Tag Archives: TED

“Be careful how you measure success!” – Harvard’s Clay Christensen

Christensen makes some very clever statements about how one should look at the way we as people and as professionals or companies measure success.

Depending on how you will measure, you will naturally, either willingly or unwillingly, adapt your strategy. I find the examples he makes about business and life to be very impressive.

Business

As the expert on disruptive change, his example for business strategy includes two companies. The first being very successful and established while the second has an inferior product and is new to the market. The latter keeps struggling and eventually overtakes the established player in the market. The formerly successful company did not willingly decide to “die” but rather followed the metrics set up by their management which would put short-term success over long-term gains. This is pretty much in line with preaching of Finance professors in business schools all over the world, so why would you blame them? Although Christensen does not go into such line of questioning, I would like to add that short sightedness is an effect of laziness. If you are in a comfortable position with your company, do not get cozy! Keep looking out for new innovations and the next competitor. Because although you might have lost your appetite, the new guys on the block are starving and looking to gain market share.

Life

It is difficult to build the same conclusions for the aspect of measuring success in life as for the business example above. Christensen describes the experiences he had when his MBA class would meet every five years for their reunion. Initially his peers returned very happy, full of excitement and joy, as their careers were progressing, wealth was built and many were married. By that measure of career, status and money everybody was very successful and therefore happy at the time. Only later, for their 10 or 15 year reunions the picture changed. People were still successful and rich but miserable and lonely. Many were divorced and were not raising their own children. Christensen hits the nail on the head when he said that business and career provide you the most immediate and tangible achievement, while raising kids is something you will only be able to enjoy after a long time, when you look back on what you achieved and what an amazing individual you raised.

Leave a comment

October 4, 2015 · 2:15 pm

Parallels between engaging Students and engaging Employees (Guest Post by Michael Smith)

One of the great things about my job is that I get to read things I enjoy and then teach them. It is hard to think of anything I’m more proud of than the business communications class I’ve developed for Tsinghua University in Beijing. In this course I teach several applications of psychology to business.

The beautiful thing about teaching, in the traditional sense, is that you end up learning the material better than if you were the student. Why is that? It is because when you explain ideas to other people, you are forced to reflect on the material and put it into your own words. This reflection is where learning occurs. That makes me think that perhaps there’s something broken about the traditional approach of getting up there and lecturing. If I’m doing all the talking, and you’re just listening, I’m the one that’s truly doing the learning. Great for me, but not so great for you as the student.

So how do you engage students? Well, I’m sure you’re reading this because you’re a business guy. Your first inclination might be that you want to skip this paragraph. But what if I were to tell you that there are countless parallels between engaging students and engaging employees. By not being interested in this question, you’ll never draw these connections. Of course, you couldn’t just answer this question with one sentence, or one paragraph, or one blog entry. As a teacher I know my words won’t resonate with you as well as your own words will resonate with you. So think about this question. You’re planning a class, and you want your students to learn — actually learn — and not just go home and forget everything. What do you?

If you’re really clever you might take that first piece of information I gave you about learning. The power of reflection. Of course I want my students to reflect on what I’m teaching them. But they need context. Truly creative thinking comes from drawing parallels with your life and what you’re learning. A great way to do that is through projects. You say, let’s open a coffee shop in Wudaokou. It’s a tough market, because you have Starbucks, Twosome Coffee, Lush, Bridge Cafe, SPR, Paris Baguette, and you have just a handful of differences between them.

Up until then my students are mainly focused on communication with customers. Some of this communication can be very subtle and delicate. Take pricing for example. My students have thought of many creative ways to improve overall margins through the presentation of a menu. And then you ask them a couple of questions they don’t yet have the tools to answer. You ask “How are you going to keep employee turnover low?” and “What will your pay structure be?”

I’ll be the first to admit I had no idea what the wait staff at these establishment were making. Did you know that the typical apartment in Wudaokou goes for 3 to 4000 RMB per month? And if you work full-time at one of these places you make 3000 RMB per month? You’re probably thinking, wow, we really need to pay these employees a lot more for them to be comfortable. And that would be too presumptuous.

You really want an employee that you have a chance to engage, for which your pay level won’t be an issue. You need to go into the job interview with a line of questioning that answers the question: “How much money do I need to give to this employee, so that in giving them this money, they’re not worried about making ends meet?”

So let’s agree it’s a good idea to keep turnover low. If you’re not on board with that assumption, I give you points for thinking critically, but I’m not going to entertain that notion in this posting.

I’ll tell you what you don’t do. You don’t punish your employees for mistakes. What you do is give your employees the respect they deserve. You teach them all the skills of the business. You include your employees in your thinking for the business, from the way you treat customers, to your branding and marketing. You teach your employees how to work the cash register, to make the coffee, to clean the bathroom, to restock the cafe, to do payroll. And you surprise your employees from time to time with generosity, to show to them what they mean to your company. Your business grows as your employees engagement grows. The roles we assign to a position are arbitrary. Make it a multifaceted position, and your employees will grow as people.

By giving up some control, your employees experience autonomy. It allows them to work on their terms. By sharing your vision with your employees, they have a sense of purpose. It provides context for their efforts. And by giving more tasks, and more challenges to your employees, they master many different skills in addition to the typical skills associated with their job, including time management and collaboration.

What I’m describing with autonomy, mastery and purpose are the 3 components to intrinsic motivation, as laid out by Dan Pink. It’s very possible you’ve seen his fantastic Ted talk, but then again, it’s possible you did watch it and just simply forgot about it. If you want your company to improve from the inside out, you should start by asking yourself these questions. In your current role, do you have these 3 elements in alignment? Does your role prevent other people in your company from experiencing true intrinsic motivation?

— Guest Post by Michael Smith

Michael teaches business and psychology courses for the department of foreign languages at Tsinghua University. His entries focus on the growing body of research in behavioral economics.

Leave a comment

Filed under Guest Post, Organization, Psychology

BCG’s Yves Morieux on complexity and collaboration

This BCG partner has a great angle on competitiveness of large organizations. He claims that businesses do not really fight their competitors but rather their own complexity.

If I had to summarize the talk in one sentence it would be something like this: Because businesses wish to be productive and engage their employees, they use hard and soft approaches, which finally backfire and create complexity, thereby reducing productivity and engagement – Sounds reasonable. Out of the recommendations I find that the most important, but also most abstract, is the last one. “Reward those who cooperate and blame those who don’t cooperate”. This culture will determine whether people care, work together and perform . But how do we get there? Giving people power and therefore the freedom to make decisions (called autonomy in a different TED talk) seems to be a great starting point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMzx2acLPIo

In his talk, Morieux states two modern enigmas he encountered: Productivity is disappointing in all the companies he worked for (despite all the technological advances) and there is little engagement of employees at work.

Ad-hoc solutions to these issues are always tackled with one of more of what Morieux calls ‘pillars’. You can use the hard way, creating/changing structure, processes, systems, or the soft way, by engaging feelings, sentiments, interpersonal relationships, traits, personality. In the end, both these two pillars, according to Morieux, are obsolete.

He claims that if an organization tries to cater to a new requirement, it will most likely add a layer of responsibilities and rules. This will add complexity, cost – without any real impact. A way out would be collaboration, but this barely happens. This is often compensated for by the individual effort of the employees, and results in disengagement of the employees.

The hard approach is unable to foster cooperation. It can only add new boxes, new bones in the skeleton.  – Yves Morieux

The way out is what Morieux calls the smart simplicity approach based on simple rules. These rules are:

  • Understand what others do. What is their real work? Go beyond the boxes, the job descriptions, beyond the surface of the container, to understand the real content.
  • Reinforce integrators. Integrators are managers, existing managers that you reinforce so that they have power and interest to make others cooperate. Remove layers!
  • Give people power! You must give more power to people so that they have the critical mass to take the risk to cooperate, to move out of insulation. Otherwise, they will withdraw.
  • Create feedback loops that expose people to the consequences of their actions.
  • Increase reciprocity, by removing the buffers that make us self-sufficient. When you remove these buffers, people will cooperate.
  • Reward those who cooperate and blame those who don’t cooperate. Blame is not for failure, it is for failing to help or ask for help.

Leave a comment

February 5, 2014 · 3:32 pm