LEADING THOUGHTS

According to social network theory, people on average are only a few connections away from the information they seek. But in large organizations, this theory falls apart: some employees clearly have longer search paths than others in locating the knowledge they require. Is this simply because they have an inferior network?

Not really, say researchers from INSEAD and Apple University. Singh, Hansen, and Podolny suggest there are two dynamics at play. One, employees who belong to the periphery of an organization — women and those with lower tenure or poor connectedness to experts — have limited awareness of who knows what in an organization and a lower ability to seek help from others best suited to guide the search. Two, when these employees do seek information, they tend to contact colleagues like themselves who are also outliers.

The researchers say employees on the periphery need to cross social boundaries to discover “who knows what,” and that their managers have a role in making this happen.

“We speculate that reliance on interpersonal networks remains crucial when a firm’s knowledge cannot be easily codified and stored in databases, when it changes
quickly (making it difficult to keep track of who knows what), and when it is distributed across people who are not official experts,” the researchers write in their working paper The World is Not Small for Everyone. “This calls for managers to recognize that formal IT systems are rarely substitutes for inter-personal networks. The implication is that managers need to help members on the periphery develop their networks.”

“The World is Not Small for Everyone: Inequity in Searching for Knowledge in Organizations”, by Jasjit Singh, Morten T. Hansen, and Joel M. Podolny; INSEAD working paper 2009/49/ST/EFE

photo credit: Sambhu Sankar

Learning Orgs communication, learning, Org Design

When you call a meeting at work, do your colleagues roll their eyes? I feel for you. Here is some advice on how to win some meeting credibility, from Desmond J. Leach (Leeds U Business School) and colleagues.

Leach and his team surveyed 958 people in the U.S., UK, and Australia, trying to determine what makes people perceive a meeting to be effective. He focused on five meeting design characteristics: using an agenda, keeping minutes, starting and ending on time, meeting in an appropriate facility, and having a chairperson.

The results of the first phase of the study: the use of an agenda, punctuality, and meeting facilities rose to the top.

Respondents were then asked to consider more specifically the effectiveness of the last meeting on the day of their survey (to get around “recall bias”). The results this time: agenda completion, facilities, and the chairperson were the most important meeting design elements.

These perceptions held true for various types of meetings, such as those dealing with routine issues, information sharing, or addressing special problems. As well, neither the size of the meeting nor its duration seemed to effect peoples’ perceptions of meeting effectiveness, except when the meeting agenda was not completed.

If you really want to score points for your meeting prowess, do a good job involving attendees. The researchers found that higher levels of involvement predict greater perceptions of effectiveness.

“Perceived Meeting Effectiveness: The Role of Design Characteristics,” by Desmond J. Leach, Steven G. Rogelberg, Peter B. Warr, and Jennifer L. Burnfield; Journal of Business Psychology (2009, 24:65-76)

photo credit: Wildstar Beaumont

Teams, Uncategorized communication, engagement, leadership, teamwork

Communication and trust go hand in hand. Good communication builds trust within organizations and boosts employee involvement. But what qualifies as “good” trust-building communications? Well, it depends on who is on the receiving end.

Thomas (Naval Postgraduate School), Zolin (Queensland U of Technology), and Hartman (Colorado State U) set out to investigate the linkages among quality of information, quantity of information, trust, and outcomes such as employee involvement. For data, they used communication audits from 218 employees in the Texas and Oklahoma oil industry. Audits are used to identify communications patterns within an organization.

Thomas et al found that for building trust among co-workers and supervisors,  quality of information — its accuracy, timeliness, and usefulness — is most important for building trust than quantity of information. But for building trust in senior management, it is the quantity of information that is most important.

Information coming from top management is seldom specific to an individual’s job and is generally focused on the big picture, write Thomas, Zolin, and Hartman in the Journal of Business Communication. “Top management depends on supervisors to translate this abstract information into more task-related, relevant communication. While employees count on top management to set the strategy and determine criteria for organizational success, then, supervisors must be trusted to show workers the connection between employees’ jobs and the organization’s goals and to provide the more specific, high-quality information needed to perform their jobs well. Coworkers, likewise, are depended on for high-quality information needed for job execution.”

The researchers also found that, in all cases, trust was very closely tied to perceptions of organizational openness which, in turn, is linked to high employee involvement.

“The central role of communication in developing trust and its effect on employee involvement”, by Gail Fann Thomas, Roxanne Zolin, and Jackie L. Hartman; Journal of Business Communication (Vol. 46, No. 3, July 2009; pp. 287-310)

photo credit: evilpeacock

Communications, Uncategorized communication, trust

CEO of Yahoo! Carol Bartz argues in The Economist (Nov. 13, 2009 issue) that, in the age of ubiquitous information, traditional management is “impossible, or at least ill-advised.”

“The hierarchical, layered corporate structures in which company information was carefully managed and then selectively passed down the line have crumbled,” Bartz writes. “The online era has made command-and-control management as dead as dial-up internet.” Ouch.

The problem, she says, lies in the stream of 24/7 commentary and instant opinion and gossip generated and amplified by bloggers, tweeters, and their ilk. It makes it impossible to control the message and hampers decision-making. So what’s the answer?

Learn to live with it, for one thing. Develop a thick skin. And understand “how important they [leaders] can be to their own team by interpreting both the news and the disinformation that swirls around them,” Bartz writes.

Bartz advises leaders to identify and mentor thought leaders, employees who have the ability to digest and interpret information for others. “Grooming these in-house ideas people helps foster a culture of openness to fresh thinking—the greatest energy an organization can have.”

photo credit: nregimbal

Communications, Uncategorized communication, ideas, leadership, mentorship, storytelling

In this video clip, INSEAD Professor Herminia Ibarra discusses perceptions of women being relatively weak at “envisioning,” essentially the ability to articulate a vision of the future and translating it into a strategic direction.

Ibara’s study is based on 360-degree evaluations of some 2,000 male and female managers. Prevailing wisdom is that there is a bias against female managers, who are generally rated less favourably than their male counterparts. Not so fast: Ibarra found that women score higher than men on many measures (such as communication, emotional intelligence, feedback) except for one: envisioning.

Yes, this is perception and not reality, but “when it comes to senior management,” she points out, “perception is reality.” (3:15 mark)

At the 4:00 mark, Ibarra says it is possible the way in which women arrive at a new vision is simply different than the process used by men (consensus versus going to the mountaintop), and that this organic process is not as evident.

At 6:10, she wonders if some women prefer to stick to the facts rather than striking out with a bold vision because they are often in a more vulnerable position in organizations.

And at 8:50, she talks about the “identity trap” in which men and women often find themselves: being pigeon-holed as an expert in one area. One way to escape this trap is to get out of the office to enlarge your perspectives with your network and do some “pattern recognition” in other areas. (11:24).

Leader-Follower assessment, communication, discrimination, gender, leadership, strategy, video, visioning, women

Leaders who excel over time utilize organizational networks in distinctive ways to compensate for weaknesses in formal structures, says Rob Cross (U of Virginia) and colleagues who have conducted network analyses at more than 100 organizations.

In Organizational Dynamics, Cross et al map out five principles that drive productive organizational networks.

1. Manage the centre
Cross finds that 3 to 5 percent of people in a network account for 20 to 35 percent of the “value-added ties” – collaborations that generate sales, efficiency gains, or key innovations. But these hubsters are often not managed or leveraged intelligently. The lesson for leaders: locate employees at the centre of networks and manage them well.

Specifically look for bottlenecks and hidden stars. For bottlenecks, figure out if they are central because of their position on the org chart or because of their expertise and leadership qualities. If they are central because of their roles, shift decision rights or responsibilities to others. If they are experts or born leaders, identify the strengths that the network is seeking from them and build these capabilities in others.

And hidden stars? “We have found that there is only a 25 to 40 percent overlap between the individuals classified as ‘top talent’ by the organization and those who are revealed in a network analysis to be critical enablers of others.” The researchers suggest acknowledging the contributions of hidden stars with promotions or increased pay.

2. Leverage the periphery
For maximum benefit, focus on two outlier groups: newcomers and high performers who have drifted. For new hires, create initial assignments and encourage behaviors that integrate people into existing networks rapidly. For underutilized high-performers, re-engagement has to be done on a case-by-case basis. “Roughly 30 percent of the employees considered as top talent – those on high performer lists or in the top 20 percent performance category – have migrated to the fringe of the network.”

3. Selectively bridge collaborative silos
The strength of the network idea at a unit level, writes Cross and colleagues, “is that it allows us to see more precisely how to connect not everybody – but only the four, five, or six junctures that can allow the organization to differentiate itself strategically.” To bridge the “white space” created by divisional boundaries, geography, or hierarchies, a network analysis can be commissioned to show unit heads how they are connected across regional and product groups.

4. Develop the ability to surge
Cross says “surging” happens when networks sense opportunities or problems in one pocket of a network and rapidly tap into the expertise of others in the network to coordinate an effective response. Cross: “As new opportunities arise, employees need to know who has relevant expertise that can be helpful; they need to have a sense of who knows what in the network.”

5. Minimize insularity
Effective networks do not stop at “city limits” but extend out to clients and sources of expertise. For example in professional services, Cross writes, understanding touch points with key customers is a critical network view.

How Effective Leaders Drive Results Through Networks, by Rob Cross, Amanda Cowen, Lisa Vertucci, and Robert J. Thomas; Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 93–105, 2009

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: edmittance

Uncategorized communication, leadership, networks, teamwork

In this video interview with The McKinsey Quarterly (biz journal of McKinsey & Company), Stanford U Professor Robert Sutton talks about how, in tough economic times, leaders/supervisors experience the “toxic tandem.” On the one hand, people in power tend to be oblivious to the needs and actions of people with less power. On the other, subordinates are hyper vigilant; they closely watch the boss for cues and clues as to what is really going down (“Am I next on the chopping block?”).

I presented the ideas to a group of executives. And this guy walks up to me and he starts describing his executive vice president and how one of the secretaries walked up to him and said, “When are the layoffs going be?” And he says, “What?” And then she went to explain. She said, “Well, it’s an ‘interesting shoes’ day for you.”

What this guy has a reputation of doing is he can’t look people in the eye when he’s upset about stuff, so he would always be looking at his shoes. They were saying, “The boss is having ‘interesting shoes’ day.” So from just the fact the guy walked around not looking anybody in the eye, she went straight up to him. So that to me is a pretty good sign he was oblivious to that, right?

The antidote for the toxic tandem, says Sutton, is prediction, understanding, control, and compassion. “Prediction”: Give assurance where you can and don’t overpromise. “Understand”: Make the effort to clearly communicate  the situation in ways that people will understand. “Control”: Give people a measure of control over the way layoffs happen. And “compassion”?: Have a heart, buddy.

As for dealing with the psyche of those who survive layoffs, Sutton says the key is fairness. “When they see that it’s fair,,” he says, “they are more likely to stay loyal, suffer less psychological damage, and also feel more guilty and work even harder to help you.”

Link to Bob Sutton’s excellent blog

Leader-Follower, Uncategorized change, communication, Leader-Follower, sutton

A good argument can be made that the key reason a new initiative fails is employees’ perception that their organization is not ready for change. If that’s the case, what can change agents do to get employees to believe that the organization is indeed primed and ready? Researchers Inta Cinite and Linda Duxbury (Carleton U) and Chris Higgins (U of Western Ontario) developed an empirically-tested diagnostic to do just that.

As a basis, the researchers started with the concept of PORC, “perceived organizational readiness for change.” Developed back in the 1970s, PORC defines employees’ belief that the organization not only can initiate change but also engages in practices that will lead to successful implementation. They then developed a way to measure PORC in public sector organizations, based on research from five organizations that had initiated transformational change. Projects included a shift in the strategic direction toward a higher degree of transparency, a shift from a command and control management style to one that was based on employee empowerment, a change in reporting relationships, and two organizational restructuring efforts.

This is what they came up with:

“Organizations that want to be perceived by their employees to be ready for change should pay close attention to the behaviours of their leaders, change agents, immediate supervisors at all levels, organizational practices around the change, and how these practices impact people’s daily work.” The researchers suggest that managers who have direct reports should be well equipped to communicate change to their staff and provide the necessary support.

“Organizations are judged to be not ready for change due to poor communication practices when employees perceive that the outcomes, benefits and reasons for the change are not well explained and when employees do not understand the vision behind the change.”

Employees’ perceptions are also informed by the impact the change is thought to have on
their work. They will remain skeptical of change if: old duties are not phased out when new ones are assigned; they are discouraged from saying ‘no’ to work; and they are assigned heavy workloads that hinder them from getting involved in the change initiative.

Measurement of Perceived Organizational Readiness for Change in the Public Sector, by Inta Cinite, Linda E. Duxbury, and Chris Higgins; British Journal of Management, Vol. 20, 265–277 (2009)

Email me for a copy of this paper: Alan [at] AlanMorantz.com

photo credit: Auntie P

Public Sector change, communication, public sector