Thought of the Day - Theory X Vs Theory Y

In management there are two theories of employee motivation; Theory X posits that employees don't like work, will avoid it where possible and must be driven to it. Theory Y on the other hand is based on the assumption that work can be satisfying and employees will be self-motivated to work. While it initially appears that these theories are all to do with employees internal motivation, it has also been suggested that whether a boss manages to Theory X or Theory Y determines how the employees behave. I tend to subscribe to the latter idea, if you manage your employees as if they will do everything in their power to avoid work that is how they will behave. If on the other hand you manage your employees by giving them responsibility and trusting them that is how they will behave.

It is interesting to see how people behave when managers aren't around, while not being able to control for things like; workload, task allocation and clarity of goals, how employees behave in a management vacuum should indicate whether the culture of a company is Theory X or Y. If the employees have a; "while they cat's away" attitude and avoid work you can safely guess that there is a Theory X culture. If on the other hand the employees treat it as; "business as usual" and work as they would if the manager was there you can assume it is a Theory Y workplace.

This is another reason that i think ROWE (Results Only Work Environment) is the way forward. Under that culture it doesn't matter where the manager (or infact the employee) physically is, there is work to be done and it either gets done or it doesn't. People won't come into the office just to show up, they aren't just there to look busy while the manager is there and slack off when he/she isn't. In ROWE on the other hand there are specific tasks that get done, the manager can monitor them in or out of the office, the employee can complete them in or out of the office.

In the end, i think seeing how employees behave when they aren't around is an interesting insight that most managers are unlikely to see. Unless of course they resort to spying, in which case it would be safe to assume they are Theory X.

Thought of the Day - Career In Reverse

I just had an epiphany, my career so far has been in reverse. Not reverse in the normal meaning; going backwards in terms of money or responsibility, but reverse in the progression of job titles.

For most people: Engineering Degree > Mechanical Engineer > Process Improvement Specialist > Leadership Development Program > Project Manager, would be a logical progression of jobs. And yet somehow i have gone in completely the opposite direction. I don't know whether this is a bad thing or a good thing or in fact what it means, it just struck me as an interesting observation.

I suppose my next job either needs to be an internship or back to university ...

Thought of the Day - Complex Decision Making

I just read an article in the 'Boss' supplement from The Australian Financial Review which was a reprint from the Harvard Business Review (June 2006). It concerns something that i have given a fair amount of thought to but never really considered from this angle; how to get a group to decide between many options.

In the past i have largely focused on tools like; the Pugh Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Impact-Effort Matrix and simple voting. While these techniques result in a decision, what i failed to consider is that just because an option is selected doesn't mean that there is broad agreement with the decision. The article focused on the CEO/Leader as a deadlock breaker and the negative aspect that they become a 'dictator by default' and while i suspect that is a frequent occurrence, the problem is equally valid in groups of peers.

The crux of the problem is summed up in this quote; "majority wishes can clash when a group of three or more people attempt to set priorities among three or more items ... different subsets of the group can generate conflicting majorities for all possible alternatives". E.g. Persons 1 and 2 agree on option A but persons 2 and 3 also agree on option C, by selecting option A you satisfy 1 and 2 but C would have been an equally valid choice as you satisfy 2 and 3.

Once you accept that point, it suggests that it is impossible to resolve this conflict. However this assumes that there are only fixed options, the article advises that you carry out the following steps to come to a better solution:
1) Articulate clearly what outcome you are seeking - Classic problem solving, you can't solve a problem until there is a common understanding of what the problem is.
2) Provide a range of options for achieving the outcome - Again classic problem solving, brainstorm as many solutions as possible.
3) Surface preferences early - There is no point wasting time on options that no-one has any interest in, by eliminating them you don't waste time on pointless debate. This step can be done through voting, possibly weighted, or other techniques.
4) State each option's pros and cons - See the good and bad on both sides, in the article it is recommended for someone to present the pros and another person to present the cons, one may have to play devils advocate.
5) Devise new options with the best features of existing ones - Again classic problem solving technique, synthesize new options by combing the best parts of old ones.

While these steps don't solve the decision making dilemma they will help. I think most important of all is to acknowledge that this problem exists, preferably within the group making the decision, so that you know the pitfalls while you are making the choice.

Book Notes - The Adventures of Johnny Bunko

The Adventures of Johnny Bunko by Daniel Pink [2008]

Summary:

1) There is no plan
There are two types of decision; instrumental and fundamental. You make a decision for instrumental reasons if you are prepared to put up with the present because you think it will lead somewhere. You make a decision for fundamental reasons when your not sure where it will lead but it seems interesting. The former rarely work out and the latter may not get you where you thought you wanted to go but normally lead somewhere interesting.

2) Think strengths, not weaknesses
Steer around your weaknesses and focus on your strengths. You will be more motivated, more enthusiastic and more successful if you do what you are good at.
See: Now Discover Your Strengths by Marcus Buckingham

3) Its not about you
Focus your energy outward not inward. Unless you are a starving artist it isn't about what you want, you have a client, a customer or someone else who you need to satisfy so apply your strengths to that.

4) Persistence trumps talent
"The people who achieve the most are often the ones who stick with it when others don't"
You need to show up, practice, practice and practice some more, perfect your art whether that art be painting, music or engineering. Talent only gets you so far, sticking with it and persisting make you successful.

5) Make excellent mistakes
If you aren't making mistakes you aren't trying hard enough. Make mistakes for the right reasons, pushing the boundaries, trying something new, trying to make a difference. If it does all blow up then you need to learn from those mistakes so you don't make the same mistake again. Try to: "Make a mistake from which the benefits of what you've learned exceed the costs of the screwup."

6) Leave an imprint
Try to make a difference, leave things better than they were and be proud of what you do.


Quotes:
"Is this mind-numbingly repetitive? or repetitive mind-numbing?"