Shyam's Slide Share Presentations

VIRTUAL LIBRARY "KNOWLEDGE - KORRIDOR"

This article/post is from a third party website. The views expressed are that of the author. We at Capacity Building & Development may not necessarily subscribe to it completely. The relevance & applicability of the content is limited to certain geographic zones.It is not universal.

TO VIEW MORE CONTENT ON THIS SUBJECT AND OTHER TOPICS, Please visit KNOWLEDGE-KORRIDOR our Virtual Library

Showing posts with label John Kotter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Kotter. Show all posts

Friday, December 12, 2014

Why Large Companies Can't Innovate 12-13


Why Large Companies Can't Innovate



Large companies are trimmed to execute established business models. The demise of e.g. Eastman Kodak, Nokia, or Blockbuster illustrate that this is insufficient in the 21st century. Companies that want to escape this fate need to excel at execution AND the creation of new growth engines at the same time.
There is nothing wrong with being good at execution. It allows companies to get the most out of a known and successful business model. The challenge is to improve one's existing business models while creating an organizational space to invent business models for the future at the same time. The reason this is so difficult is because both require very different cultures, skills, processes, and incentives. Watch the video below to understand how they differ.

I often hear people say companies need to create an agile innovation culture. That's nonsense and even dangerous. It's great to have an outstanding execution engine as long as you are able to build an innovation engine as well. That's where you will experiment with new growth engines by relentlessly testing business models and value propositions.

There are a couple of great thinkers on this topic. In The Other Side of InnovationGovindarajan and Trimble show that the execution and innovation engines need to work in partnership. In The End of Competitive Advantage Rita McGrath shows that the urge to hold on to one’s established competitive advantage is a vicious trap. She establishes the factors central to building the dynamic enterprise of tomorrow.
Another favorite of mine is John Kotter. In the video below he shows that the organizational structure predominant today is over 100 years old. It was not built to be fast and agile, but to meet the daily demands of running an enterprise.  Kotter advocates a new system that he calls the "dual operating system" in which execution and innovation operate in concert.
Dr. John Kotter on what he calls the "Dual Operating System"

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Difficulties for Women Bridging Racial, Generational, and Global Divides 04-17

Difficulties for Women Bridging Racial, Generational, and Global Divides

A symposium at Harvard Business School delved into "intersectionality"—the seemingly obvious yet complex idea that gender interacts with other axes of inequality such as race, age, class, and ethnicity.


In the months leading up to the 2008 presidential election, CNN ran a story titled "Gender or Race: Black Women Voters Face Tough Choices in South Carolina." The "tough choice" in question: should they vote according to race (Barack Obama) or gender (Hillary Clinton)? Scores of readers chastised the news network for suggesting that black females would cast votes based on gender or race rather on candidates' political platforms.
During that same period, Oprah Winfrey endorsed Obama for president, angering many of her female fans. For example, "She's choosing her race over her gender," wrote one reader in the comments section of Oprah.com. "Oprah—you should be ashamed of yourself!"
“LET’S REPLACE OUR JUDGMENT WITH CURIOSITY”
Among scholars, it's called "intersectionality"—the obvious yet complex idea that gender interacts with other axes of inequality such as race, age, class, and ethnicity. This was the theme of the second annual Gender and Work Symposium, Relationships Among Women: Bridging Racial, Generational, and Global Divides, held April 3 and 4 at Harvard Business School. Participants included more than 100 academics and business practitioners from across the United States; about 90 percent of them were women.
"I wanted to…make it clear that we really are taking an intersectional approach to gender," said Robin Ely, Diane Doerge Wilson Professor of Business Administration at HBS, who co-organized the event with HBS Associate Professor Amy Cuddy. Introducing the symposium, Ely talked about how intersectionality can complicate workplace and societal support systems among women. Would-be support systems often focus solely on the fact that women are women, ignoring the differences among them.
Conversations across gender and race lines can be difficult, Ely said. "We often judge or we feel we are being judged. But when we're in those places it's very difficult to learn. There needs to be a space between being perfect and being racist, classist, et cetera." Instead, she said, "Let's replace our judgment and our fears with curiosity."
Ely posed several questions to the participants: What gets in the way of women supporting women? How am I part of the problem? How can I be part of the solution? What perspective am I missing?

RACED AND GENDERED

The symposium's keynote speaker was Paula Giddings, E. A. Woodson 1922 Professor of Afro-American Studies at Smith College. In a talk titled "An Historical Perspective on Feminism," she discussed the intersection of the abolitionist and women's rights movements—and how attitudes of the nineteenth century mirrored those surrounding the 2008 presidential election. Pinning race against gender is historically commonplace, she said, but it's a false dichotomy because "we are all raced, and we are all gendered."
Giddings talked of "racist, classist vitriol" in writings by renowned nineteenth-century feminists Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For example, she referred to a piece in which Stanton wondered whether freed male slaves might hamper feminism. "It becomes a serious question whether we had better step aside and see 'Sambo' walk into the kingdom first," Giddings read, quoting Stanton. (Stanton went on to write, "This is the negro's hour. Are we sure that he, once entrenched in his inalienable rights, may not be an added power to hold us at bay?")
“DEPENDING HEAVILY ON TOKEN WOMEN COULD BE PROBLEMATIC”
The rhetoric surrounding Obama vs. Clinton was reminiscent of that dynamic, Giddings said. "We keep falling into the same trap again and again."
Giddings also pointed out that initiatives to help disenfranchised groups often focus on either race or gender. For example, Obama last year launched My Brother's Keeper, an initiative to create opportunities for boys and young men of color. There is no equivalent initiative for girls of color. "How can we miss the fact that girls have trouble, too?" Giddings asked.
In a Q&A after Giddings' talk, a black participant acknowledged her personal struggle with the race/gender divide. "I still feel I have to choose between working for white women and working for black men," she said.

GENDER RELATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

Sessions at the symposium focused on bridging race, bridging generations, bridging the global divide among women, and ways in which gender imbalance can fuel dysfunctional relationships among women in the workplace. In each, experts presented the findings of extensive studies.
Ely discussed a line of research in which she interviewed women at several law firms, noting both positive and negative interactions among peers and supervisors. In terms of positivity versus negativity, the consistent mediating factor was whether the women considered their gender to be a detriment to success. In short, women who didn't feel hindered by their gender at work tended to have healthier workplace relationships with each other than those who did.
Other presenters challenged the common notion that organizations can fuel gender equality by placing a few token women in the top ranks—assuming they will reach out to help other women break through the glass ceiling. "If this solution is working, it's moving at a glacial pace," said Michelle Duguid, an assistant professor at Washington University's Olin Business School who conducted research with Denise Lewin Lloyd, an associate professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
The team's research suggested the contrary: that the higher a woman rose to power, the less likely she might be to help other women do the same. According to their studies, female tokens in "high-prestige workgroups" showed less of a preference for female job candidates than did female tokens in "low-prestige workgroups."
The findings indicated that tokenism can produce perceptions of threat among token women in power: value threat (the concern that the token woman is not a valued member of the group); competitive threat (the concern that another woman will be valued more); and favoritism threat (the concern that supporting another woman will be seen as illegitimate favoritism).
But if women comprised the majority of a high-prestige workgroup, they were much more likely to support and hire other women, the study showed.
"Depending heavily on token women could be problematic," Duguid said, adding that organizations can foster gender equality by making it an organization-wide issue, rather than leaving the problem up to the women.
On that note, Leah Sheppard, a doctoral student at the University of British Columbia, discussed the widespread notion that women are obligated to take care of each other in the workplace—more so than men are obligated to take care of female employees. Anecdotally, she noted the public outcry when Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer disallowed employees from working at home, undoubtedly making life harder for many working mothers. But Best Buy adopted a no-telecommuting policy a month after Yahoo! did, and male CEO Hubert Joly faced significantly less media coverage for the move.
Sheppard presented findings from several experiments exploring the perception that women are cattier than men. In one experiment, participants were divided into groups and asked to assess a series of hypothetical workplace conflicts between two managers.
Each group reviewed identical situations—except for the names of the arguing characters: Adam and Steven (two men), Adam and Sarah (a man and a woman), or Sarah and Anna (two women). All else being equal, the participants offered the most negative assessments for the conflicts involving Sarah and Anna—both in terms of the likelihood that they could repair their relationship, and the likelihood that their argument would hurt workplace morale and productivity.
Sheppard noted the preponderance of negative female relationship stereotypes in the public lexicon. Indeed, when two men argue, nobody refers to the discussion as a catfight.
"Some of these stereotypes could be dangerous and could create self-fulfilling prophecies," she said.

MANAGEMMENT IS NOT LEADERSHIP 04-17


MANAGEMMENT IS NOT LEADERSHIP


Listen to how most people talk in everyday conversation, and you'll find that they often use the words "management" and "leadership" interchangeably. If they do make a distinction in meaning, it is usually in reference to levels in a hierarchy. People at the very top provide "leadership"—whatever that is—or at least they are supposed to. People in the middle do the "management," again with little clarity about what that means. This way of thinking is inaccurate and increasingly troublesome.
Management is a set of well-known processes that help organizations produce reliable, efficient, and predictable results. Really good management helps us do well what we more or less know how to do regardless of the size, complexity, or geographic reach of an enterprise. These processes include planning, budgeting, structuring jobs, staffing jobs, giving people time-tested policies and procedures to guide their actions, measuring their results, and problem solving when results do not fit the plan.
Management as we know it today is almost entirely a later-twentieth-century invention. Although it has roots that go back centuries (as in running the Roman Empire), what we see today is a very modern phenomenon. Management now requires great skill. And both what it is and what it can achieve would have been difficult for even a well-educated person in the year 1900 to fully grasp. Our sophisticated modern-day management processes did not exist in or prior to the nineteenth century because they simply weren't needed. After the Civil War in the United States, for example, there were only a few hundred organizations with over a hundred employees. 
Today the number of US organizations with over a hundred employees is well over a hundred thousand. In the year 1900, the number of firms that did business around the world, on all continents, was very close to zero. Today the number is so large it is hard to calculate. Without competent management, the organizations that we have created in the last century, and that we continue to create today, could not function. Without management, chaos would reign. Enterprises would fall apart and go out of business quickly. Management is an incredibly important invention, yet the average person-even the average manager-has no real appreciation of what a marvel it is.
But management is not leadership.
Leadership is about setting a direction. It's about creating a vision, empowering and inspiring people to want to achieve the vision, and enabling them to do so with energy and speed through an effective strategy. In its most basic sense, leadership is about mobilizing a group of people to jump into a better future.
In many people's minds, great leadership tends to be associated with grand, larger-than-life figures- Abraham Lincoln, Queen Victoria-who mobilize their countrymen to take on some great cause and succeed beyond imagination. It is easy to think that such imposing and rare figures shape history through the power of their leadership, and only their leadership. But that was never the whole story, and we know for sure that this is most certainly not the way life works now.
Today you can find all sorts of people in all sorts of situations helping to provide at least some degree of leadership. A project engineer might take some initiative. Because of his or her leadership, a small group of people is mobilized to find and execute something new, creating results which others in the organization would have thought nearly impossible. You can find leadership coming from people who are officially called middle managers. And, conversely, you can sometimes find very little leadership in the actions of those near the top of a hierarchy.
More than anything, both today and throughout history, leadership has been associated with change. It's not about mobilizing a group to act the same way they have always acted. It has to do with changing people and their organizations so they can leap into a different and better future, no matter the threats or barriers or shifting circumstances.
In businesses today, leadership is the central force mobilizing people to create something that did not previously exist. That is, leadership creates an enterprise in the first place. And leadership takes existing enterprises and finds new opportunities, makes changes to capitalize on those opportunities, and moves firms into a future where they can grow and prosper.
Without sufficient leadership in a rapidly changing world, organizations become static and eventually fail. And by sufficient leadership, in organizations of any size, I do not mean a grand CEO or executive committee. There is no way that a single figure or a small team at the top of the hierarchy can provide all the leadership that is needed. A superman or -woman-even one supervising an exceptional group of managers, who in turn supervise highly talented individual contributors- can no longer do the job.
So which is more important? Management or leadership? To begin to answer that question, we need to look again at what role each plays. Management ensures the stability and efficiency necessary to run today's enterprise reliably. Leadership creates needed change to take advantage of new opportunities, to avoid serious threats, and to create and execute new strategies. The point is that management and leadership are very different, and when organizations are of any size and exist in environments which are volatile, both are essential to helping them win.
This takes us to possibly the most fundamental problem that organizations of all sorts are now facing. Any successful organization older than ten years and with more than thirty employees tends to have many people attending to the managerial chores and doing so at least adequately. It has to do so unless it has no short-term performance demands placed on it. Otherwise it can die, and rather quickly. But in most cases-especially when we are talking about more mature and larger organizations-sufficient leadership just isn't there. There is a substantial volume of research that draws this conclusion, and there is no credible research that I know of that supports the opposite conclusion.
As long as the world is not changing much, the competition is not too fierce, and the strategic challenges are limited, you can survive with this reality. Performance measures may look very good. But: A world that is not very turbulent? A context in which competition for customers or budgets is not very fierce? This world is fast disappearing on us.