LE 02 - Goal Setting....

Goal setting is one of the most defining attribute which a manager can have and which can decide the future course of any organization. All the goals should be SMART i.e. should be specific,measurable,achievable,realistic and time bound. To better understand the goal setting we had a very interesting play in our class.

Students was asked to create a tower using small identical cubes. Although most of the students were identical in their technical prowess , it was intriguing to see that there was a lot of difference in how the people were setting the goal for themselves. The range of cubes one can use to construct the tower without falling was almost varying from 10 to 35(some even said they can create using all the cubes but i assume that was only fun).

So one student who has set his individual goal as 10 was asked to come and start constructing the tower. To the utter surprise of himself and the whole class, he constructed the tower using 17 cubes  without falling. later he was asked to set a new goal if he was blind folded. He reduced his goal again this time to 10(Back Folder).

Learning from  this play was that most of the times managers tend to set a goal which is far less than what can be achieved and real potential of the employees. This underestimation not only results in low productivity but also refrains employees from knowing their true self potential.

So the Goal setting should be always done keeping in mind the achievable target and should be higher than it. This would ensure that the final achieved target will be higher than achievable target and each and every time this achievable umbrella will increase. Since the real potential of any human being cannot be measured we must try to bring the set goal as close as possible to the real potential.

LE 01 - Insight of different kind of managers

Though i have described the managers as two different types, but, the demarcation for managers is based on their attitudes and has nothing to do with their attributes. The basis of this division is purely how a manager treats/assumes his workers to be.

In 1960's Douglas McGregor came with two different types of attitudes generally found in managers:

1) Theory X : The managers who assume that the people working under them are lazy and are bound to avoid work if they get a chance. The only way to make people work is by threat and use of power. More often than not this theory not only proves to be counterproductive but also initiates the blame game among the employees.

2) Theory Y : Contrary to Theory X , lies the motto for Theory Y . This management style assumes that the employees are self motivated and are ambitious. A Theory Y manager believes that, given the right conditions, most people will want to do well at work. This management style also faces difficulties but the Y manager tries to find the root cause and motivates the employees to work accordingly, instead of blaming the employees.

Although the described attitudes are different from each other, yet they can exist simultaneously in same human being. We need to try and overcome Theory X traits and replace it with Theory Y. Let's try to understand the implications/results these attitudes can bring in our lives with few examples.

Though, in day to day life there are plethora of examples for both of these management styles but i would like to take the examples from sports/movies to better understand these styles and their consequences. Also to understand better the impact these traits have on different types of scenarios we would also like to distinguish workers as being Lazy and ambitious. So in total we have four scenarios combining two type of managers and two type of workers. Let's try to understand them one by one :

1) The workers are lazy and the manager is of Y type :  The movie "Chak de India" can be aptly considered as an example of this type of combination. The Hockey players though were talented but were lacking self confidence and were not willing to go that extra mile which was required from them to be world champions. On the contrary , the role played by Sharukh Khan was that of manager Y who believed in his players and motivated them to work hard and achieve the unachievable(as it was percieved by the hockey board, the public and the players itself.) . Clearly, the motivation from Y manager, Sharukh in this case, ensured that the employees achieve the performance which was much higher than achievable performance.

2) The workers are lazy and the manager is of X type :   This is the most dangerous combination where not only the workers are lazy or are not willing to work due to certain factors, the manager also assumes them as lazy and is only involved in the blame game. Though i cannot find any real life example for this scenario, the movie Chak de India can also be example of this. The only difference would be the manager this time will be the board who was managing players before the induction of Sharukh Khan. The plight of women's hockey in general and players in particular was well captured as the goal set for them was too low than both achievable and achieved earlier.

3)  The workers are ambitious and the manager is of Y type : The australian cricket team led by Ricky ponting in early 21st century will be the best example to understand this scenario. The australian team at that point of time was full of some great talents who have ever played the game and  was led by one of the most successful batsman and fielder in the history of the game. Ponting not only was an exceptional player but also had a great belief in his team . Obviously his work was simplified by the presence of some ambitious players playing under him. Australian team in this era won 3 consecutive world cup and were a team to beat wherever they played throughout the globe. So the combination of ambitious and hard working employees combined with Y manager can create wonders and excellence. The potential of the players is well harnessed in this case and it helps the overall organization in a positive manner.

4) The workers are ambitious and the manager is of X type : We don't have to go very far searching for an example of this combination. The plight of Indian hockey team in last few decades is testimony enough to prove that even if the workers might be ambitious and talented, if the managers do not believe them and assume that the only way to make them perform is by threat, the organization will fall. The Indian hockey team is considered as one of the most talented and ambitious in whole world. Once considered as masters of the game , they now are extinct in the darkness of anonymity and hopelessness. And blaming IHF for this would not be an wrong thing to do. The way the hockey has been managed in this country can be easily made out from the fact that ,once the world champions ,the team was unable to even qualify for olympics last time. This comes as most prominent example of what an X manager can do to an organization even if the players are hard working and talented. So in this case the achieved goal was too much lower than achievable goal and far lesser than the potential.

So based on these examples i can conclude that even if the workers are of any kind, it all depends on the managers, their belief in employees , their goal setting techniques and their eagerness and ambition to achieve those goals, which decides how the future course of an organization is going to be.