Goal Setting and Management - Tower Building

Never thought building a tower with small wooden cubes could be so enlightening. But as I said before, leave it to Prasad Sir to find a lesson in anything.

This time we were given the following table and asked to write our analysis in the last row.

Discussion related to the various factors given above


Gap if any between Tower height Performance so far achieved and Achievable performance of tower (Factor 3 and 7)


In Sc1, the height achieved was equal to the achievable height. Though the target was achieved and the management might be commended, the limits of productivity were not pushed and hence potential was wasted.
In Sc2, even the achievable performance was not reached. This shows poor planning and wastage of the collective intellectual resources of the team.
In Sc3, scenario 2 is repeated but with a greater intensity. The result is same, that is the team did not utilize their full potential and performed below expectations.
In Sc4, the above scenarios are repeated with the worst effect as the gap between their actual and achievable performance was the greatest.

Gap if any between goal proposed by the manager and mutually agreed goal by team (Factor 4 and 6)
In any scenario, the goal that a manager sets for his personnel would be higher or equal to the goal that the team sets for itself. This is due to the presence of people with diverse background, experience, knowledge and judgement.
In Sc1, not only the overall aspirations of the group are low, the target set by the team is even lower. This organisation is headed for some very tough times ahead as the competition only gets tougher.
In Sc2, the manager is able to convince the team regarding the potential of the group and consequently the target set by the manager is not lowered by the team. I would say this scenario is the best one out of all the four given scenarios.
In Sc3, though the aspirations are high, the manager is not able to convince the team of their own potential. It should be remembered all the while that it is the manager who is responsible for the team's performance; in fact that is his Raison d'être.
Sc4 represents a grave situation for the organisation as not only the team, but also the manager has very low sense of the true potential of the organisation. Such companies, despite being extremely promising, would fade out in today's fast-paced world.

Gap if any between goal proposed by the manger and the goal proposed by the worker(Factor 4 & 5)

The manager in the first three scenarios seems to be Theory Y manager; he assumes that the employees are highly motivated and enthusiastic and sets a high target for them.
In Sc1, the employees are either complacent or are not confident or trusting of their own capabilities.
Same is the case with Sc2 and Sc3 also. The employees have the same attitude as above.
In Sc4, while the goal set by the manager is low, the workers have high faith in their abilities and are highly motivated, and hence set a higher goal for themselves.

Gap if any between goal proposed by the worker and mutually agreed goal by team (Factor 5 and 6)


Sc1 shows that while the goal set by the workers is low, manager has been able to motivate them to some extent and the final target lies somewhat in the middle.
Sc2 shows a leader present as a manager. He has been able to convince workers who are either very lazy or highly under-confident.
Sc3 also shows that though the manager has set higher goals, the workers have been able to get them reduced to a level they feel achievable.
Sc4 depicts what can be called a poor management. Though the workers have set a high target for themselves, the manager has been unable to appreciate the capabilities of his own team. These managers are always an anchor weighing down the performance of the company and eventually even the workers become complacent.

Gap if any between actual performance achieved and goal mutually agreed by manger and the worker (Factor 6 and 7)In Sc1 and Sc4 the expectations are exceeded as the actual height is more than the height previously envisaged.
In Sc3 it is exactly equal while in Sc2 the height has actually reduced. This might probably be due to the unrealistically high expectations by the manager of his employees. A manager should have a correct estimate of his team's capacities and capabilities.

Gap if any between actual performance achieved and achievable goal (Factor 7 and 3)Barring Sc1, the achievable goal is higher than the goal finally achieved, in varying degrees. It is a manager's job to properly assess the capacities and capabilities of his team and set goals accordingly so that an optimum, but increasingly higher, balance is reached between team's potential and actual performance.
Gap if any between actual performance achieved and the potential (Factor 7 and 8)The actual performance of the team is the sum total of the assessment of the manager of his team and himself, and the self-assessment of the team of the organisation's capacities and capabilities. Care has to be taken at every step of the way - assessing, planning, target setting and execution - so that the final result is as high as possible. Ultimately it should lead to an ever upward spiral towards the potential.


Cheers Gagan ..:):)

The MonkManShip or more aptly TEAMMANSHIP

So we saw a video in the last class. I don't know about everyone, but I found it interesting. It was a nice departure from the normal text-book study method, and that's true about the whole POM course here in NITIE. In fact, that's what an MBA education should be, because a picture is worth a thousand words. Coming back to the movie...
It is about three Chinese monks who live in a monastery on the top of the mountain. It's really fun to watch.


Background:-
After the cultural revolution and the fall of the political Gang of Four in 1976, the film was one of the first animations created as part of the rebirth period. It is also referred to as The Three Buddhist Priests. The film is based on the ancient Chinese proverb "One monk will shoulder two buckets of water, two monks will share the load, but add a third and no one will want to fetch water." If you watch the film, you'll notice that the film does not contain any dialogues, allowing it to be watched by any culture, and a different music instrument signifies each monk. It was released in 1980.



Interpretation :-
The movie can be interpreted to understand certain management principles too.


When the 1st monk was alone, he was solely responsible for whatever happens at the temple, and hence did his work diligently. Here the productivity was maximum as there were no distractions and no opportunities to shun responsibility.


Then a 2nd monk enters the picture. This leads to the 1st monk trying to kart off the work to the 2nd monk, who soon realizes what's going on. So they come up with a solution where both of them carry a single bucket. Here it can be observed that the productivity has reduced as they can carry only a single bucket in one pass. This could have been avoided if they both had assumed responsibility and had come up with a solution like each bringing 2 buckets of water on alternate days.
In any case, this is an example of continuous innovation. When the circumstances changed, the process was changed too so that the result could be optimised.


During the course of my employment I have worked with people from at least 5 different nationalities, and I have learned that it is not often that two people have similar opinions about people and situations. Everyone on my ship was almost equally competent and experienced and being more qualified was certainly not enough to persuade them to go about working in a certain way.


When asked in class about the solution to the problem of sharing load, a lot of them came up with different solutions. But the best solutions are always the simplest ones. here too the solution was quite simple - measure the centre using a scale.


Towards the end we see that the monastery catches fire. When this happens, all the monks forget their hostility and try to put out the fire. The dilemma of who will carry the water was quickly forgotten and a system arose out of the initial chaos. They all put out the fire quickly. Drastic innovation adds an altogether new dimension to the process and fundamentally changes it. That's what the monks did when faced with the fire at their temple.


Many a times crisis situations are encountered where any kind of system is in place. I myself faced several of those when I was working on ships. However, every time the crisis hit, the entire team came together to solve the issue and take the ship back to the normal state. Forgotten were the hierarchies; gone were the differences. In one instance, the ship's crew fought fire for 52 hours non-stop. Not only the ship's entire crew came together, but a ship passing nearby also lent it's help in the form of human resources.


In the end we see that the monks resolve the situation by fixing a pulley and dividing their roles - hooking the bucket, roping it in and transporting to the monastery. A fairly simple solution!!

Humans have a propensity to stay the same. However, that's not how nature works. As they say - Change is the only unchanging phenomena in this world. In keeping with this, it is important that new ways of improvement are continuously implemented. Change should not be the last resort.


And before you leave, I must tell you that this film won a few awards too:
Won the outstanding film award at China's Ministry of Culture.
Won the Best animated film prize at the first Golden Rooster Awards in 1981.
Won four international awards including a Silver Bear for Short Film at the 32nd Berlin Film Festival in 1982.


Cheers Gagan :):)

KhanAcademy.com-Lessons of Management

Innovation can be found in every nook and corner of the country.Everytime you see an apple phone the words that come out is "wow".That is exactly how i felt when I stumbled upon this websitehttp://khanacademy.com. It contains a free online collection of more than 3,200 micro lectures via video tutorials stored on YouTube teaching mathematics, history, healthcare and medicine, finance, physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, economics, cosmology, organic chemistry, American civics, art history, macroeconomics and microeconomics, and computer science.

What makes it more attractive is the fact that all these lessons have been recorded by an MIT & Harvard graduate in a closet at home with the help of a cheap headset. His name is Salman Khan.And obviously along with the the main ingredient is very important i.e. Passion. Yes, only the passion to do something for others combined with intellect can help create such an impact as Khanacademy did. The mission of this non-profit organization may not sound very unique but serves a very strong purpose.


"It is our mission to accelerate learning for students of all ages."

 So how did this website plan to accelerate learning. The strategy was to invert the normal rhythms of school, so that lectures are viewed on the kids’ own time and homework is done at school. Though it may sound very weird actually, it actually makes a whole lot of sense when we realize that students need someone around to help them with homework rather than when they are learning. This simple but innovative concept is now actually helping millions of kids around the world improve their grades and also enhance their learning potential.

The whole concept of virtual teaching and practice seems to be based on a very old method of one-to-one tutoring. This method had been proved to very effective but was always considered expensive until now. The most impressive part is the way Khan teaches those lessons. He always assumes that he is teaching a seven-year old and therefore he never skips any step (which generally teachers do) while solving anything. He has an uncanny ability to inhabit the mind of someone who doesn’t already understand something.

Khanacademy being a non-profit organization has significant backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Google. Also, from time time, it has received several donations.