Saturday, May 14, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Poor Larry was trapped
The manner in which proposal management was conducted under the leadership of the VP was chaotic. Bid planning was done manually and haphazardly. Not a single soul in the consulting organization liked working on bids. It was almost like having one's worst nightmare when one was asked to manage bids. Larry had more than his fair share of the problem and just couldn't cope with such a chaotic place.
A couple of months passed and the situation didn't change at all. Though Larry made a number of recommendations to the VP on how to change the place, they fell on deaf ears and nothing was ever done.
The situation was unsustainable to a point that the VP realized that he had a made a serious mistake. The role should not have been created from the beginning. The proper way was to make the role redundant and offer Larry a redundancy. But this would expose his mistake, thought the VP. As a result, he started making unreasonable demands on Larry and blaming Larry on tasks that he was not supposed to do.
Poor Larry was trapped...
A couple of months passed and the situation didn't change at all. Though Larry made a number of recommendations to the VP on how to change the place, they fell on deaf ears and nothing was ever done.
The situation was unsustainable to a point that the VP realized that he had a made a serious mistake. The role should not have been created from the beginning. The proper way was to make the role redundant and offer Larry a redundancy. But this would expose his mistake, thought the VP. As a result, he started making unreasonable demands on Larry and blaming Larry on tasks that he was not supposed to do.
Poor Larry was trapped...
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Blaming game starts...
The consulting business division of El Caro had a number of practices attached to it. It had a bid management 'function' whose purpose was to draft and submit proposals to customers. One of the significant problems in this consulting division was that it had no dedicated resources in this bid 'function'. The bids were done either by assigning someone who were 'on the bench' (which means they have nothing else to do but spending time in their workbenches - a popular jargon in the consulting industry) or by taking someone out of their consulting engagement.
As a result, the VP of the business consulting division, Steve, went out and looked for someone who could improve the process of putting a bunch of half-timers or part-timers on bids. Eventually, they found someone in the practice who could do this job 'part-time'. That person left in a couple of months later. Then, another person was found and, again, he took on the roles on 'part-time' as well. Guess what - that person left a couple of months' later as well.
Eventually, they established this role as a full-time role and hired Larry. Larry was so enthused with the tasks because he thought he was able to make a difference to this division. He worked very hard to fulfill his roles, which were laid out to him by the VP. He was told that he did not need to work directly on bids and his role was to increase the efficiency in allocation of 'part-time' bid resources and raise the quality of the bids.
We probably need to pause here to think strategically whether this will ever work...
As a result, the VP of the business consulting division, Steve, went out and looked for someone who could improve the process of putting a bunch of half-timers or part-timers on bids. Eventually, they found someone in the practice who could do this job 'part-time'. That person left in a couple of months later. Then, another person was found and, again, he took on the roles on 'part-time' as well. Guess what - that person left a couple of months' later as well.
Eventually, they established this role as a full-time role and hired Larry. Larry was so enthused with the tasks because he thought he was able to make a difference to this division. He worked very hard to fulfill his roles, which were laid out to him by the VP. He was told that he did not need to work directly on bids and his role was to increase the efficiency in allocation of 'part-time' bid resources and raise the quality of the bids.
We probably need to pause here to think strategically whether this will ever work...
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Communal and consumption perspectives of social media a literature search
Check out this SlideShare Presentation: 1260 views
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Power Poisoning in El Caro
Earlier, I said "we might be so obsessed with the grand management ideas that we lose sight of reality and our human nature. We cannot assume everyone is kind, helpful and nice to us. Those who associate good qualities to people who are in senior ranks need to be warned." The inspiration for me is that if we cannot explain the behaviors from the grand management theories, how can we account for such behaviors from a broader perspective.
Prof. Bob Sutton says to me that there are two books that can shed different lights to the El Caro case. Jeff Pfeffer's book Power and the Blame Game by Ben Dattner. Prof. Bob Sutton's own view of Power Poisoning is certainly spot on. One of the characters in this study, VP of a business consulting division, Stephen, uses power to cover up his erroneous decisions by blaming a new, lower rank employee in his team. The lower rank employee, of course, has absolutely no power base and cannot protect his innocence on this occasion. The combination of power and blame is absolutely the ammunition of an unscrupulous executive. The beauty of Ben Dattner's book is that he talks about the disastrous impact of such malicious use of power and blame on the organization.
Prof. Bob Sutton says to me that there are two books that can shed different lights to the El Caro case. Jeff Pfeffer's book Power and the Blame Game by Ben Dattner. Prof. Bob Sutton's own view of Power Poisoning is certainly spot on. One of the characters in this study, VP of a business consulting division, Stephen, uses power to cover up his erroneous decisions by blaming a new, lower rank employee in his team. The lower rank employee, of course, has absolutely no power base and cannot protect his innocence on this occasion. The combination of power and blame is absolutely the ammunition of an unscrupulous executive. The beauty of Ben Dattner's book is that he talks about the disastrous impact of such malicious use of power and blame on the organization.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
My take on responsibility and leadership
I would like to share a case study here. It's happened in a business division of a global organization. Let's call this fictitious Firm El Caro. I will unfold the story over the next couple of months so we can all absorb lessons learnt.
Today, I cruised to Dr Bacharach's blog and found an exciting article called 'Responsibility and Leadership'.
I like the article because its ideas resonate with the story. The article says "Leadership is not all about getting your company into the Fortune 500 or selling the most widgets". This is spot on because this is exactly what has happened in the story. I wouldn't call it leadership at all as there was none there. The senior management did nothing but chasing up numbers, forecasts and KPIs almost all days every week. Jon Bul Dau's words hit the bull's eye. The value of the division is its people because it is in the IT consulting business. That's where the management should invest.
Leadership is about becoming aware of what needs to be done and doing it. It’s about helping those in need of guidance to overcome obstacles and ultimately succeed. - this is so true. In fact, the firm that is in question did the exact opposite. The VP in the firm is fixated in his views and reluctant to take ideas from others. He has no interest to help others to succeed - his only interest is to cover his tracks to save his skin. We might be so obsessed with the grand management ideas that we lose sight of reality and our human nature. We cannot assume everyone is kind, helpful and nice to us. Those who associate good qualities to people who are in senior ranks need to be warned. The character in the story lost his job to learn the lesson. Is it worth it? Every cent of it. Because it teaches us a feedback model.
One input is all the grand theories of leadership, innovation and business agility. So, this is one's anchor and there is nothing wrong about it. On the other hand, one needs to monitor the reality of the firm to understand whether the management will embrace these theories. The mistake that the character in the story made was that he misjudged the VP of the firm and was too naive to believe he would share his ideas.
Monday, June 14, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Google denies its leaving China but its future in China remains bleak
A week later, Google now denies it ever wants to leave China. Like I said in my previous post, it is hard to believe why Google would do that except bluffing and the price it needs to pay for bluffing is difficult to estimate. I don't really know what chips does Google have for bargaining. The way I see it is China has all the aces and kings.. Google has shown its drawn card and it has nothing that nobody doesn't know..
Why don't we read a commentary -
Google's move to publicly denounce censorship and accuse Chinese hackers of launching an attack that resulted in the theft of its intellectual property was seen as a bold move.
"We have never seen a company take on the Chinese government in such a public and confrontational manner," said James McGregor, senior counselor to public affairs consultancy Apco Worldwide.
But it may backfire as signs emerge the firm has already damaged its prospects in China regardless of whether it carries out its threat to quit the country.
JPMorgan analyst Dick Wei said he thinks Google's relationship with the Chinese government is already strained and if the firm decides to stay, it could be subject to tighter regulations.
UBS analyst Wang Jinjin also believes Google's relationship with advertisers has been damaged as a result of the threat and that they will choose Baidu Inc over the firm.
On Saturday, Yahoo was dragged into the growing row after its Chinese partner Alibaba Group slammed its statements supporting Google.
Playing down the concerns raised by Google, rival Microsoft Corp said it had no plan to pull out of China.
Microsoft has high hopes for its Bing Internet search engine in China, which has only a small share of the market but could benefit if Google, the No. 2 player behind dominating local rival Baidu Inc, pulls out."
Why don't we read a commentary -
Google's move to publicly denounce censorship and accuse Chinese hackers of launching an attack that resulted in the theft of its intellectual property was seen as a bold move.
"We have never seen a company take on the Chinese government in such a public and confrontational manner," said James McGregor, senior counselor to public affairs consultancy Apco Worldwide.
But it may backfire as signs emerge the firm has already damaged its prospects in China regardless of whether it carries out its threat to quit the country.
JPMorgan analyst Dick Wei said he thinks Google's relationship with the Chinese government is already strained and if the firm decides to stay, it could be subject to tighter regulations.
UBS analyst Wang Jinjin also believes Google's relationship with advertisers has been damaged as a result of the threat and that they will choose Baidu Inc over the firm.
On Saturday, Yahoo was dragged into the growing row after its Chinese partner Alibaba Group slammed its statements supporting Google.
Playing down the concerns raised by Google, rival Microsoft Corp said it had no plan to pull out of China.
Microsoft has high hopes for its Bing Internet search engine in China, which has only a small share of the market but could benefit if Google, the No. 2 player behind dominating local rival Baidu Inc, pulls out."
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Google's impending exit from China
I am absolutely stunned when Google announced its intention to exit out of China. How could this happen? Google's search engine is being used by hundreds of millions of internet users across the globe, and its withdrawal from China, if it becomes true, will not only affect the internet users in China but anyone who looks for information in China.
Once it exits from China, Google will either stop or drop the priority in cataloguing any information that is related to China.. Think about it this way, China will become more distanced from the western world and people in China will lose to be a part of the globally connected world - a tragedy in China so much so that people in China are holding vigil to bid farewell to Google.
The market is never short of speculations about the reasons behind Google's move. Rumours have it that the censorship issue is a cover up for Google to exit from China due to its poor business performance.
As a commercial enterprise, Google's decisions need to be accountable to its shareholders and if it tries to cover up its business mistakes by diverting people's attention to the censorship issue, it would be hard to believe.
On the other hand, if the issue hinges on China's iron grip on censorship, as Google claimed, then it tells me either of two things. One, the issue must have a directly impact on Google's business which it perceives as a major obstacle to continue its busines in China. Two, Google is making a superstrong case against China's stance on internet censorship and puts it before business, which again is hard to believe.
The most difficult part to accept is why would Google give up the capital - physical, intellectual and social - it has invested in China over the last five years? Ever since the credit crisis, China has proved to be the most resilient economy and continues to grow. Why would Google leave China out of its strategy?
In the end, it is the leadership, competence and capability of an enterprise that make it successful. If Google do not have the essentials to meet the China challenge, I can understand why it pulls the plug. But, again, I am not sure. However, I am sure about one thing, Google's shareholders must be jumping up and down and wondering what's going on..
Once it exits from China, Google will either stop or drop the priority in cataloguing any information that is related to China.. Think about it this way, China will become more distanced from the western world and people in China will lose to be a part of the globally connected world - a tragedy in China so much so that people in China are holding vigil to bid farewell to Google.
The market is never short of speculations about the reasons behind Google's move. Rumours have it that the censorship issue is a cover up for Google to exit from China due to its poor business performance.
As a commercial enterprise, Google's decisions need to be accountable to its shareholders and if it tries to cover up its business mistakes by diverting people's attention to the censorship issue, it would be hard to believe.
On the other hand, if the issue hinges on China's iron grip on censorship, as Google claimed, then it tells me either of two things. One, the issue must have a directly impact on Google's business which it perceives as a major obstacle to continue its busines in China. Two, Google is making a superstrong case against China's stance on internet censorship and puts it before business, which again is hard to believe.
The most difficult part to accept is why would Google give up the capital - physical, intellectual and social - it has invested in China over the last five years? Ever since the credit crisis, China has proved to be the most resilient economy and continues to grow. Why would Google leave China out of its strategy?
In the end, it is the leadership, competence and capability of an enterprise that make it successful. If Google do not have the essentials to meet the China challenge, I can understand why it pulls the plug. But, again, I am not sure. However, I am sure about one thing, Google's shareholders must be jumping up and down and wondering what's going on..
Friday, November 13, 2009
Are Americans becoming socially isolated - result from a US survey?
Today, I came across a survey 'Social Isolation and New Technology' published by the Pew Internet and American Life Project. Though I am not familiar with it and according to the information from its website, it is "one of seven projects that make up the Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit "fact tank" that provides information on the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America and the world."
One of the key findings of the survey is that Americans are not as isolated as what most people fear to be, based on a 2006 study that argued "since1985 Americans have become more socially isolated, the size of their discussion networks has declined, and the diversity of those people with whom they discuss important matters has decreased."
Importantly, the survey reports that "most internet activities have little or a positive relationship to local (community) activity", and 'social networking services such as Facebook in particular are associated with having a more diverse social network".
This is really something as it provides evidence that refute a common belief that the use of internet and communications technologies would reduce people's participation in social communities. The survey goes on to say 'social networking services, such as Facebook, provide new opportunities for users to maintain core social networks. Core ties can be highly influential in decision making and exposure to ideas, issues, and opinion'.
Finally, it concludes this point with this claim 'this makes core network members prime targets for marketers and interest groups who may want to use social networking services to influence decision making about consumer products or political opinion'.
One of the key findings of the survey is that Americans are not as isolated as what most people fear to be, based on a 2006 study that argued "since1985 Americans have become more socially isolated, the size of their discussion networks has declined, and the diversity of those people with whom they discuss important matters has decreased."
Importantly, the survey reports that "most internet activities have little or a positive relationship to local (community) activity", and 'social networking services such as Facebook in particular are associated with having a more diverse social network".
This is really something as it provides evidence that refute a common belief that the use of internet and communications technologies would reduce people's participation in social communities. The survey goes on to say 'social networking services, such as Facebook, provide new opportunities for users to maintain core social networks. Core ties can be highly influential in decision making and exposure to ideas, issues, and opinion'.
Finally, it concludes this point with this claim 'this makes core network members prime targets for marketers and interest groups who may want to use social networking services to influence decision making about consumer products or political opinion'.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Social Media tidbits - McKinsey in Facebook
I received a copy of the Nov issue of the McKinsey Newsletter in my mailbox this morning. As expected, it publish articles in various areas that provokes thinking and feeds nutrients into the cerebral cortex. As China has been touted as the biggest goldmine in the next decade, I'm not suprised to see there is a lot of coverage about China, such as "China's retail revolution:An interview with Wal-Mart's CEO of China", "A consumer paradigm for China", "Preparing for the next Asia".
What is interesting to me comes after reading this..
Join the Discussion "Now there are more ways than ever to stay connected to McKinsey Quarterly. Participate in the Quarterly community by joining our Facebook page to discuss new articles with other Quarterly members. Follow the Quarterly on Twitter and receive timely announcements. We update our site Monday through Friday. Bookmark our home page and visit frequently to see new content and features as soon as they’re published."
...that McKinsey are in Facebook and Twitter!
I clicked the link and as I'm already a member of Facebook - hello! who else isn't anyway? I landed on its page in less than a few seconds...
Well, the first thing I notice is some of my friends have already joined its fan club and there are about 35,000 fans. McKinsey started a coupe of discussion topics that are on the newsletter since yesterday and people have started entering discussions. As usual, I found the discussions dominated by a few people that exchanged their views and opinions in a dialectic manner. However, there wasn't much of a synthesis of the arguments in the end and it often ended in a sort of half-heart apology and compromise. I think this is great as the discussion has brought the articles into our attention. Are we open to ideas, thoughts and arguments when we don't know the answers, or when we don't have a best answer for questions we're interested?
And if you're interested int he topic, McKinsey provide a link back to their website where we'll find more details about a topic, e.g. the transcript of an interview, and more comments about the topic.
I may be missing something here but I can't find any mediator in McKinsey's Facebook and its website, which is in stark contrasts to some other firms - a good example is Starbucks. McKinsey are the host of the discussion forum and we are all invited to join them. Don't they want us to feel welcomed? Don't they want us to stay there and contribute more? What happens if one is in deadlock with another person in discussions - where will we find the host, which is supposed to facilitate the discussions?
Another fact is, in the case of McKinsey, there isn't any products or services that McKinsey offer. For a manufacturer or a service provider, it will be quite obvious to know their reactions to ideas or suggestions that are put forward by their customers and, as a result, we can see whether an organization pays attention to its customers. If it does, we'll love it and if it doesn't, we will have second thoughts about its commitment.
McKinsey are in the business of creating knowledge and ideas for business and people are drawn to them for their analyses, insights and standpoints of pressing agendas. By taking part in discussions, people are contibuting their ideas and thoughts and, in a sense, helping McKinsey to accumulate more knowledge and ideas that it can 'sell'. The challenge to McKinsey is obviously in the nature of its business - how to leverage these new ideas, how to screen them, categorize, assimilate.... what I see as 'untapped' resources that need to be 'unlocked'.
What is interesting to me comes after reading this..
Join the Discussion "Now there are more ways than ever to stay connected to McKinsey Quarterly. Participate in the Quarterly community by joining our Facebook page to discuss new articles with other Quarterly members. Follow the Quarterly on Twitter and receive timely announcements. We update our site Monday through Friday. Bookmark our home page and visit frequently to see new content and features as soon as they’re published."
...that McKinsey are in Facebook and Twitter!
I clicked the link and as I'm already a member of Facebook - hello! who else isn't anyway? I landed on its page in less than a few seconds...
Well, the first thing I notice is some of my friends have already joined its fan club and there are about 35,000 fans. McKinsey started a coupe of discussion topics that are on the newsletter since yesterday and people have started entering discussions. As usual, I found the discussions dominated by a few people that exchanged their views and opinions in a dialectic manner. However, there wasn't much of a synthesis of the arguments in the end and it often ended in a sort of half-heart apology and compromise. I think this is great as the discussion has brought the articles into our attention. Are we open to ideas, thoughts and arguments when we don't know the answers, or when we don't have a best answer for questions we're interested?
And if you're interested int he topic, McKinsey provide a link back to their website where we'll find more details about a topic, e.g. the transcript of an interview, and more comments about the topic.
I may be missing something here but I can't find any mediator in McKinsey's Facebook and its website, which is in stark contrasts to some other firms - a good example is Starbucks. McKinsey are the host of the discussion forum and we are all invited to join them. Don't they want us to feel welcomed? Don't they want us to stay there and contribute more? What happens if one is in deadlock with another person in discussions - where will we find the host, which is supposed to facilitate the discussions?
Another fact is, in the case of McKinsey, there isn't any products or services that McKinsey offer. For a manufacturer or a service provider, it will be quite obvious to know their reactions to ideas or suggestions that are put forward by their customers and, as a result, we can see whether an organization pays attention to its customers. If it does, we'll love it and if it doesn't, we will have second thoughts about its commitment.
McKinsey are in the business of creating knowledge and ideas for business and people are drawn to them for their analyses, insights and standpoints of pressing agendas. By taking part in discussions, people are contibuting their ideas and thoughts and, in a sense, helping McKinsey to accumulate more knowledge and ideas that it can 'sell'. The challenge to McKinsey is obviously in the nature of its business - how to leverage these new ideas, how to screen them, categorize, assimilate.... what I see as 'untapped' resources that need to be 'unlocked'.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
If Facebook is a country, it'd be the worlds' 4th largest - a 4-minute clip that puts Social Media in real terms
I came across this video from the Teachertube which tells us how widespread of Social Media has become. The numbers shown are just staggering and huge no matter which scale we use to measure it. Following is some of the numbers quoted out of the video.
- 1 out of 8 couples married in the US last year met via social media
- iPod applications download hit 1 billion in 9 months
- If Facebook is a country, it'd be the world's 4th largest
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Why 97 percent, Twitter?
In the Web 2.0 Summit this week in San Francisco, Dan Frommer wrote up an interview between Evan Williams, CEO of Twitter, and John Battelle. Some of the comments that Williams made caught my eyes wide open.
The one question that stands out is when Williams is questioned about Twitter's business model, he can't lay out a business plan and comments that 97 percent of Twitter's focus is on product development.
Twitter has caused quite a stir in social media when it launched, holding roadshows in the US and other parts of the world. Its microblogging genre probably has many followers and Facebook has now offered same kind of feature for its members. But the key question, of course, is can Twitter make money out of it?
Twitter apparently hasn't figure it out yet. Williams reckons its focus is product development, which sounds like it is working on quite a number of new widgets in its backyard and hasn't got time to figure out its business and marketing strategies and, most importantly, a plan to generate revenues and protect market share.
In the new game of social media, market share is a benchmark to measure success even though firms are bleeding to death because of their investments in these so-called Web 2.0/3.0 gadgets. This leads to my questions: Why do we think we can always make money out of Social Media? Where is the rationale? It's definitely an exciting and fledgling platform for communications, collaboration and, for some, co-creation and co-production. But who says we can turn it into a money cruncher every step of the way?
As a result, I think Williams's focus definitely makes sense. He might share my view that it's a little premature to talk about Twitter's business plan because Twitter might not be able to make money after all. However, the concept of microblogging is worth investing as it might fit into the bigger picture of Social Media, which is a platform for communications, collaboration and co-creation. So, 97 percent sounds right for Twitter.
The one question that stands out is when Williams is questioned about Twitter's business model, he can't lay out a business plan and comments that 97 percent of Twitter's focus is on product development.
Twitter has caused quite a stir in social media when it launched, holding roadshows in the US and other parts of the world. Its microblogging genre probably has many followers and Facebook has now offered same kind of feature for its members. But the key question, of course, is can Twitter make money out of it?
Twitter apparently hasn't figure it out yet. Williams reckons its focus is product development, which sounds like it is working on quite a number of new widgets in its backyard and hasn't got time to figure out its business and marketing strategies and, most importantly, a plan to generate revenues and protect market share.
In the new game of social media, market share is a benchmark to measure success even though firms are bleeding to death because of their investments in these so-called Web 2.0/3.0 gadgets. This leads to my questions: Why do we think we can always make money out of Social Media? Where is the rationale? It's definitely an exciting and fledgling platform for communications, collaboration and, for some, co-creation and co-production. But who says we can turn it into a money cruncher every step of the way?
As a result, I think Williams's focus definitely makes sense. He might share my view that it's a little premature to talk about Twitter's business plan because Twitter might not be able to make money after all. However, the concept of microblogging is worth investing as it might fit into the bigger picture of Social Media, which is a platform for communications, collaboration and co-creation. So, 97 percent sounds right for Twitter.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
How I got interested in Service-dominant Logic from Adrian
Last week, I met up with Adrian Payne who is Professor of Marketing in University of New South Wales and adjunct Professor in Cranfield University. Adrian has authored more than 10 books and is a world recognized thought leader in relationship marketing and CRM. Before moving into academia, he worked in the corporate sector and held executive roles including chief executive.
We discussed the various contemporary thoughts in relationship marketing such as Gummesson, Gronroos, Ford and Ballantyne. Recently, he has been involved with others in the emerging field of Service-Dominant Logic. I heard about Lush & Vargo's work for quite some time but haven't had the opportunity to look at it in detail. After the meeting, I got my act together and started reading their book and other related papers.
What did I find? Well, their ideas are quite revolutionary in the sense that SD-Logic attempts to explain everything in marketing from a service perspective. It's breaking away the influences of neo-classical economics that has impacted the development of marketing thoughts since the very beginning, and setting up a new perspective in marketing. It is about moving marketing from a "product" perspective to a "service" perspective. In fact, service marketing and relationship marketing are two disciplines that have branched out from traditional marketing into their own. SD-Logic can be considered as a big leap forward in this context.
We discussed the various contemporary thoughts in relationship marketing such as Gummesson, Gronroos, Ford and Ballantyne. Recently, he has been involved with others in the emerging field of Service-Dominant Logic. I heard about Lush & Vargo's work for quite some time but haven't had the opportunity to look at it in detail. After the meeting, I got my act together and started reading their book and other related papers.
What did I find? Well, their ideas are quite revolutionary in the sense that SD-Logic attempts to explain everything in marketing from a service perspective. It's breaking away the influences of neo-classical economics that has impacted the development of marketing thoughts since the very beginning, and setting up a new perspective in marketing. It is about moving marketing from a "product" perspective to a "service" perspective. In fact, service marketing and relationship marketing are two disciplines that have branched out from traditional marketing into their own. SD-Logic can be considered as a big leap forward in this context.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)