expected fashion.

Theory Y Assumptions

• The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest.
• Control and punishment are not the only ways to make people work, man will direct himself if he is committed to the aims of the organization.
• If a job is satisfying, then the result will be commitment to the organization.
• The average man learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility.
• Imagination, creativity, and ingenuity can be used to solve work problems by a large number of employees.
• Under the conditions of modern industrial life, the intellectual potentialities of the average man are only partially utilized.

Theory Z by William Ouchi
This is a common misconception held by many that Theory Z is another motivational theory. But, Theory Z is propounded by Ouchi based on the Japanese management styles and gives a new dimension of decision making which is consensus oriented in a team environment. This theory assumes the interest and loyalty of the team workers towards the objectives to be achieved by the team.

Is money a good motivator?

The old school of thought "Money is a good motivator' has been overthrown by contemporary research that proves that money is no longer an effective motivator, and beyond a given circumstance, it ceases to be one. This reasoning is very subjective given the various levels of need an individual currently is in. For example, an individual at the first level of needs (Maslow's hierarchy) would crave for money, and it would act as a very strong and effective motivator. The point here being emphasized that "A satisfied need is an ineffective motivator. Not only that a satisfied need doesn't motivate anymore, but also that it is subjective to an individual's mental and psychological framework that determines his perceived value towards different motivators.

The traditional school of thought established where rewards are associated with monetary forms and nothing else. This, over the time has caused in the abatement of perceived value of money, causing individuals to desire less of it. Another reason why money is not a good motivator is because in pursuit of such rewards, the behavior of individuals gets out of norms and wrong behavior gets rewarded which later proves cost to the company. Also, each one recognizes that 'all the highest paid ones are not the best performers'. Moreover, monetary rewards are also a great expense to the organization and increasing costs is anyways, a reversal to existing trends and hence cannot be tolerated.

In the light of Maslow's theory which defines the hierarchy of needs; it needs to be understood that levels of needs are clearly identified. Also, the essence of the theory is that a satisfied need cannot be a good motivator. If an individual looks forward to upper mobility in the social status and has climbed up one step, the desire to be there at that point diminishes and his expectations rise to another elevated level. Similarly, once an individual's need to earn enough or satisfactorily is achieved, money no longer motivates. However, human beings have more to care for besides earnings like being a part of a relation, institution; to be recognized, to achieve something.

In the light of Hertzberg's two factor theory which demarcates between hygiene factors motivators, it needs to be understood again that there are some factors which are imperative for functioning. And others, which are not but desired, can be good motivators. For example, if an individual is employed anywhere, the basic requirement would be a basic pay, without which a person wouldn't want to work at all. Here, the basic pay becomes a hygiene factor, which is an imperative. If the employer decided to provide something more than basic pay like dating allowance, earned leaves which are not something that is minimum, but might act as a motivator to the employee in performing better, these factors become the motivators. The assumption is that the perceived value of these elements in the mind of employee is high and his desire
to achieve them also high.

Hence, it can be concluded that Money, as a motivator, both when regarded as a level of need or a hygiene factor ceases to motivate someone beyond a given point, and the sense of achievement in the individual diversifies towards attainment of other factors than money.

(This was from my days of IIPM while pursuing MBA, 2001)