Friday, August 19, 2011

Management Traps and How to Avoid Them


The following, from the career experts at bayt.com, are ten of the most basic management traps and tips to avoid them:

Weak managers set weak goals : As a manager your role is to get specific jobs completed by employees in the most optimal, efficient and innovative manner and in order to do that, you need to set clear objectives. Successful managers set SMART goals - goals that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time-based. They are able to communicate these goals clearly, simply and concisely to their employees so that none are vague or uncertain about expectations. By all means reach for the stars in your objectives but to do so without supplying employees with the training, resources, flexibility and freedom they need to accomplish their goals and a schedule of regular supervision and feedback is to set them (and yourself) up for failure.

Weak managers micro-manage - effective leaders inspire : The days of command and control organizations are long over - today's managers recognize that in order to leverage their skills and maximize their team's output they need to adopt a flexible approach and 'lead' their teams to excellence rather than closely supervise, instruct and control them. The best leaders communicate to their employees a vision and ignite in them the fire, motivation and desire to work towards making this vision a reality. Good leaders unleash their employees to innovate and achieve optimal solutions by communicating top-level goals and objectives and a suggested blueprint for success then leaving the employees to determine how to get there most optimally while ensuring they have the aptitudes, training, resources and work environment necessary to achieve superior results. While a program of regular feedback and supervision is essential, managers should ensure that their management style is not repressive, meddling or overly overbearing. The golden rule is to communicate the 'what' and the 'why' of the work that needs to be done and leave the employees to determine the 'how' without burdening them with strict instruction manuals or prescribed rules and patterns that are largely redundant and inconducive to speed, creativity, progress and innovation.

Weak managers are afraid of hiring/cultivating strong leaders : Strong leaders/managers have the self-confidence to hire the best people, take them to new levels and cultivate in them all the qualities needed to make them in turn effective leaders of the future. Weak leaders replicate themselves in their hiring decisions and hire mediocre players, mistakenly believing that an employee with more skills, acumen or industry knowledge than themselves will ultimately undermine them or make them look bad. The best managers are characterized by an ability to stimulate their employees to superior performance and through coaching, training, feedback as well as by example, inspire in them all the qualities needed to make effective managers. A good manager helps employees achieve their full potential and constantly raises the bar so that employees never stop learning, innovating and growing. Coaching, training, career planning and programs for ongoing growth and development of key staff are high on the priority lists of the best managers.
 
Weak managers belittle their employees : Bosses who favour the archaic 'tough' management style where employees are singled out for public reprimand and negative feedback is plentiful while recognition and positive reinforcement are scarce will fail to win the loyalty, respect and commitment of their teams over the long run. Without an inspired, fired up, self-confident employee base these managers set themselves and their teams up for failure. Effective leaders by contrast, respect their employees and give them regular feedback with intelligent constructive criticism and loudly laud special accomplishments in both public and private, while communicating any negative feedback ONLY in private and focusing such criticism strictly on the job performance, not the person's character. Strong leaders recognize and reward a job well done. These leaders inspire their teams to perform at their best and are able to elicit from them a high degree of loyalty and a 'hunger' to raise the bar and continuously excel. In such organisations, employees are not afraid to challenge their boss's ideas or upset the status quo in the interest of innovation and excellence and are encouraged to take risks to elevate the business to a new level. The autocrats and bureaucrats on the other hand sap their employees' self-confidence, drive and energy with their overbearing management style and fail to induce in them any motivation to raise the bar or excel.

Weak managers have obsolete skills-strong leaders constantly reinvent themselves : In today's knowledge-driven economies and highly competitive environment, skills, training and education rapidly become obsolete and effective managers know that they must constantly re-educate themselves and update their skills to maintain an edge. While over-confident managers with an inertia to further education fall by the wayside, good managers regularly take an honest inventory of their skills and abilities and upgrade their technical knowledge and soft skills wherever appropriate. They encourage their teams to do likewise with sound career planning and performance appraisal programs and an emphasis on training and self-education.

Weak managers have poor communication skills : Good communication includes cultivating and maintaining open channels of communication with the team and others in the organisation, giving constructive, intelligent feedback, eliciting ideas through brainstorming sessions or otherwise, articulating the company vision and mission in no uncertain terms, setting clear objectives and listening attentively with an open-mind to employees grievances, suggestions and any other issues. Effective leaders have an open-door policy that welcomes input, suggestions and feedback from employees and recognize that good ideas and the next best idea/process/innovation can come from anywhere. Strong leaders listen; weak leaders talk. Strong leaders pay attention to their employees and encourage them to express professional opinions and ask for more responsibility; weak leaders think they are above such open-door policies. Employees who are not listened to and are not made to feel important or respected as professionals or individuals are unlikely to innovate or express any exciting new ideas that can move a company forward.

Weak managers blame : Everybody makes mistakes and strong leaders protect their good people from taking the fall when they err. Good bosses recognize that the occasional slip-ups are inevitable and can be learning opportunities and are ready to take personal responsibility when the team makes a misstep. A good boss realizes that his most promising employees want to succeed, will grow as a result of their mistakes and are unlikely to repeat the same mistakes. They do no set their people up as a negative example for the rest of the organization nor point fingers when the going gets tough. Good bosses are personably accountable for their actions as well as the actions of their subordinates and do not allow a culture of blame to permeate the organisation.

Weak managers take full credit for their team's accomplishments : While weak leaders usurp all the credit for a job well done by their teams, the strongest leaders will give the full credit to the team as a whole or the team member responsible for the project. Strong leaders motivate, energize and inspire by giving credit where credit is due and being generous with reward and recognition wherever appropriate. Strong leaders publicly thank their employees for a job well done and recognize that a motivated, successful, energized team will reflect directly on the boss.

Weak managers thrive on bureaucracy : Weak leaders are fond of, augment and live well with the layers and bureaucratic shackles that tie an organisation down; strong leaders remove them. Today's effective leaders recognize that in order to compete they must operate like a small company with a high level of speed, responsiveness and flexibility. They realize that to maintain their edge in today's marketplace their organization needs to be responsive to changing market conditions and remove the shackles, boundaries, layers, clutter and obsolete policies, procedures and routines that get in the way of the freedom and free flow of people, resources and ideas.

Weak managers are divorced from their teams : Effective managers genuinely care about their employees and take the time to get to know them and to understand their strengths, weaknesses, what makes them tick and their goals and ambitions. They also take the time to learn something about their personal life. While weak managers will maintain an outdated aloofness and a formal distance from their teams, exceptional managers are able to bring out the best in every employee and win their loyalty and respect by understanding their unique needs, motivations and abilities and showing the team that they are important and personally significant. Strong managers are team players and through their constant involvement with their teams communicate to them that they are there for them and supportive of them. Effective managers by building a supportive work environment, build a camaraderie and team spirit that enthuses and excites the team to new levels of performance.


Monday, August 15, 2011

Framing


Framing (social sciences)
A frame is a perceptual filter - built through experience and influences – that creates a collection of stereotypes that helps people make a sense of their world and respond to it. Example : a wink from a friend is different from a wink by a stranger. The wink is the same but the “frame” is “friend vs stranger”.  1. Erving Goffman says we all create frames or labels that allow us  "to locate, perceive, identify, and label" events and occurrences, thus rendering meaning, organizing experiences, and guiding our actions.
People do not first “see” and then apply “frame”; rather, we constantly see the world in terms of “frames” / “stereotypes” / “words” and the reality is perceived through them. For example, every person is either a “friend” or a “stranger”.
We change frames only when forced to do so by a dissonance. Can a “friend” be a “beggar” ? But suppose it does happen – then you create a new “frame” called “friend-begger”.
Framing is so effective because it is a heuristic – a mental shortcut - a 'rule of thumb'.
Fiske and Taylor call human beings are “cognitive misers” : they prefer to do as little thinking as possible in order to operate in this world. Framing provides people a quick way to process information.
Tversky and Kahneman have shown that framing can affect the outcomes through the choices one makes to such an extent that “rational choice” axiom does not hold. The choices depend also on norms / values, habits/experience, unique personality. They demonstrated that people’s choice changes when the same data is presented in different frames.
Imagine a group of 600 people is in danger of being attacked by a killer disease. We have 2 programs A and B to combat the disease. Program A has a possibility that  200 people will be saved. Program B has a 67% probability that all 600 will die.  
72 % preferred program A !
Individuals proved risk averse when presented with value-increasing options; but when faced with value decreasing contingencies, they tended towards increased risk-taking
·         Surety of gains : Positive framing effect : triggers risk averse choices
·         Likelihood of losses : Negative framing effect : creates preference for riskier options
FRAMING IS STRONGER
1.      When the cognitive processing effort  devoted to determining the value of potential gains and losses is high.
2.      When people give greater weight to avoiding losses than to equivalent gains.
3.      compromise between “correct decision” and “minimized cognitive effort”.  Calculating the value of a sure gain takes much less cognitive effort than that required to select a risky gain.
Sociologists have utilized framing to explain the process of social movements (mobilization) which act as carriers of beliefs and ideologies and are a part of the process of constructing meaning for participants and opposers. Movements are "successful" when “projected” frames of the resonate with the actual frames of the participants. Thus frame-alignment is important in social mobilization.
What may promote or constrain the framing effort :
1)      Snow and Benford say there are 3 core framing-tasks to create mobilization
a)      Diagnosis : what is the problem and who / what is to blame
b)      Prognosis :what is the solution, strategy and tactics to address a problem
c)      Motivation : call to arms or action or rationale for action ( Chale Jao)
2)      How “central” is the frame to the recipient is the frame – how close it is to the larger / core beliefs. The frame may fail to mobilize if it has a limited salience within the larger belief system.
3)      How “relevant” is the frame to the realities of the participants. Does it fit within existing cultural myths and narrations.
 Frame-alignment which promotes social movement happens in four forms
1.      Frame bridging : It involves the linkage of a movement to "unmobilized sentiment pools or public opinion preference clusters" of similar grievances but who lack organizational base.
2.      Frame amplification : Clarification and strengthening of a frame on a given issue, problem, or set of events.
3.       Frame extensions : Extending the boundaries of the proposed frame to include or encompass the views, interests, or sentiments of targeted groups
4.      Frame transformation: becomes necessary when the old frames may not resonate with – and even may appear opposing to – the frames of new  participants and support bases – and this leads to new values, new meanings and understandings. For example – change in the world view -  uprooting of everything familiar - moving from communism to market capitalism; religious conversion
Kuypers says, "Framing is a process whereby communicators, consciously or unconsciously, act to construct a point of view that encourages the facts of a given situation to be interpreted by others in a particular manner. Frames operate in four key ways: they define problems, diagnose causes, make moral judgments, and suggest remedies. Frames are often found within a narrative account of an issue or event, and are generally the central organizing idea."  
·         “Episodic framing” : focuses on a single event as if an individual is responsible. “A boy sentenced Rs 500 for stealing a loaf of bread”.
·         “Thematic framing” : puts matters in abstract context as if it is a trend ( everyone is to blame). “Urban parental neglect drives a boy to steal bread and pay Rs 500”. As if the boy is not to blame.
Framing a political issue, a political party or a political opponent is a strategic goal in all formal and democratic politics. The parties diagnose, suggest remedies and call for action. Because framing has the ability to alter the public’s perception, politicians engage in battles to determine how issues are framed. Hence, the way the issues are framed in the media reflects who is winning the battle.
For instance, in the build up to the Gulf War, the conservatives framed the debate as to whether US should attack sooner or later - with no mention of not attacking. The media picked this up and also framed the debate in this fashion, the conservatives won.
One particular example of Lakoff's work was his advice to rename  trial lawyers (unpopular in the United States) as "public protection attorneys". Though this has not been adopted, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America  renamed itself the "American Association of Justice", in what the Chamber of Commerce called an effort to hide their identity.  His advice “14 Words Never to Use'
·         Never advocate  'drilling for oil'; say 'exploring for energy.'
·         Never criticize the 'government,' that cleans streets and pays firemen; attack  'Washington'
·         Never “outsource” allowing companies to ship American jobs overseas.'
By consistently invoking a particular frame, a political party controls discussion & perceptions.
As Lakoff notes, "On the day that George W. Bush took office, the words "tax relief" started coming out of the White House."By refocusing the structure away from one frame ("tax burden" or "tax responsibilities"), individuals can set the agenda of the questions asked in the future. Cognitive linguists point to an example of framing in the phrase "tax relief". In this frame, use of the concept "relief" entails a concept of (without mentioning the benefits resulting from) taxes putting strain on the citizen:
The initial response to Sep 11 attack on WTC was an act of terror and crime but within hours this was replaced by a war metaphor “War on Terror”. The difference is between the implied response. Crime connotes bringing criminals to justice, trial and sentences whereas as a war implies war powers for government to take military action against unseen enemy.
Recent popularization of the term "escalation" to describe an increase in American troop-levels in Iraq  implies that the US has deliberately increased the scope of conflict in a provocative manner and that it entails a long-term military presence whereas  campaign framing implies a powerful but brief, transitory increase in intensity.
The "bad apple" frame, implies removing a corrupt official from an institution will solve a given problem as opposed to a frame presenting the same problem as systematic or structural to the institution itself - source of infectious and spreading rot.
The "taxpayers money" frame, rather than public or government funds frame, implies that the  individual taxpayers have a right to set government policy based upon their payment of tax rather than their status as citizens or voters .
Program-names that may only describe the intended effects of a program but can also imply their effectiveness. These include: "Foreign Aid"[33] (which implies that spending money will aid foreigners, rather than harm them),  "Social security" (which implies that the program can be relied on to provide security for a society),  "Stabilisation policy" (which implies that a policy will have a stabilizing effect).
Some have advanced the position that global warming is an ineffective framing due to its identification as a advocacy issue and suggested  that crime against nature would be more effec