GERMINATING A CORPORATE WORK CULTURE

ST Jimmy | Tuesday, June 05, 2018 | | 0 comments



Let me begin by posing this reflective question to corporate leaders. Which stakeholders in your company germinated the prevailing work culture in the first place? Your answer: The employees at large because they represent the majority in the company? Do I hear an unequivocal yes from you? Well, I beg to differ........that work culture is not created by the ordinary workforce. The ensuing elaborations will explain the contentions of my views.

I believe you have had seen the popular comical photograph of three monkey - the first from the left side with hands closing both eyes, the second one covering both ears, the third pressing tightly its mouth. The caption expresses SEE NO EVIL, HEAR NO EVIL, SPEAK NO EVIL. Obviously, the cheeky apes are connoted as imitating the gestures of their trainer (not shown in the photo). What they observe, they follow.


Related to this parody, a venerable mentoring guru left a lasting impression in me. During a pep talk organised by me for senior officers of a corporation some years ago, he propounded that humans - just like monkeys, also of the sapiens kind - are prone to copy work habits of their leaders according to what they observe. He cautioned his audience to be mindful of their disposition (actions, behaviour, countenance, interaction style, attitude etc) as "monkey see, monkey do."

For example, if a high rank officer is frequently not punctual for meetings, be assured his subordinates will follow suit because being late becomes a norm. And if a leader exhibits the "business as usual" (BAU) work attitude, surely his subordinates will nonchalantly do the routine, with what they have, from where they are, instead of energetically pushing further ahead proactively. What they observe, they follow.

I know of a long established international financial service player which underwent a culture shift emanating from acquisition of another large player and change of management team. Previously, there was a spirit of fraternity whereby top executives, including the chief executive officer (CEO), and management personnel had close interconnections with the sales force. Sales force members could approach officers to discuss issues. However, the new management practised rigid bureaucracy by applying top-down directives without any prior deliberation. Sales force members no longer could have easy access to backroom officers for discussion on service issues because of the new closed door administrative policy. The assertive management expected the counterpart party to adopt its directive, i.e. they should solely focus on selling, and if they failed to meet their minimum production requirements, they would be terminated without hesitation.

The same atmosphere subsequently infiltrated all segments. Department heads and sub-heads became bureaucratic in dealing with both staff and sales force members. Decisions were executed by the book unilaterally - no leeway for flexibility. The silo culture crept in. The previous friendly fraternity and mutual help across departments morphed to the individualistic state. Extension of assistance to another department or segment ceased although inter-related by functions. I was dumbfounded when an officer once painted to me the silo scenario there with this prose: "You are you, and I am I. You do your thing, and I do my thing. I am not in this world to meet your expectations, neither are you in this world to meet my expectations. And if at all by chance we agree with each other on an issue, that will be a miracle."

Up till the time I wrote this article, the restructured corporation still failed to achieve its desired top rank status (by new business revenue) in the industry despite having been merged from two prominent players into one entity at high acquisition costs some years ago. The unfriendly bureaucracy, lacking synergy among internal stakeholders, posed as the main contributory factor causing this snag. It was the top executive level, not the employees, that spawned the mindset and behaviour change depicting the revised work culture. The employees observed, then emulated what the top leaders did........the case of monkey see, monkey do.

I remind top corporate leaders to review their disposition, demeanour and actions portrayed to their employees. The latter will copy the same characteristics for carrying out their course of work. If you, their leader, is passive, be rest assured your immediate downline officers will also be passive. If you talk with a condescending tone, be rest assured your direct subordinates will cascade the same manner in communicating "at" (not with) their subordinates. Whether the environment in your office is positive or negative depends on your image conveyed to your people.

I knew a few key personnel and department heads who gave directives and critiques to subordinates but not playing any hands-on part to drive initiatives jointly with their respective team. When results turned out well, they claimed personal credit for effective leadership; when flops occurred, they pointed at their subordinates. No wonder the blame game and indignant feelings enveloped the work environment. I also knew high turnover of staff spun off because of general poor morale. I am sure you agree with me this is pathetic. I will comment more about pseudo leaders fond of passing the blame to others at the later portion of this write-up.

Allow me to share my own testimony. In my "developing" years attached to a renowned financial service institution, I had to be nimble with up-to-date facts and figures constantly regarding my jurisdiction. Two CEOs, in their successive tenure over two decades from 1980 till 1997, expected all managers to keep track on relevant developments, including daily business scores. Because they were facts and figures orientated, the sales director who supervised me acted likewise. Frequently at random, I would be asked to report the latest new business scores and short verbal narratives on updated sales activities. The managerial intricacies cast from the top groomed many branch managers to be meticulously proactive to acquire important details at their finger tips. We also inherited the trend encouraging hands-on involvement with subordinates and peers in order to keep abreast with updated developments.

Culture setting does not rest on the CEO of a corporation alone. CEOs come and go. If the duty lies solely on the CEO, then each chief may try to establish their own preference, which then means continuity will not be in place. To ensure continuity, particularly relating to corporate governance, the right culture should be determined by the board of directors too for long term prevalence. Their apt role is not just to attend monthly meetings and give comments, but also understand the dynamics of the organisation under their purview. This calls for some form of direct involvement to spearhead directions.

Seemingly positive cultures disseminated from the top may slide to adversity if not well balanced and instituted prudently. For example, many top managements are fond of exerting high pressure to drive results. By being too forceful, they create fear. Would that be positive or negative? By micro view, it is positive if the fear pressure could spark immediate coveted results. But by macro view over the longer run, that could spin various negative side effects. Employees may ultimately face anxiety, or turn a deaf ear to the taunts, or become rebellious, or be antagonistic; or the worst scenario, ushering good employees to leave and join competing companies. No doubt the stoic ones may perform well under pressure, however these personalities are few.

Here is a classic example whereby unreasonable fear pressure finally sounded the death knell for a leading communication cum mobile phone giant early second decade of the 21st century. Afraid of losing leading market position, its top management hit hot nails into the middle management. The aggressive behaviour of the No. 1 executive, who often raised his voice angrily, subdued subordinates from voicing out the truths on impractical projects while compelling them to work their hearts out. They felt pointless to offer comments since their supremo refused to hear negative feedback albeit plausible. Contrary to the false notion that all were progressing in good order, product development in fact degraded. Eventually, the erstwhile giant phased out of the market without the competitive edge it once possessed - the negative impact of fear work culture.

In my view, some form of pressure may be required to goad employees nimble on their toes. Why? A laid back mentality gradually engulfs an organisation when a relaxed work atmosphere prevails over time due to overly amiable top management style. The BAU or "let it be" attitude becomes the phenomenon if pressure from the top is visibly absent. Undeniably, excessive fear and work pressure driven from above is counterproductive. However, unrestrained congeniality in an organisation is also counterproductive. It is a matter of striking a balance between the two extremes to conduce a positive organisation aura. A very laid back culture needs more pressure screws tightened. Conversely, employees feeling the brunt of excessive work pressure ought to be loosened a bit from the pressure screws. The right call rests on the top management based on correct analytical observations.

Another long-term negative impact ignited by the fear pressure factor is the "fire fight" condition. Scrambling to complete assignments quickly at the expense of paced prudent pre-assessment on viability of any initiative normally leads to repercussions. Impromptu impulsive acts do not allow sufficient time to examine all related perspectives necessary for ensuring effectiveness and efficiency. I know of companies facing countless data mismatches after system migration implementation because their management hammered hard onto their technical personnel to deliver the works within short time frames. Thereafter, the technical teams spent endless drag times to patch up discrepancies whenever complaints on mismatches cropped up. They have already assumed the mindset of "quickly complete first, settle the errors later" for future IT system projects.

Now, on the negative leadership mentality of "pass the buck" or pass the blame management style. Some so-called leaders readily shift blame down the line when a fault materialises. Worst is, they claim they are not aware of the fumbling issues. One morning, I was taken aback when reading the lead story of a local mainstream English newspaper. A senior minister of the (erstwhile) government declared that advisers appointed by the cabinet should bear the full blame for any fault derived from their advice. He was quoted as blurting out: "The downfall of a leader is usually the result of his advisers. The formation of a nation does not depend on kings and political leaders, but also by the advisers to leaders." Huh?? Should not the leaders who appointed these advisers be equally blamed? No wonder many senior civil servants under this previous regime could still sit firmly despite episodes of highlighted debacles occurring within their jurisdiction - by diverting the responsibility and accountability to their juniors, just like what the senior minister encouraged so.

Although top leaders play the main part as protagonists for culture setting, employees at large of a company bring to work their own traits inhered from their social and communal exposure. For example, Westerners may be more upfront in speaking out compared to Asians who are less expressive. Top executives need to be cognizant of such varying traits before mapping out a cultural change strategy. A trait that is acceptable in one social or communal group may be abhorred by another group. Mismatch of traits is a hurdle to overcome by the management concerned before a culture change can successfully take place.

Moulding a new corporate culture normally goes through an initial period of tribulations, more so when two large companies merge as one entity. The process requires sheer patience, determination, prudent planning, unrelenting communication, counselling, monitoring, encouragement and at times admonition where necessary. Cultural transformation cannot evolve via quick winds of change. Tedious - often also trying - incessant efforts may likely encounter some bane elements before reaching the boon stage. Bear in mind the long term benefits that come after successful entrenchment of a positive work culture, versus the short term trials experienced at the beginning of implementation. Whether the intended culture is an inaugural one (of a new institution) or a turnaround (of old culture), the right process entails intricate sequential steps, per my suggested outline below:

1) First, identify the desired organisational values and behaviours to be instilled into the employees.

2 Board directors together with the chief executive and other key officers map out the strategies for driving the assigned values and behaviours.

3) Board directors and top executives commit to playing the role model, earmarked for emulation by employees.

4) Take note of the communal trait disparities among the existing workforce.

5) Top management officers jointly map out the desired structured procedures for promoting the desired culture. The plan includes the communication approaches, training, counselling, monitoring, governance framework guidelines and devising methods to manage trait disparities.

6) Tailor a conducive platform to allow discussions and inputs on the intended culture by employees. Incorporate inputs that are valid for shaping up the culture.

7) Incorporate compatible rewards for employees who achieve positive results via conspicuous assimilation of the culture.

8) Selective recruitment of new personnel. Engage candidates whose profiles befit the parameters of the culture.

9) Be prepared to embark on tough decisions that may be unfavourable to some personnel. Administer actions to weed out unhealthy practices although preferred by employees. Formulate a plan to tread on this with prudent discretion.

10) Face up the possibility of losing some business scores temporarily for the sake of gaining firmer stability in the longer run. E.G: To phase out improper fire sales and misleading techniques for the sake of ethics and sounder business footing, the board directors and CEO ought to expect there may be a temporary drop in topline (gross sales revenue) but with anticipated better bottomline (profits) at the later run. Over the longer tenure, the overall growth covering both topline and bottomline scores could escalate prominently because of a healthier sales culture.

I now sum up this write-up by sharing a few quotes........

# An organisation that values certain character traits like accountability and integrity, perseverance, grit and curiosity has to build a culture in which employees can be guided along the way to behave in this manner.
(eva.christodoulou@leaderomics.com)

# When you are inspired, others around you will sense it by the way you work, provide guidance, implement ideas and lead. Others will feed off your enthusiasm  and this would cause a resonance of the similar energy throughout the team.
(nithiaroshan@leaderomics.com)

# Bear in mind that a corporate culture is often the by-product of what the company's leadership is like. So, leaders need to embody the change first before they expect their employees to pattern after it.
(Adrian Yap -editor@leaderomics.com)

# When an organisation tolerates small breaches of rules, unethical behaviour can snowball.
(InTheBlack magazine - May 2017)

# Rather than focussing on the numbers, we really focus on the behaviour.
(John Murray - head of enterprise risk, retail and compliance, AIA Australia)

# Boards should be held accountable (for corporate governance); they appoint the CEO, they are the guardians of the culture.
(Dr. Attracta Lagan - principal with Managing Values)

# If fear can spur people and teams, it can also cause them to shut down.
(Tyrone Carlin - CPA Australia)

# If employees think it will be futile to speak up, they won't use their voice.
(James Detert - University of Virginia)

# These days we often communicate 'at' others by e-mail, posting on social media, and text message, rather than communicating 'with' others by an ongoing, real-time, face-to-face conversation.
(Samantha Hardy - principal at Conflict Coaching International)




LISTENING, DECIPHERING & INQUIRING SKILLS

ST Jimmy | Saturday, February 03, 2018 | | 0 comments



I begin this article with a thought-provoking story relating a revered philosopher, considered a sage in ancient Europe around 400 BC. The story goes like this ………….

One day, one of his mentees anxiously approached “S”. The mentee expressed, “Sir, in case you have not known already, I want to tell you what I just heard about “P” (another philosopher of the same era who was competing against the teachings of S) from my friends.”

S immediately cut in. “Hold on! First, I like to ask you three questions as a filter test.”

The mentee was bewildered. “Huh? A filter test?”

“Yes, First filter test, on truth. Can you vouch what you are going to tell me is true without any doubt?”

“I can’t say for sure,” replied the mentee. “I just heard about it from two friends who said they had heard from a source.”

“So, you don’t really know whether what you heard is true or a false,” retorted S. “Now, the second test, this time on goodness. Is the talk about the person something good?”

“No, on the contrary……….”

S cut in abruptly again before the mentee could complete answering. “Hmm, sounds you want to tell me something bad about another person although probably may be false.”

The mentee’s countenance radiated embarrassment.

“But you may still pass the test though, if you can pass the third filter, on usefulness,” continued S. “Is the information you want to share with me any use to benefit my work?”

“Er…….not really…….”

“Well, if the subject you have in mind may be false, is bad about another person and of no use to my work, why tell it to me?”

His mentee then walked away in silence, feeling dejected.

This story shows why S was a sage revered for his righteous philosophies. But it also explains why he never knew P was flirting with his wife, to secretly elicit materials from his work archives with intent to counter his teachings.

Perhaps, a slight twist might have been added by the narrator of this story. Yet, it presents a valid truth applicable to people holding leadership roles.

May I summarise the moral of the story for the benefit of readers who are leaders, as follows:

(       * Have an open mind to listen, despite the possibility of hearing unfounded information.

(    *Listen first, then decipher whether what is said is pertinent.

(    *Not necessarily leaders deemed to be astute are perfect and always right. They also misjudge at times.

(    *Sometimes, rumours may indicate signals of possible developments albeit not entirely factually true. Leaders should be willing to listen, then check for validation. And if found to be valid, the information will be useful for gearing up preparations to handle the imminent developments.

Many leaders hold the notion that their leadership role mainly involves providing advice, making decisions and paving directions. They are somewhat right regarding this perspective. Conversely, however, they overlook the vitality of listening. They fail to recognise that due diligence given to listening forms the basis for averting adversities.

Had S the philosopher been willing to listen to his mentee, he would have discovered the hideous plot of P and his wife. On one hand, he demonstrated wisdom by not engaging in vain talk. On the other hand, he missed the chance of discovering a truth which not only would adversely affect his immaculate image as a philosopher, but also would engrave the stigma as the cheated and clueless husband.

There is a difference between being wise and being prudent. Wise individuals tend to act according to their profound guiding principles. Prudent individuals open their ears to receive valid inputs from other stakeholders for incorporation with set guiding principles before deciding and acting. Good leaders exude both wisdom and prudence, i.e. manifesting wisdom at the wholesome level, thus averting possible risks and flaws.

Interactive listening facilitates the listener to decipher the validity of a statement or said happening. Truths are difficult to elicit from counterparts without the skill to decipher efficaciously. The “art” entails making scrutinised observations while interacting (with a counterpart) and listening.

To validate the real essence of cascaded information or statements, observing the “body language” of individuals in the interaction process may be needed. The ability to interpret body language is a handy asset which leaders should aspire. I, myself, attended courses on body language and applied it in my discourse with various stakeholders during my tenure in previous corporate engagements. I am an ardent observer of this phenomenon.

A person’s body language is depicted by gestures, postures, countenance, voice pitch, verbal speed etc. Body language involves gestures of the eyes, face, arms and the rest of the body stance vis-à-vis the environment he is in. Body language prowess helps to extricate more information not verbally said upfront but unsaid inside the mind and heart of a counterpart, which in turn adds weight to sound judgement for meting out the right decision or action regarding an issue. Polished leaders are profound thinkers, penetrative listeners and extractive decipherers.

How does a leader detect whether a subordinate or peer is stating true facts or otherwise? Well, that will require some inquiring skills. Let me relate a true story. Many years ago, I was invited to witness how my superior managed out a subordinate who had been lagging far behind the monthly targets on new agents (doing sales) recruitment. Before calling the subordinate for dialogue, my superior examined all trail reports pertaining to recruitment activities over the past 12 months, viz. the register containing names who received invitations to each month’s career orientation programme (COP), names of enrolees, names of actual participants who attended the sessions, names of confirmed candidates who signed up the agent’s contract after the sessions. He then listed down the numbers on a piece of paper.

I still remember the gist of the dialogue on that “fated” date, somewhat like this:

SUPERIOR: “For the next COP, how many people do you think will enrol?”

SUBORDINATE: “Err…about 100.”

SUPERIOR: “How many invitations have you sent out?”

SUBORDINATE: (Silent pause)……”120.”

SUPERIOR: “How many do you expect will really turn up for the COP?”

SUBORDINATE: Err……….say, 80.”

SUPERIOR:  “And, how many minimum new recruits are expected to be contracted thereafter?”

SUBORDINATE: (Long silent pause)…………………”Well, 50.”

SUPERIOR: “You are confident of your figures?”

SUBORDINATE: (Silent pause, with face gazing downward)…….”Yes” (in subdued tone).

SUPERIOR: (Took out his paper and referred to it). “Let’s see this list that consists details of your past 12 months experience. The number of sent-out invitations, with the support of agency sales managers, averaged around 100 per COP. Past statistics show about 50 enrolled for each session but fewer than 30 turned up as attendees. And only 5 to 7 of the attendees finally signed up the agent contract. Tell me, falling on your previous scores as shown in this finding, how can you ensure you will be able to recruit 50 new agents from the next COP? Share with me your plan what you are going to do differently in order to achieve the figures mentioned by you just now?”

SUBORDINATE: (Long silent pause and looked dumbfounded. He never reckoned my superior would scrutinise the records on the scores of his past recruitment tasks.)…………………...”I will do my best.”

SUPERIOR: “Saying you will do your best is not the right answer. It shows you didn’t draw up any plan to carry out your recruitment activities in line with your targets all along. And you merely plucked unreal figures from the air when queried by me. Please correct me if I’m wrong.”

SUBORDINATE: (Total silence, with glum countenance)

End Outcome: The subordinate was required to resign, with an exit compensation granted to him. Obviously, the non-performer had not been executing his assignments seriously but instead went on carefree mode as his routine job. He was caught unprepared by the skilful inquiry deployed by my superior.

Before a leader can decipher correctly, he must first listen and inquire effectively (using the right technique). This is one skill that leaders should covet via education, practice and experience. The “art” very often engages in paraphrasing statements or answers from respondents to affirm correct understanding. It also includes observing gestures (body language) of the respondents during dialogue.

Experienced listeners can decipher whether a respondent is utterly honest or otherwise in rendering answers. For example, an immediate exclamation of “yes, absolutely!” with a radiant smile connotes confidence, in contrast to “well…..(pause), yes” (in subdued tone and nonchalant demeanour), depicting uncertainty.

For effective leadership to materialise, the leader concerned ought to know the situation and events prevailing in his territorial realm – or ground feel, so to speak. Such cognition depends very much on the knack to solicit correct pertinent information via interactive listening, which invariably connects with proactive, skilful inquiry.

Interactive listening, deciphering and inquiring constitute the elements. Practice and experience emanating from acquired knowledge on the three elements represent the combined essence. The elements coupled with the essence form the potent force for drawing out truths from counterparts. See the holistic link?

SUM UP:

Leaders who only focus on paving directions will not be stellar until and unless they also exude keenness to listen interactively, which incorporates deciphering and inquiring process too. Without going through due diligence to pick up this “trick of the trade”, a leader may make decisions and directions based on incorrect perceptions, thus resulting unfavourable consequences. Worst still is a leader who shuts his ears - just like the analogy of the philosopher, he will be totally unaware of what is adversely happening on the ground around him!

I end this article by sharing the following quotes:

·        There’s a misconception that listening is a passive act……but focused, intensive listening is more like a form of “martial art”. (a former professional hostage negotiator – quote published in a management magazine)

·        We should never pretend to know what we don’t know, we should not feel ashamed to ask and learn from people below, and we should listen carefully to the views of the cadres at the lowest levels. Be a pupil before you become a teacher, learn from the cadres at the lower levels before you issue orders. (Mao Tse-Tung)

·        Be a good listener. Your ears will never get you in trouble. (Frank Tyger)

·        Seek first to understand, then to be understood. (Steven R Covey)

·        You should learn to hear with your eyes, also listen with your mind when interfacing with the person you are dealing with. Don’t just register what the other party says upfront, but also perceive what is not said verbally by deciphering his body language. (my self-composed quote)


INNOVATIVE LEADERSHIP

ST Jimmy | Tuesday, December 05, 2017 | | 0 comments




A new order in today’s business leadership dynamics is aptly summed up in one word: INNOVATION. The word encompasses macro perspectives for improvising changes targeted at impactful business vibrancy.  This includes strategy reformation, process transformation, information & data revamp, restructured procedures, new creations etc – all the activities for doing old things the new way ……. and doing new things, so to speak.

A trendy two-word phrase has also inundated the business world: DISRUPTIVE INNOVATION. “Disruptive” connotes shifting away from prevailing norms of business practices for acquiring significant new market scores. The two-word phrase was coined by researcher Clayton Christensen and his cohorts in the mid-90’s.

Wikipedia defines disruptive innovation as “an innovation that creates a new market by providing a different set of values which ultimately (and unexpectedly) overtakes an existing market.” To me, the definition also relates to disruptive technology which bolsters a process to produce a new product or service that begins from the bottom of the market but could quickly pick up pace to displace established competitors.

Let us look at the common business scenes prevailing now. How many long-standing corporations have been carrying on the same modus operandi – or simply put, business as usual approaches –  and look for means to scramble for business growth? Do you not agree that many enterprises merely whip up pressure on their sales people year after year for organic incremental growth in business scores? Without salient innovations, regardless whether with the disruptive factor or not, it will be a matter of time such entities may phase out.

The promulgaters of innovation in today’s business order point at one message: Business leaderships must either *think out of the box or *create a new think box. The two perceptions may be similar but slightly different.

To think out of the box infers to creating ideas for changing the existing mode of business approaches but still falling on the same fundamentals representing the main founding principles. The current business box is the base; ideas extrapolated from the base (out of the box) serve as supplementary initiatives.

Take for example, a life insurance corporation relying on its large conventional sales agents as the bastion of business growth. While recognising the prominent contribution of this convention for now, the top leadership should extrapolate by considering new agent streams, like appointing tax consultant firms, community cooperatives, trade unions, private trusts, will writing enterprises, property developers, legal firms etc as corporate agents (not in individual/personal name). In view of wide network, these establishments can leverage on their existing contact database to promote life insurance products. Sales from corporate agents will be additional revenue to the sales scores of conventional agents who represent the main base. Probably, corporate agents may gradually gain prominence in comparison to the conventional agents

Formulating a new think box links to exploring entirely new business platforms with potentials for viable development. It does not necessarily mean abandoning the core business genre. More so, the new box may be fronted as a subsidiary to the main platform.

Here is a classic example. A pioneer budget airline of Malaysia, in facing up to competition posed by other budget carriers that entered the scene later, successfully ventured into an economy class hotel chain. At the same time, it incorporated an insurance arm. Travellers who fly by this airline to overseas destinations usually take up travel insurance and/or personal accident insurance along with their ticket purchase. Some travellers also book room accommodation with its hotel chain (in the country where it also operates) at the time of ticket purchase. The two additional idea boxes now serve as boosters to the overall business under the “wings” of this budget airline, rendering complementary revenue by offering packaged conveniences to travelers.

I have always wondered why large insurance corporations in Malaysia do not consider owning an established hospital chain, or at least hold a major equity stake in a reputable one. If this was conceptualised, I can imagine the following benefits:

# The hospitalisation claims pay-out from the insurance corporation to any policyholder who has sought treatment in its hospital would be recouped in the form of medical fees received, thus going back to overall financial coffers of the parent company, i.e. the insurance corporation. This is one way of curbing claims compensations going as outflows to external medical institutions.

# Some special privileges, like free annual medical check-up at the hospital, can be accorded to holders of its medical policies. Such perks may add attractiveness to its medical cover products, hence lending weight to capture the medical insurance market.

# Consensus by both entities under the same group to institute sound hospital treatment practices and charges would help to contain claims experience ratios (total claims pay-out amount vs. total premiums collected from medical insurance policyholders). This would sustain its medical products’ profit margins. In addition, the hospital’s reputation as an efficiently run service-orientated medical institution would be enhanced.

# Better promotion of the branding image of both entities due to effective strategic alliance.

I opine this idea is worth considering for possible exploration if properly strategised.

Now, let us look at the bookstore business. Question: Do we foresee hardcopy books facing the piercing brunt of competition coming from e-books in the current electronic or digital era? More and more reading enthusiasts are placing book orders the e-way. They can just download to their laptop after effecting purchase via credit card from home. They can also view the short synopsis of a book, like the preamble and contents outline, for free before deciding to buy on-line.

A common drawback in respect of hardcopy books housed in many conventional bookstores is, most of the items - especially the costlier ones - are tightly sealed in thick transparent plastic wraps to curb browsing by visitors. Only the cover of a book, showing the name of the author, the title and the cover design can be seen. I believe the bookstores want to protect the hardcopies from being smeared and worn off by the hands of browsers who put back to the shelf after flipping through. But would you buy a book just by viewing the cover only without having any idea what the contents are about? I would not.

It is high time for owners of conventional bookstore chains to explore innovations that could effectively protect their business competitiveness vis-à-vis the gaining popularity of e-books. Unless some value-added facilities are improvised, hardcopy book business will face more challenging times.

What about the following idea for hybrid “transformation” (combination of “out of the box” and “new box”) of a conventional bookstore?........

+ Cozy spread-out premises in a commercial zone within the perimeters of upmarket residential clusters. To target at the upper middle-class society as customers.

+ Bookstore cum library setup – for *purchase,*rental or *loan of books. Loan privilege is only applicable to patrons who pay an annual loan membership fee. No restriction to the number of loans. All items are available for purchase or rental to all patrons. Purchase is at item’s listed price but frequent purchasers are entitled for rebate. Rental fee rate is based on the listed sale price of an item.

+ Only the soft copy of a book on loan or rental can be read via any of the computer screens linked to the system containing the items available in the store. The screens are situated in the library section, equipped with desks and chairs.

+ Intended purchasers can view the synopsis and a few excerpts of a book for free before deciding whether to purchase, rent or opt for loan.

+ A stipulated period for loan or rental, which cuts off the on-line access to the loan or rent item after the last date. If a patron wishes to refer to the book again, he/she can request to resume the transaction. Rental fee will be charged again for renting the same book the second time. Within the stipulated period, patrons may log off from the screen and resume reading anytime. In other words, patrons can read a book on loan or rent in phases as long before the cut-off date.

+ Duplicating via camera shots or video is prohibited. To ensure compliance, CCTV cameras are installed in the section housing the computer screens.

+ Phone calls and other uses of mobile phones within the premises are prohibited, to bar unnecessary disturbance to the tranquil environment.

+ A patron who has read a book on rental can buy the same in hardcopy form at the price less the rental fee.

+ Book loan members have the privilege of purchasing books at concession prices, slightly cheaper than the listed price.

+ A cozy cafeteria is adjoined next to the library section, partitioned by a glass panel wall with a glass door. Food is served at the cafeteria only. Beverages ordered from the cafeteria may be served to patrons in the library. The cafeteria is responsible to upkeep the tidiness of the desks in the library where drinks have been served.

Do you think my two proposed revolutionary ideas (for a large insurance corporation and bookstore) are viable? Perhaps the optimists may be impressed with positive intrigue, while those who are less adventurous may hold reservations about shifting from the norm for fear of possible failure risks. No denying significant costs come along with significant revolutionary changes. Large capital outlay may perhaps be required. There is also no guarantee the innovative directions will not end up as flops.

Let us face reality. In the modern era, corporate leaders must wake up to recognise that innovation culture has already zoomed in to be the new business order of the day. Many disruptive innovations have already taken place. Corporations cannot expect to thrive for long without being willing to absorb some risks to thrust innovations that disrupt conventional business modes.

Look around what has happened in the competition realm ……… conventionally brewed beer vs. craft beer; conventional camera vs. handphones with built-in high solutions camera facility; conventional financial institutions vs. fintech enterprises; walk-in purchase vs. online purchase etc. We know the conventional ones are facing intense pressure to ward off the competitive onslaughts posed by their disruptive counterparts.

More and more disruptive innovations will continue to emerge into the various markets. Top corporate leaders not willing to try out brand new initiatives just to avoid possible failure risks may still face risks of their business faltering at the tail end due to disruptive competition. Look at some once upon a time big names which phased out of the market - all because they preferred to focus on organic growth than innovative growth, and because they preferred to play safe than take risks. Top leaderships must first inhere a mindset whereby some form of risk-taking is tolerated for the sake of innovations linked to new thrive potentials.

InTheBlack business magazine carried an elaborate write-up which propounded the key points shared by Professor Ram Charan, a renowned global business adviser.

# The issue facing business leaders is not how to cope with change; it is about how to anticipate changes coming down the track, understand their implications before competitors do, then harness them to enhance market position and profitability.

# Many leaders think of how to better what they have always been doing, but that is not enough in an aggressive competitive business world. They often get engrossed in looking for incremental gains, without time to explore the big picture.

# Identifying new potentials should be one of the key responsibilities of top leaders. Ideas to usher business forward should be a core skill of any top leader.

To mitigate possible unforeseen risks for contriving innovations, certain prudent proactive preliminary measures may be taken, as follows:

- Form a special task force comprising the right players in the right roles pertinent to conceiving and developing a new major project. The members are subject matter experts in their respective field. 

- Brainstorm sessions by the task force on the proposed project. Adopt an elaborate but workable brainstorm model to draw in pertinent points for deliberations.

- The task force may consider organising a focus group for soliciting feedback on the suggested innovation. Focus group participants should be meticulously identified, like top sales personnel, premier customers, experienced customer service representatives. Their inputs from different perspectives will identify the likely strengths, attractions and drawbacks relating to the idea.

- Test the water by rolling out a trial run or mock launch. During this trial, the task force should note down their observations for further deliberations. What lessons have been learnt? What aspects could be improved? What flaws could be averted? What strengths could be capitalised? 

- Re-define the processes based on the lessons learnt from the trial run. Then roll out the full launch with refined features. However, abandon the project if the final assessment indicates it is not viable - this is to cut loss.

SUM UP:

Major innovations in any corporation rest on two fundamental prerequisites applicable to its top leadership, namely (1) Willingness to accept challenges, particularly in facing up to possible failure risks.  (2) Willingness to allocate resources (time, manpower, logistics, dedicated efforts and budget) toward working on intended innovations – in other words, allocate expenditure for research & development (R&D).

Two popular idioms of “no risk, no gain” and “adapt or die” hold out as manifested truths. It is incumbent on top leaders to proactively recognise signals of changing trends if they want their business to survive in the longer run.

Nazir Razak, the group chairman of a top rung bank in Malaysia and who was holding the chair of the East Asia Business Council, pronounced at a meeting of prominent people on 13 November 2017 his key emphasis:

^ Technologies emerging around them were transforming the world – from the nature of jobs and work to the way societies function.

^ The 4th Industrial Revolution would bring new challenges which were going to affect everything in running businesses. There would be a huge disruption to jobs.

^ Robots and artificial intelligence were already replacing workers in factories and increasingly also challenge service jobs too.

^ If the South East Asia nations could position themselves properly and quickly , the 4th Industrial Revolution would be a powerful force for prosperity.

(Source: The Star newspaper)

I like to end this article with a few punchy quotes from three respected leaders.

·         “I have more fear in my life that we aren’t going to maximise the opportunity we have, than messing something up and the business going badly.” (Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, in conversation with LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman)

·         “Embrace change – not comfort zone.”
·         “Risk and failure are part of success.”
·         “Learn from competitors, or perish.” (Lee Kuan Yew, the revered first prime minister of Singapore who transformed the island nation)

·         “You cannot invent and pioneer if you cannot accept failure. To invent, you need to experiment. If you know in advance that it is going to work, it is not an experiment.”
·         ‘I ask everybody to not think in two-or-three-year time frames, but to think in five-to-seven-year time frames." (Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, speaking to Michael Beckerman, the president and chief executive of the Internet Association)




TACKLING CORE ISSUES SUCCESSFULLY

ST Jimmy | Monday, October 02, 2017 | | 0 comments



There is a herd mentality prevailing in many top corporate leaders that their prime focus is to drive business dynamism for the respective organisation they steer, and nothing else is more important than this objective. In this respect, they direct clarion calls for garnering full resources to propel initiatives targeting at business growth. That perception appears realistic and practical, except one thought-provoking question: Should they not pay equal attention to tackling issues that possibly stumble the pace of growth?

Some leaders think it is quite simple to solve problems – just recognising the issues that can be seen and heard at work, followed by applying assumed corrective actions quickly. But is the approach so simplistic? Well, I think not. Why? Because what they normally perceive are superficial ones, i.e. those noticeable at the open surface, and not the underlying core causes contributing to the issues seen and heard.

Any corporation yearning for assertive revamp or transformation needs to fully recognise the ominous hidden impediments, which if not eradicated, will thwart salient improvements. Like it or not, without eradicating the core causes, efforts to drive intended revamp and transformation will be negated.

Take the analogy of an apple tree once adorned with juicy fruits but now withering away. Let us say hypothetically the farmer decides to treat by pruning the branches, also applying pollination booster spray and laying fertiliser on the surrounding soil surface. Would such measures based on what could be perceived and seen outwardly really help? Probably it is not the outward tree problem but pertaining to decaying roots beneath which could not be seen. If the roots are being attacked by termites, surely efforts to treat the tree above the ground would be hapless.

The farmer should instead unearth the surrounding soil to diligently check the condition of the roots. If termites have infested the roots, he should tackle the termite issue, like applying the right pesticide and the right fertiliser directly to the root buttress. That would be correctly tackling the core issue with the right solutions.

Getting to the core of a superficial problem necessitates meticulous attention. Literally speaking, the process entails drilling deep through numerous layers to reach the underlying core. Not as simplistic as acting on what could be seen or heard.

The above analogy represents the right approach to tackle a single core issue. The single apple tree could relate to an individual subordinate in a team. A corporate leader should learn to understand every direct downline subordinate well to identify the respective core weaknesses marring respective personal (individual) performance. This is the Micro Prong aspect.

A corporate leader invariably also encounters general issues posing major faults negatively impacting his entire team, hence the necessity to zero in to the bottom of the real macro causes. This is the Macro Prong aspect.

I wish to recommend my approach called THE IN-DEPTH DIAGNOSTIC INQUIRY for probing into core causes that conjure superficial problems.

Now, let us examine two simulated case studies – one micro and one macro -  reflecting probable scenarios of the real corporate world.

Case Study 1 (Micro)

A sales director finds one of his recently recruited sales member slow in sales scores despite having undergone full sales technical training. Tracking records indicate the young man is not conducting enough business calls. Should the leader take the perceived problem at its face value? Should the leader immediately recommend intensive business call methods re-training for the sales member? Or should the leader probe for the underlying reason why the subordinate is not making sufficient calls?

The in-depth diagnostic inquiry, with the cooperation of the subordinate, may be like the following process. 

 SUPERFICIAL ISSUE: NOT ENOUGH BUSINESS CALLS. INQUIRER: SALES DIRECTOR. RESPONDENT: SALES MEMBER 

SUCCESSIVE STEPS
INQUIRE/PROBE ON
IF RESPONSE IS….
1
Why not enough business calls?
Lack of prospects. Can’t find enough prospects.
2
Why lack of prospects?
Not many natural contacts/markets.
3
Tried referred leads/cold calls?
Yes.
4
How many leads/cold calls so far?
Less than 10.
5
Why so few only?
Not successful, so ceased trying.
6
Why ceased trying?
Not working for me.
7
Any underlying reason?
Tedious. Prospects not receptive.
8
Felt comfortable in making calls?
Not really.
9
Reason?
Feel I am not cut for the job.
10
You have call reluctance?
Yes.
11
Why?
It is like pestering and imposing.

Conclusion: Core reason for not making enough business calls is the agent’s negative concept of the career.  He is neither proud nor committed to his selling role – that is why he has refrained from further prospecting and making business calls to people outside his natural contacts.

Had the leader tried to tackle the superficial issue by recommending the subordinate to undergo intensive technical re-training in prospecting and cold calls, that would be like wrongly treating the individual apple tree without checking the condition of the roots. That would be futile. Rightly so, reinforcing the right concepts of the career into the agent might work……if this still does not help, then no point to retain the individual; the plausible action is to advise him to look for other careers.

Case Study 2 (Macro)

After the merger of two prominent corporations in the financial services industry, the revamped institution decides to quickly implement a new IT service support system to consolidate data from both sides so that all backroom personnel could rely on one (common) platform for service operations. Alas, few years down the road from the commencement date for system migration, incessant complaints from customers and sales agents on service discrepancies continue to bug the management. There seems to be no end to new discrepancies discovered continually despite restitution “patching” work done each time a complaint has cropped up.

The management’s off-the-cuff generalised conclusion sans (without) further probe: Discrepancies due to human errors in the system migration process – a quick superficial perception. However, this does not answer how and why the human errors occurred. An in-depth probe, led by an outside consultant adept in such inquiry and with sound related experience in the same industry, may unravel the core causes (not just one) of the discrepancies, like as below:

SUPERFICIAL ISSUE: DISCREPANCIES DUE TO HUMAN ERRORS IN THE MIGRATION PROCESS

INQUIRER: APPOINTED CONSULTANT. RESPONDENT: KEY REP. OF SYSTEM VENDOR.

SUCCESSIVE STEPS
INQUIRE/PROBE ON
IF RESPONSE IS………
1
What type of discrepancies resulted by human errors?
System migration data mismatch.
2
The cause of the data mismatch?
Oversight because of rush to meet the short timeline for the migration. User requirements were not comprehensive. Data mapping was not done correctly. No one was appointed to look at the end to end process.
3
What transpired at the beginning?
First formed a task force.
4
Who were the members?
System vendor representatives, including myself, and technical staff of the merged institution, including the IT head.
5
List the command hierarchy in descending order……
          1) IT head as project leader. 2) 10 technical support staff. 3) Myself and my two subordinates.
6
Who gave the cues what to do? What role do you and your two subordinates play?
Cues came from IT head and the technical staff. My side was to facilitate the migration based on their cues and user requirements given to us.
7
Was the IT head an incumbent executive? What about his technical staff?
Except for two existing technical staff, the rest came aboard after the merger (new).
8
Why this composition?
Since adoption of a new system was involved, the management felt they needed a project team who were not too entrenched in the old systems and processes.
9
What was the management’s main emphasis regarding the system migration?
To quickly formulate the parameters for the adopted system in line with the short timeline.
10
Any thorough analysis done on the data and structure of the old systems?
Only a very quick browse through. The management opined it would be quite irrelevant and time consuming to delve into the old systems.
11
Looks like the system logic design and phases for migration of data from the old to new system were mainly executed by newcomers?
Yes.
12
What about the role of the two incumbent technical staff?
They were assigned to conduct user acceptance tests (UAT) only.
13
Why weren’t discrepancies spotted during the UAT phase?
Due to the short time-frame allowed, only a few samples were used for UAT, hence not sufficient for thorough testing. Moreover, the in-force products issued by both companies before the merger were not totally alike.
14
Means there may be more discrepancies yet undetected but could be issues of future complaints?
Yes, likely.
15
What would be the effective solution?
Re-study and review the user requirements/logic for the migration.
16
What would that entail?
Properly analyse data contents and structure of the old systems. Then redesign the user requirements/logic for the new system.
17
Would additional costs be incurred on top of what was already spent so far?
Yes. The services of my side as the vendor for the new system would be re-engaged for major changes.
18
This is the right solution if the management wants an effective remedy?
Yes.


Evidently, the in-depth diagnostic inquiry revealed three main factors had contributed to the anomalies. (1) The short time-frame allowed for completion of the system migration. The project itself was a rush job. The few samples picked for user testing were not encompassing enough to fully cover the multifarious data contents. (2) No proper due diligence to analyse the structure and contents of the old systems. (3) The task force was not well-versed with the different service parameters of the two previous corporations. The unlearned bitter experience which set in should render a lesson learnt when the institution considers future IT projects.

For a macro exercise, an experienced empowered impartial moderator should come in. In the above example, an outsourced experienced consultant is appointed the protagonist because no internal officer with such astuteness is at hand. Obviously, a macro exercise is more complex than a micro one, as reflected by the longer inquiry steps in case study 2.

The right remedy for reforming data consistency and service stability needs the management’s committed resolve to support the recommendation. The top management needs to decide on costs versus revamp results………or aptly put, either foot the extra costs to effectively stamp out data discrepancies once and for all, or face up the possibility of erupted wrath expressed by customers and sales agents. The current approach of executing sporadic “patching” work whenever new complaints on discrepancies crop up now and then will never be the wholesome solution.

Obviously, a new task force comprising personnel familiar with the intricacies of the old systems and data contents should be formed to work with the vendor. This calls for an efficacious documented proposition by the consultant – written, visual and verbal – to secure the top management’s buy-in.

Summary:

Inquisitive proactivity and determination by all relevant segments in a corporation represent the bastion for successfully ironing out core issues which hinder vibrant progress. First, relevant leaders must be seriously keen to investigate the real inherent issues causing perceived problems. Second, relevant personnel must render whole-hearted cooperation to be involved in a drill-down diagnostic exercise. Third, only experienced personnel familiar with the specific situation should be engaged. Fourth, the top management of the corporation concerned must support recommendations constituting the right remedial measures. Such an endeavour requires committed synergy from all relevant internal parties.

Quotes:

·        * “When you start with a careful effort to define the problem, you almost always discover that the problem isn’t what it seemed to be at first or what other people told you it was.”

·        * “Problems get misdiagnosed in business for the simple reason that people notice symptoms of the underlying problem and leap to a diagnosis based on initial symptoms. As in medical illnesses, business symptoms may have many root causes, and it takes a careful analysis to figure out what’s really going on.”

(Quotes by Alexander Hiam – author of “Business Innovation For Dummies”) 






                             

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Powered by Blogger.