DAY 8: Valley Crossing Excercise(SKYWALK)

The ‘Skywalk’ exercise demonstrated in class today somehow brings forth a wide variety of management lessons to learn. Apparently, a very simple exercise with three people trying to cross a valley( which is slightly wider for a man to cross) using a long stick quite easily demonstrates the lessons of “Shifting of Leadership”, “achieving unreal goals”, “necessity of trust in an organisation”, “power of positivity” and most importantly “ how to shift from being an underachiever to the best performer. Here is a brief description about this exercise:

The activity involved three persons crossing a valley with the support of the rod. The distance between two ends of the cliff was more than 1 step but less than 2 steps. The activity was to be performed in such a way, that at any instance of time during the crossing of valley, not more than 1 member was at risk, i.e. if one person was at risk during the act of valley crossing, the other two members would take up that person’s weight. In this way the inter dependency between the members was tightly coupled which is one of the most facets of team work.

It is also to be noted that when one of the persons is at risk, that person has to trust the other two persons to ensure that the objective is achieved. In this way, during the entire exercise, all the persons are at equal risk and need confidence and trust between the members to achieve the objective.

Shifting of Leadership:

Here each one is taking the responsibility valley crossing for a certain time, then the responsibility transfers to someone else. In this way they were able to achieve this so called unachievable task. Had it been one leader commanding other two for the same it might never be feasible as risking one’s life blindly following someone’s orders demands a huge leap of trust.

Also, if all were leaders at the same time all would try to dominate and no one would be ready to follow, thus the situation could end up in stalemate.

Achieving Unreal Goals:

The task given seems impossible to performing individually, also working in a team might not work if one was leader or all were leaders at the same time, but innovating this new methodology of leadership made this task possible and hence they achieved this unreal goals.

Necessity of Trust in an Organisation:

Although everyone gets an opportunity to lead but initiating the process also demands trust by the first crosser, this immense trust comes only when one has full passion to complete the task and considers his team to be competent and faithful enough. Thus, developing trust in an organisation could lead to achieving highly unachievable results.

How to shift from being an underachiever to the best performer:

SAFETY	Average	Valley Crosser	EXCELLENT	WORST
Safe	3	6	9	-
Half Safe	3	2	-	-
Unsafe	3	1	-	9

This thing resembles to the manager who could take the organisation across the valley either by four ways.  Most of the managers comes in Average category, most of the workman who always complain and never like to work makes the organisation end up in WORST case. Valley crossing exercise shows great performance by being six times in Safe zone. But the ultimate and TO BE Aspired for is EXCELLENT.

Hence we must try to achieve this excellence, for this first we have to become Average -> Valley Crosser-> Excellent

It would demand a lot of patience and passion but once it is achieved we would be the BEST MANAGERS 

So the final words:

              I WILL ACHIEVE THIS EXCELLENCE 

Day 7: An interaction with our Alums

Dressed up in formals, we all arrived at the classroom to listen to three of our Alumni. Our first interaction was with Mr. Nikhil Kulkarni, the innovator of India’s first online business gaming challenge  Mastishk , which is now also  NITIE’s one of the most acclaimed events (http://mastishk.nitie.net/) . Nikhil who is presently working with KPMG in Banking and Financial Services domain is a very simple personality to look at yet his ideas are so powerful that it made most of us speechless.

He started the discussion asking us how many of us want to become entrepreneurs, many of us raised hands, then he tried drilling into their reasons for this choice and figured that except a few most of us had exactly zero idea what exactly it is to be an entrepreneur, we were seeing being entrepreneur as an exit option from our mundane job lives. Most of us confused between being independent with taking zero liability. He tried to give us a brief understanding of what exactly it is to be an entrepreneur, quoting some examples he inferred that we never noticed any failed startup because their stories goes unsung, and the very few which succeed catch the limelight, and reading their stories we envisage ourselves as future billionaires without peeping into the ground realities.

“A startup demands extreme patience and passion and if you are ready for both it is THE thing for you” said Nikhil, but if you are confused even to the extent of one percent  don’t go.

The feeling of a job creator comes with its own terms and conditions. Comparing doing a job and being an entrepreneur he identified that neither the efforts nor the responsibilities are less anywhere, in job you have an advantage of switching whenever you want, in startup you are your own boss doesn’t mean that you are not answerable to anyone, your stakeholders , your customers are all your liability.

While he was just to start telling his experiences about Mastishk, Hemant entered the class, classmate of Nikhil and co-founder of Mastishk. A vibrant personality; who lightened the discussion with his smiling face, both shared their experiences about the genesis of Mastishk, the problems faced by them running it and what they learnt from it. The discussion was very involving. After the arrival of our third Alum the discussion turned more engrossing and we enjoyed a mind boggling and eye opening session.

At the end of the session, they answered many of our doubts and guided us with some TO-Dos. They concluded the session with a promise to be back soon to help and guide us with our issues what so ever they may be.

DAY6: Three Monks

The story three monks is about the three monks who finds distribution of work difficult and thus end up losing their valuable asset and in the end realizes the need to work as a team. The story goes like this:

A young monk lives a simple life in a temple on top of a hill. He has one daily task of hauling two buckets of water up the hill. He tries to share the job with another monk, but the carry pole is only long enough for one bucket. The arrival of a third monk prompts everyone to expect that someone else will take on the chore. Consequently, no one fetches water though everybody is thirsty. At night, a rat comes to scrounge and then knocks the candleholder, leading to a devastating fire in the temple. The three monks finally unite together and make a concerted effort to put out the fire. Since then they understand the old saying "unity is strength" and begin to live a harmonious life. The temple never lacks water again.

Now, let us  define a term called productivity: it is the amount of  output generated per unit of effort taken.

Also, the amount of effort taken to perform a task depends on the method used(or the approach).

Now, let’s observe the work patterns of the monks in different situations

1Monk:

There are two ways to get the bucket filled: going with one bucket, or going with two buckets

Person	1	1
Bucket	1	2

The method to bring two buckets by 1 monk is by tying them on both ends of the rod, which makes the net effort 

minimum (zero). Thus this method is more suitable in case of 1 monk as it provides more water in lesser efforts.

2 Monks:

Now, these two monks can work in the following different ways:

Person	1,1	2	1,1
Bucket	1,1	1	2,2

Here, one person bringing one bucket takes more effort than one person bringing two buckets(as clarified in previous case). But two persons bringing one bucket makes the job more easier as the efforts are distributed( the only concern is that for brining 4 buckets they have to go four times whereas in case of one person bringing two buckets they have to go only time.

3 Monks:

Person	1,1,1	2,1	2,1	1,1,1
Bucket	1,1,1	1,1	1,2	2,2,2

Here, the last option seems very productive as three persons are bringing six buckets of water in just one round, but the method that monks used SHOT UP the productivity much higher, they innovated a new approach, they used a pulley system , one monk stood near the water source filling up the buckets and hooking them to a string, another monk lift the bucket via pulley and third monk took  the bucket from him and carried it home.

This innovative approach made them achieve an unprecedented productivity. The effort put in this approach is handful and the output received is unimaginable.

This sort of management is called as "Participative Management".

Analyzing this story further, the issues faced here were:

1.       Reluctance to work in a team

2.       Hand over the work to other, expecting others to complete the whole job

3.       Difficulty in negotiation

4.       Subjective measurements

5.       No disaster management measures

When the monk was alone, he was happy doing all the work himself, but when second monk came they find it difficult to negotiate the distribution of work. Even when they agreed to go together and fetch one bucket they find it difficult to lift the bucket, as their measurements were subjective, then they used a scale(a benchmark) to tie the bucket on the center. This bench marking made this job easier.

When the third monk arrived negotiation became more difficult and they end up doing no work, even when they felt the need for it (felt thirsty) they did not agree on working.

The roll of mouse: I see mouse as certain unexpected fallout coming on the way, certain things that often frustrates us unnecessarily diluting our focus on the job.

The fire burning the house could be seen as the sudden change in circumstances (in the market) which could devastate our survival (business survival) and to combat them we need disaster management steps  and more importantly an archive of resources earned during the normal days. The monks had no water that time, that is no archive of resources was with them, they had to go all way down to fetch the water.

Even at the time of fire, they were facing negotiation issues, which they somehow managed to overcome essentially because of urgency of the situation.

Working in a team could actually be a savior, this thing was realized to the monks after they somehow managed to overcome the fire, eventually they innovated an entirely different approach and their productivity reached the top. 

Day5: The Pygmalion Effect

The class started with passing on of a two-coloured straw cube and a small snail dummy.  The first question sir asked was: “ Can anyone explain what (a+b)² mean using this cube.  Few of us tried and succeeded, he then asked for (a+b)³ only a few could explain. The idea behind this was to explain how to use a simple cube to explain so many things and thus could be sold easily provided we know how to use it. The next was the snail dummy, he told us the story of Economic Times and how they expanded spirally. He talked of exponential growth and Fibonacci Series. Then he jumped on to performance of employers, he quoted a famous theory called Pygmalion effect. Let us discuss Pygmalion effect in brief here:

Pygmalion Effect:

In relation to management, Pygmalion Effect states that if Higher expectations are placed on people they are bound to perform well. But this happens with only a set of people i.e. a specific relationship eg. Mother-child, Teacher-student, captain-players, performer-audience.

Another example of the Pygmalion effect is in groups. If there are two groups, one group thought that their teacher was "good", the other group thought he was "not good". The teacher treated both groups the same, but the group with a positive expectations had better outcomes than the others; Simply because those with positive expectations made them perform better than other students.

The Pygmalion effect is also an important instrument in management theory. It makes managers be aware, that the success of their employees depends not only on qualification, personal qualities or working environment. Manager always has to believe in his people and expect them to achieve the best results. In such case the subordinates will always feel this trust and demonstrate their best skills and abilities in their work.

Using Pygmalion Effect to achieve higher goals:

As discussed in last blog,

Goal Set X Goal Achieved = True Potential

Now we can use Goal Achieved to positively affect the Goal set and vice versa, taking a day-to-day example that whenever we win a competition our expectations for the next event also increases that is goal achieved enhances our goal set, in the similar way our goal set also enhances our goal achieved provided we take the appropriate steps:

• Our Goal Set should always be greater than our last goal achieved
• Our Goal Set should also be greater than our set potential i.e. how much capable we consider ourselves to be
• 
  
• Our Goal Set should also be greater than the Historical Record of the goal, as it would motivate us to set a new record

Thus in this way if we raise our expectations our performance would definitely improve.

Here is a video demonstrating the same:

Day4: Goal Setting and Goal Achieving

“Management is Delivering results” but moving the level of business things starts turning more complex, a lot of work needs to be done in a limited time, analysis needs to be done before setting a goal.

Thus we need to prioritize, in all we need to act SMART.

By smart we mean:

 S  =  Simple, Specific, Sustainable

M = Measurable, Motivating              

A  = Achievable, Ambitious

R  = Realistic, Rational, Relevant, Result-focussed

T  = Tangible,Time-bound

The very first step to achieve success in a business is setting a SMART goal, the goal which aligns to our vision, which is achievable, which is rational and tangible and above all should be in consonance with all the above qualities i.e. S = M = A = R = T

 That is performance would only become reality if our choice is a product of S M A R and T

Considering the tower building example from the class:

Here are the two samples from two Tower Making Companies:

Goal Setting	20	25
Goal Achieved	16	27
Goal ( Historical)	27	27
Potential	-	-

The reason for not writing anything in Potential is that we actually cannot quantify the true potential, although at best we could gauge a range of true potential but that again would be slightly subjective.

But, in order to progress we need to realize that practically goal set is not set to achieve it is set to motivate us to be optimistic, as setting high goals and striving hard to achieve them would make us move closer to our true potential

GS x GA = TP

Taking the same example of tower building, those who targeted modestly like 17 or 20, were focusing more on rationality than on ambitions, thus the consonance of SMART gets disturbed and making the motivation level modest and negating their true potential. On the opposite side, if the goal set is highly optimistic like 50 or 75, then also it disturbs the equilibrium by making it less rational and more ambitious.

Day3: Three Es

Day3: Efficiency and Effectiveness

The discussion started from where it was left off, comparision between craftsmanship and modern business management. Pointing to the indicator in a car example once again, a small fraction of the long chain is assigned to a person in modern business management, this thing does not allow him to view the larger picture in general, he only takes the responsibility of his own work aloof from how that would be utilized exactly for the companies growth and how that is aligned to the company’s vision and mission. On the other hand a typical craftsman would avoid confiding his skills to rest of the world, he just wants to keep it in a black box so as to make himself irreplaceable. Moving on from this , Prof Mandi started with the three Es of Modern management:

 Efficiency: The quality of being efficient, formulated as inputs required to generate the outputs. It is about the way in which work is completed. It can be summed up as “ Doing things rightly”.

Effectiveness: Effectiveness can be explained in terms of what is achieved. It is about whether targets are met or not. Performing effectively means that the right work is being completed. It can be summed up as “ Doing right thing at right time”.

Excellence: The state, quality or condition of excelling; superiority, it is the right mix of the efficiency and effectiveness. A company’s progress is rightly measured by its excellence in the field.

Thus, Excellence = Effectiveness x Efficiency

Qualitatively, effectiveness is the direction in which working should be done to maximize excellence; efficiency is the speed to perform. Effiectivenss is very difficult to achieve and leaders for this are few Efficiency part is much easier to achieve

More out of less, less out of less for more: Excellence

Comparision is effectiveness for more more and more

When you are expanding for more you are not exploiting the workers and when you grow effectiveness becomes more important.

We can solve efficiency, for effectiveness we cannot say that.

Skill and Deskill: Lets understand this via and example, movie making earlier was a skill now it is not a skill due to decentralization of skills i.e tasks now are distributed and responsibility is more distributed thus making people focus only on doing their job without understanding the entire scenario as a whole.

As we could see in the above model interdependency is much higher, S cannot work until C performs his task. But actually there is also independency in their separate tasks. That is no one else could interfere in S’s work. People assume their internal working as a black box producing the desired results which is exactly similar to the way a craftsman work.

But breaking a task into so many steps and assuming to get mastery after a while in every section has an inherent flaw in it. Breaking down the task into much smaller elements ends up making it more mechanical leaving no space for innovation.

Let us understand this by taking an example of going to a reputed restaurant and a local dhaba. In a reputed restaurant there would a special person appointed to do a particular job , a team of specialized chefs to make the most exotic dishes, specialized performers to entertain, well trained waiters etc., while in a local dhaba there would hardly be two or three persons doing the same job. Here, the work is suitably divided with a hint of parallelism, such that, if one person fails on a job, the whole shop won’t suffer. By contrast, if you consider all of these tasks being done by one single person, the level of dependency on him reaches a whole new level. In essence, there’s no person-based but process-based work involved in modern management.

Towards the end of the session, but this time there was also a bid to become the CEO of the project, a mid level manager and a worker but due to shortage of time the activity was postponed to the next session.

I think some part of the movie "Modern Times" shows how a craftsman work in a mordern business world 

TAKE AWAYS from the session:

·         Essential difference in the working of a craftsman and a businessman

·         Specialisation, its pros and cons

·         3Es of management

·         Complexity of management 

DAY2: Craftsmanship and Business Management

The lecture started with distribution of dices, and with bidding for tower-building from those dices, Anvesh Cippali quoted the highest and fetched the chance to build the dice tower. Keeping every dice patiently he managed to keep 16 dices on intact and avoided going further. Prof. Mandi’s conclusion on this was: Doing a business like this is identical to Craftmanship, once you have reached an optimum limit you refrain from going further, thus such business cannot grow. Also he clarified that there is no management in doing such as business as the person is managing things single-handedly or building the tower on a single base.

He demonstrated another such problem, the problem in big firms, when these firms hire people or so to say managers they have to decide a job description for them, most of the times at the initial levels of management people are assigned the task of managing/monitoring the worker class, that is at the very base of the hierarchy there is a worker solving the problem statement and we have a chain of managers guiding him to do the things the ‘right way’. A group of people from our class joined in for this demonstration wherein one person became the worker who was blindfolded and was ordered just to follow the instructions and do accordingly, remaining seven were trying to instruct him on how to do it. We soon found the tower falling on which the working student’s response was: “ Many people were guiding me, I got confused”. On this Prof. Mandi said this is what happens actually in many companies, and the worker class almost everywhere do not want their managers, they already know how to work. He also added that generally in a company the top and the bottom levels have a clear idea of their job profiles but the managers in between have somewhat ambiguous roles to play which many a times make the working class frustrated.

Theory X and Theory Y in managing a comapny:

Theory X

Here management assumes employees are inherently lazy and will avoid work if they can and that they inherently dislike work and thus they need to be supervised every now and then. So, this theory is a bit pessimistic towards employees and appreciate authoritarian rule by the boss.

Theory Y

Here management assumes employees are hard working and self motivated, they love their job and need not require monitoring every now and then. So, this theory is optimistic towards employees and demands independence and self control of them.

Looking at a different perspective, both a manager and a worker can be good or bad depending on their individual personalities, but being good to something could also means being bad at something, i.e. a manager may be pushing employees hard on targets so he is bad for them but for the company he is a good manager as he is submitting the desired output in time. So, let’s try to analyse all the combinations of the workers and managers and see which combination is the best for the industry.

Image Credit: Ishan Verma

Type1: Hful M, GW: Both manager and worker work in tandem to make the company grow exceptionally

Type2: Hles M,GW: Manager puts more burden of workers and doesn’t let them do the work independently, thus frustrating them

Type3: Hful M,BW: Manager is unnecessarily optimistic, he even takes the laziness of the employees in good sense which eventually makes the company run very slowly

Type4: Hles M,BW: Here the employees are not eager to work and the manager knows it, hence he always keeps an eye on them and pressurize them to work

I believe the best combination for the company is Type1 and the worst is Type3.