Customer Culture: It All Starts and Ends With Listening

Article Appearing in www.customerthink.com
Access here at http://www.customerthink.com/article/customer_culture_starts_ends_with_listening

May 29, 2007

By Olga Botero, Grupo Bancolombia

There was an airline in Colombia that had very old airplanes that had problems very often, yet the airline was the leader in customer satisfaction and loyalty. How did it do it? By applying some basic principles that created a customer-oriented culture.

"Customer culture"—which along with "customer focus" has become some of consultants' favorite buzz phrases—relates to instilling values and behaviors in a company. It is oriented toward implementing a process in which a company understands what customers need and want and develops products and services accordingly.

The emphasis on getting a customer-centric culture right is definitely a growing trend. In its 2006 study, High-Performance Workforce, Accenture asked 470 global executives to classify the greatest challenges their organizations were facing. Two issues had the biggest response: information technology (48 percent of respondents) and keeping up with industry change (47 percent). And to keep up with change, 75 percent of the organizations surveyed stated that the most important element was creating a culture that matched the company's strategy.

But how does one create a culture within an organization? A culture is based on values, traits, patterns, competences and behaviors. It all starts with defining those values, behaviors and traits. Then it is essential that people are recruited based on those values and behaviors. If, for example, one of those behaviors is service orientation, you should recruit people who behave that way. It's easy. You can observe people who have service orientation driving. They are the ones who let you pass in a traffic jam. They are also the people who help you with your grocery bags when you are carrying too many coming out of the supermarket.

Power within the people
An organization's management does not have the power to directly control each customer's experience. That power is possessed by the people who deal directly with the customers. Here's where training and empowerment comes in. Processes need to be designed according to those values and behavior the company wants with customers. And people need to be trained and empowered to be in sync.

Finally, people need to be accountable and rewarded according to how they behave. Accountability and motivation should be geared on the same values, behaviors, competences.

For a customer-centric culture, there are some values that are not negotiable. These are the values in which any human relationship should be based and built on. I bet you can guess them. The same values that are the basis for building strong, long lasting relationships are the ones that create exceptional experiences: respect and trust.

‘ People tolerated all the airline's problems, and the airline, in turn, was loved! ’

That Colombian airline had the slogan, Por el respeto—For your respect. Its core value was respect. Not only did the airline use it in advertising, but also its whole organization behaved accordingly. So even though the old airlines kept breaking down, the airline staff always told the truth and tried to come up with the best alternative, even if it meant staying at the airport waiting for many hours. Employees listened to, and solved, customer complaints with dedication.

It was great to listen to people in the waiting lounges: "It is so sad. They had to cancel the flight." People tolerated all the airline's problems, and the airline, in turn, was loved! Customers forgave every bad thing that happened because they were treated with respect.

And how does one start to build respect and trust? By listening. That is, careful, dedicated, concentrated, focused listening. It all starts and ends there. If you listen to your partner, you understand what he wants, what he values, how he feels. If you listen carefully, you understand people have different points of view and you learn how to behave accordingly. By focusing on listening, the other person feels valued and respected. And if you understand each other, you know how to build trust.

In the companies I have worked at, we spend a lot of time teaching people to listen. To really pay attention when customers call or contacted us. When we visit them, we sit and listen. There are many exercises to learn to listen well. It involves the way your body is positioned, how you move your eyes and how you sit. It requires you to learn to be quiet. To not speak. To ask a question and be able to sustain silence until the customer starts speaking. And even then, to just listen.

Listening is the basis for creating a customer-centric or customer-focused culture within a company. If your company is designing a customer-centric strategy, choose people who can listen or can learn how to do it. Train your people in listening skills. Motivate them to listen to each other, to listen to the customers and to listen to themselves.

By listening, you will be able to build relationships based on respect and trust. Respect and trust will bring customers experiences with your company that will be different, that will be magical. And they will appreciate it to a point of not wanting to leave. A customer culture—and, thus, a customer relationship and experience management strategy—starts and ends with listening.

---

Olga Botero de Duque, the chief information officer of Grupo Bancolombia, has been involved in customer experience, customer relationships, marketing and strategy in the ICT sector in Latin America for more than 20 years. Based in Medellí­n, Colombia, Botero previously was at Orbitel, one of Colombia's leading telecommunications companies.

Ten Procrastination Avoidance Techniques for Techies and also for all other people

Article that appeared on Dice.com about how procrastination reduces productivity

PC or peril:your workstation provides state-of-the-art productivity and development tools, IM and videoconferencing to stay in touch with distributed project team members, project management applications, e-mail notifications, and blinding fast Internet access, not to mention the potential for quick downloads of the latest Battlestar Galactica and Lost episodes plus networked Unreal Tournament frag-fests. How’s an IT staffer supposed to meet deadlines? Learn 10 procrastination avoidance techniques for techies. By Mathew Schwartz
Birds and bees might not do it, but when it comes to procrastination, we humans have it down cold. Many people even elevate procrastination — known as “a hardening of the oughteries” — into an art form. As Mark Twain put it, “never put off till tomorrow, what you can do the day after tomorrow.”

According to researchers, almost everyone procrastinates, and up to 20% of us do so chronically. Unfortunately, putting things off — besides making us less productive — also stresses people out. “The more people procrastinate, the less happy, the less healthy, and the less wealthy they are,” notes Piers Steel, an expert in motivational problems and associate professor of human resources and organizational dynamics at the University of Calgary’s Haskayne School of Business.

Procrastination — “to voluntarily delay an intended course of action despite expecting to be worse-off for the delay,” he says — always has repercussions. “It takes everyone’s game down a notch, at least, and some people much more than that.” Yet avoiding procrastination is almost impossible. “It’s who we are: we have a mindset that’s best suited for a hunting-and-gathering society.” Thus we’re easily sidetracked by BlackBerries, Internet surfing, IM, YouTube, foosball, and other modern workplace distractions.

Technology Drives Productivity, Procrastination

Compounding the problem, workloads are increasing, which creates a greater need for us to maintain peak productivity. Indeed, according to a 2006 survey by Accenture, nearly two-thirds of full-time employees reported their workload increased during the previous 12 to 24 months, due to insufficient staffing levels, strategic changes, or reorganizations. Of course broadly speaking, economists credit IT with helping boost workers’ productivity to record levels, which has allowed companies to accomplish more while employing fewer people.

Yet with heavier workloads, more long-term tasks to manage, and greater reliance on technology, employees face more distractions and thus tend to procrastinate more frequently. Tech workers battle even more interruptions than the average employee, given their especially heavy reliance on — if not outright fetish for — technology. “That’s the weird thing about progress,” notes Steel. “Not only does it increase our productivity, but it also speeds the delivery of our vices. So in one way, it makes work easier and harder to do at the same time.”

How to Manage Procrastination

So how can techies avoid procrastinating? “We need to get this mismatched person and environment to somehow fit together,” notes Steel. Accordingly, start by pursuing these 10 changes:

1. Catalog distractions. According to a 2005 study from Basex, distractions consume 28% of a knowledge worker’s day. Accordingly, attempt to minimize workspace interruptions: let calls go to voicemail, hang a “Do Not Disturb: Coding Deadline” sign outside your cubicle, and consider noise-canceling headphones.

2. Back away from the e-mail. Of all corporate distractions, e-mail arguably zaps the most productivity. “If you want to be 10–15% more productive, and this means probably an extra 30 days of work a year, turn off the automatic indicator on your e-mail,” says Steel. In other words, “lose the ding, and lose the [notification] icon too.”

3. Defuse bad habits. Make bad habits — your IM addiction, or checking MySpace nonstop — harder to indulge by deleting quick-launch buttons and desktop links to related applications. “As soon as you have an impulse, even if it’s fleeting, you’ll act on it, if it’s available in those few seconds,” notes Steel.

4. Banish the Dew. The predominant reason people put off tasks: they’re too tired. So get sufficient sleep and exercise, eat right, and lay off the Mountain Dew and Red Bull. Most of all, pursue unpleasant tasks when energy levels are high; you’ll accomplish them more easily and quickly.

5. Chunk it up. “A lot of tasks have something called motivational surface tension,” notes Steel, meaning getting started is the hard part. So break a task into small enough pieces that you can visualize each one’s outcome, then spend 10 minutes on one chunk. After 10 minutes, continuing for another 10 minutes — and so on — probably seems like no bother.

6. Procrastinate by working. “When I find myself procrastinating,” says Steel, “I allow myself to procrastinate as long as I do another piece of work I was procrastinating on.” His inspiration: that unrivaled procrastinator, the college student. “I caught onto this when I found out a lot of students were cleaning the stove the night before an exam.”

7. Build good habits. Psychologists say routines help us avoid procrastinating. To build good habits, start simply by breaking tasks into smaller chunks. “In the long term, as you get better at things, you can start chunking upwards, the tasks don’t have to be so small, and that’s where the routine comes in,” says Steel.

8. Don’t play Spock. Remember, many human tendencies are incredibly hard-wired. “We’re not Spock from the Planet Vulcan, we’re quasi-rational,” he says, “and it’s best to work with who you are, rather than who you want to be.” In other words, strive for changes relative to your existing procrastination habits, instead of some abstract ideal.

9. Separate work and play: Working makes you work more; playing makes you play more. Yet how can techies — for whom work often resembles play — strike a balance? Start by hiding the work laptop when you’re not at work. According to Steel, “it’s almost worth it for professionals to have two computers: one for surfing and video games, and one for working.”

10. Think you can. While it might sound trite, overcoming procrastination requires positive thinking. “The more self-doubt you have, the lower your motivation,” he says. “As a general rule, it’s best to be your own number-one fan, and to err on the side of believing you can do it

Mathew Schwartz is a freelance business and technology journalist based in Cambridge, Mass.

Media literacy in a media saturated world by ZDNet's Dan Farber -- The question of what becomes of journalism in the age of mass media, in which anyone with an Internet connection can be their own publisher and reach a potential audience of billions with a single click was the subject of a conversation at a cybersalon hosted by Sylvia Paull near the UC Berkeley campus [...]

Waiting for another disaster to happen

The government of Maharashtra and in particular the local government of Mumbai city is waiting for another disaster to happen before it really wakes up to take some concrete decisions.

Check this Disaster Management Plan http://mdmu.maharashtra.gov.in/pages/Mumbai/mumbaiplanShow.php to find out why the plan is just a lot of fluff and no solution.

There is no mention as to what people should do in the event of another 26th July 2005 happens to Mumbai again (believe me it is more likely to happen again and again).

The reason why Mumbai is a disaster waiting to happen is that the unholy nexus of politicians, builders and underworld have come together to create a concrete jungle that has usurped all available spaces and flouted all laws of planned development.

If you read the DMP you will find that the authorities are planning and depending on a working electricity and telephone network, while each one of us knows how these two basic pillars of disaster management collapsed during the deluge of Mumbai.

There is no mention of satellite phones, emergency power generation, storage of emergency food stock, both raw and prepared ready for distribution. But then you really can not blame the people here what with a nation as big as America failing in the wake of Katrina!

Dear City Fathers,
Please read and study the Katrina disaster and learn your lessons from there. Call for the program broadcast by National Geographic to find out why America Failed in Handling Katrina. Do it now, there is no time left and modify the disaster management plan accordingly.


This is all that I can hope and pray for.

Meanwhile here are some important people who may help bail you out

Shri. K. S. Vatsa
Secretary Relief & Rehabilitation,
502, Main Building,
Mantralya
Mumbai - 400 032
INDIA
Tel. No. - +91 022 22025274
Email - sec_r&r@maharashtra.gov.in

Maharashtra Disaster Management Unit
Earthquake Rehabilitation Cell,
14th Floor,
New Administrative Building,
Mumbai - 400 032
INDIA
Tel. No. - +91 022 22831984.

Flood Infoline
Tel. No. - +91 022 22040800
- +91 022 22040804

Rank Based V/s Peer Based Leadership Assumptions

RANK-BASED VS. PEER-BASED LEADERSHIP ASSUMPTIONS

To understand the power and durability of the myth of leadership—why it has such a strong hold on our imagination—we need to examine its assumptions about leaders and followers. We must begin by recognizing that these assumptions are not absolute, universal truths—they have a history. This history has helped establish the now implicit justification and legitimization of our current rank-based notion of leadership.

Three events, beginning in the seventeenth century and maturing in the nineteenth century, have contributed to the acceptance of the myth in modern organizations:

• The triumph of Newtonian science and its accompanying worldview

• The understanding of human nature inherent in Enlightenment philosophies

• The reaction to Enlightenment rationalism in Romanticism, creating the modern concept of individual genius and celebrity

Each of these events has worked its way into modern business assumptions about leaders and followers, affecting the way we organize work and relationships. They have led to rank-based organizations that overestimate the senior executive and underestimate the rank-and-file employee. They have introduced rank-based thinking into business in a way that makes work less than meaningful for the majority of individuals involved. Table 1 outlines some of these rank-based assumptions and contrasts them with peer-based assumptions that can lead to more successful relationships and more successful organizations. We will discuss each of these contrasts in detail.

Table 1: RANK-VS. PEER-BASED ASSUMPTIONS

Rank-Based Assumptions	Peer-Based Assumptions
Employees are lazy	Employees are productive
Employees are selfish	Employees are caring
Leaders are heroic individuals	Each individual is unique
Leadership command and control	General input and participation
Knowledge at the top	Knowledge at all levels
Manipulation	Cooperation

Employees are Lazy vs. Employees are Productive

The influence of science on business is a key factor in our first rankbased assumption.

Rank-Based Assumption

Employees are by nature lazy and need external motivation.

Peer-Based Assumption

Employees tend to be productive and self-motivated.

In most business organizations, employees are treated as costs that have to be justified. They are just parts, expensive parts, of the machine of business that must be operated as cheaply as possible. Where did this view of individual employees originate? Most organizational theorists agree it was in science, specifically Newtonian science. Newton introduced the most comprehensive and powerful explanation of how natural systems behave the way they do. His fellow scientists wept when they read his Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687), thinking that it was now all over, that there was nothing great left to discover. He "proved" that systems were composed of bodies, and those bodies were governed by basic forces. Bodies were inert and would change course only if acted upon by these basic forces. His system of natural science soon shaped the way we viewed human systems, organizations, work, and hence the leadership of work performed in organizations.

Newton's model seemed to justify its imitation in all fields of human endeavor, including management science. Just as nature had been mechanized and reduced to nothing but bodies in motion, labor was thought to be nothing but bodies in motion that had to be coerced through external force. Without an outside push or pull, the "Newtonian" employee would remain inert; that is, lazy and unmotivated. Frederick W. Taylor was the chief promoter and practitioner of this view, albeit motivated by socially admirable goals. His time and motion studies reveal the belief that a rigorous mechanical approach to organizations would bring superb results in the scientific management of workers.

Taylor believed that leadership must be imposed from the top down in a command-and-control manner. The brains and intelligence of a company resided at the top, while the muscle for doing the actual work resided at the bottom. He made two critical assumptions: (1) brain work should be taken from the shop floor and placed in the executive office, and (2) management should take all relevant knowledge and reduce it to rules, formulas, and laws for the rank and file to mindlessly follow.

In this system, employees were reduced to machines competing for scarce goods with other similar, yet separate, machines in an alien and often hostile workplace. This mentality was soon applied to organizations, people, and the environment without differentiation by the new scientific business leaders, not all of whom, by the way, shared Taylor's high ideals. They believed that to motivate they must push or prod a worker into action, overcoming the worker's inertia by the sheer force of their own bullying. For this, they found complete justification in science.

Now there is general agreement that the understanding of the nature of reality in classical science is not only wrong with regard to the natural world, but is detrimental to organizations as well. The majority of processes and systems found in nature cannot be reduced to nothing more than the behavior of inert bodies in motion. Similarly, employees are not machines, but living, open systems capable of self-renewal and self-direction. While natural science, with its self correcting method, has moved beyond this limiting belief about natural systems, management science has all too frequently remained bound to this inaccurate assumption about human systems. Today the belief that employees tend to be lazy and require external motivation is part of the unconscious fabric of leadership thought and practice. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, where seeing employees as lazy and unmotivated creates an organizational culture where the employees become lazy and unmotivated.

When managers treat their employees as unmotivated "cost centers" who require constant supervision, employees become defensive and respond by doing the bare minimum to avoid making mistakes or standing out. It doesn't take long for an employee who started out with great enthusiasm to become dependent on the rank-based leader's management of all important decisions, until soon the employee loses all initiative. New hires in a rank-based organization come to work full of innovative ideas and energy only to retreat into a compliant "just doing what I'm told" mentality after repeatedly being put in their place by some threatened rank-based manager.

Employees Are Selfish vs. Employees Are Caring

The second rank-based assumption finds its roots in the nature of the individual as described in the writings of Enlightenment philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes.

Rank-Based Assumption

Employees are by nature selfish and self-seeking and therefore need external control to keep them in line.

Peer-Based Assumption

Employees tend to be caring and willing to cooperate.

Hobbes argued that individuals are naturally in constant anxiety motivated by two basic emotions: (1) a negative emotion, the fear of death, and (2) a positive emotion, desire for all material goods and the domination of others. These two motivations put us into constant agitation with an insatiable craving for material wealth and, at the same time, a fear of death in a world that will not satisfy our infinite wants and constantly threatens to destroy us as well. In this world only the paranoid survive. As autonomous individuals constantly responding to these two emotions, individuals are in a state of a constant war of everyone against everyone. As Hobbes (1982) pointed out, in this environment, "life is poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (92).

Hobbes, like most Enlightenment philosophers, wanted to discover how and why individuals join together in organizations. Organizations will only come into existence, he argued, if autonomous individuals consent to organize for their own protection against each other and thus sacrifice certain freedoms to the organization and whoever controls it. In this view, individuals give up much of their freedom and enter organizations via common agreement (the social contract) in order to escape their natural wretched condition. Even as they enter organizations, they still retain their basic motivating emotions of fear of death as well as the insatiable desire for material goods. The purpose of any organization, in this view, is one of protecting people from each other as each struggles to acquire as much wealth and power as possible. (Certainly, this is a view of organizations expected and favored by market analysts.) These assumptions place the individual in constant opposition to others in the organization. They permeate through all our organizational thinking, planning, and communication, leading to the all-pervasive us-versus-them thinking that poisons relations between the company and its employees, or management and labor.

Us vs. Them

No one has captured the ironic nature of this conflict better than the writer Franz Kafka. He depicts the perplexed individual trapped in a maze not of his own making—the more he struggles, the more entrapped he becomes. The protagonist in my favorite Kafka story, The Metamorphosis (1915), is a young office worker by the name of Gregor Samsa, who wakes up one morning after unsettling dreams to discover he has turned into a dung beetle! Stuck on his back, unable to move, he fails to make it to work for the first time in his career. Gregor has been the ever-faithful employee even though trapped in a menial and boring job. He has accepted his fate while never once coming to work late. But guess who shows up rather quickly to evaluate the situation? It's none other than his manager, who immediately casts suspicion on his honesty and work ethic.

"Mr. Samsa", the manager now called, raising his voice, "what's the matter? You barricade yourself in your room, answer only ‘yes‘ and ‘no,’ cause your parents serious, unnecessary worry, and you neglect—I mention this only in passing—your duties to the firm in a really shocking manner. … The head of the firm did suggest to me this morning a possible explanation for your tardiness—it concerned the cash payments recently entrusted to you—but really, I practically gave my word of honor that the explanation could not be right. But now, seeing your incomprehensible obstinacy, I am about to lose even the slightest desire to stick up for you in any way at all. … Your performance of late has been very unsatisfactory; I know it is not the best season for doing business, we all recognize that; but a season for not doing any business, there is no such thing. Mr. Samsa, such a thing cannot be tolerated." (Kafka 1981, 99)

In this passage we see the first two assumptions of the myth of leadership: (1) employees are naturally lazy, and (2) they are naturally prone to dishonesty and self-seeking behavior—even to theft against the employer. Kafka's antiheroes are always getting caught in the absurdity of command-and-control hierarchies that threaten their wellbeing for seemingly trivial reasons. Here, with the anonymous and unpredictable power the manager and head of the firm hold over Gregor's head, his fear of failure is heightened. Today, with almost constant layoffs and restructuring, which seldom actually improve organizations, this nameless and capricious power held by leaders over their followers is incredibly harmful to our social fabric.

The Desire to Make a Difference

A rank-based organization informed by the myth of leadership tends to limit the creativity of employees to the narrow confines of their job description. What these rank-based assumptions overlook is that most people work for a broader reward, including at least the following three things:

• Fair compensation

• A chance to develop skills and new talents

• The opportunity to contribute to a cause larger than themselves

Employees bring their whole person to work, but the rank-based organization seeks to limit their involvement to impersonal tasks. This tension between individuals as whole persons and the limited organizational role assigned them often leads to employees just putting in their time at work before getting to do what's really meaningful for them after work. This doesn't have to be, for most employees seek first to find meaning and value at work, but it is too often denied them.

Leaders Are Heroic Individuals vs. Each Individual Is Unique

The third rank-based assumption has given the leadership myth its potent emotional appeal.

Rank-Based Assumption

Leaders are heroic individuals who have risen above the masses—possessing either an innate or learned genius. They are better than those beneath them, thus have the right to control decision making in organizations and do all the commanding and controlling.

Peer-Based Assumption

Leaders are no different than employees—they each have their own unique strengths and weaknesses.

I once worked with a leader who had quickly climbed to the top of his organization. When we first talked soon after his promotion, he was anxious to tell me he wasn't surprised by his meteoric rise, "for the cream will always rise to the top." This, I believe, captures an essential part of the leadership myth, namely, that those at the top of the organization are somehow better, or more deserving, than those beneath them on the organizational chart. What are the roots of this conception?

The Renaissance saw the rise in the fame of artists, but it was Romanticism, with its belief in creative genius and the romantic hero, that gave birth to personality cults and the appeal of the leadership myth of the twentieth century. From Romanticism we get our idea of the superhero, the master-of-the-universe type, who single-handedly controls others and the elements to achieve his desires and set the course of history.

Two books on the subject, both of which were tremendously popular when published, were pivotal. One is a series of lectures by Thomas Carlyle published in 1841 as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and the Heroic in History. The other, published in 1850 by Carlyle's friend and correspondence partner Ralph Waldo Emerson, is entitled Representative Man. Both books promote the greatness in men and provide the arguments for the importance and presence of "great men" in society and business. Carlyle wrote:

We… discourse here… on Great Men, their manner of appearance in our world's business, how they have shaped themselves in the world's history, what I call Hero-worship and the Heroic in human affairs…. A large topic; indeed, an illimitable one; wide as Universal History itself. For, as I take it, Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modelers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world. (1)

If you believe, following Newtonian science, that the majority of people are by nature lazy and need external force to motivate them—and if you believe, from the selfish individualism of Hobbes, that people will give up their freedom and join organizations because they are coerced and controlled by their own or others' self-seeking fear and greed—it is an easy step to assume that it could only be through the heroic efforts of some creative genius, a leader, that such an organization could be established and made successful. This "Great Man" (or today, perhaps "Great Woman") has, through his own wit, work, and luck, climbed to the top, assumed his destiny as the leader, and can now benefit the organization. His position at the top enables him to reap huge rewards, command large organizations, and demand that others give up their freedom to his judgment.

Of course, the reality of this heroic leader frequently resembles the "emperor's new clothes." The executive I mentioned earlier, who quickly climbed to the top of his organization, was not respected by those beneath him in rank. As I learned more about him and his successes, I discovered that he often claimed credit when others had done the work. I also found out that many of the contracts and partnership deals he arranged in his quick rise were poorly structured and fell apart soon after he was promoted to his next leadership position. The senior executives had so thoroughly bought into the assumptions of the myth of leadership, however, that these failings were blamed on his replacements, and his image remained untarnished.

Leadership Command and Control vs. General Input and Participation

The fourth rank-based assumption is that the corporate leader, as hero, must also have nearly superhuman capabilities.

Rank-Based Assumption

The heroic leader can control a complex organization from the top down, can accurately predict what is going to happen in the future, and should therefore be making all the critical decisions.

Peer-Based Assumption

Only with input and participation from all levels of the organization can leaders make effective decisions about current and future business conditions.

This leader becomes the indispensable avenue for every significant action in the organization; indeed, it wouldn't happen without her. Such a leader will be suspicious of, and unwilling to delegate any important decision to, anyone who does not see things her way. As a leader, she of course has vision, and those who follow her will be on the front wave of future success. Those who disagree with her vision, or, if they're without vision, will not progress within the leader's organization. In this view, decisions can be made only by the leader and not by the mass of people in the organization, who cannot be trusted to share the genius of the leader.

This rank-based assumption not only keeps decision making at the top of the organization—thus robbing the organization of the intelligence and talents of the vast majority of employees—it also corrupts communication. A rank-based leader will see his position as more important than the positions of those lower in rank. Because of this perception of superiority, the leader will not seek input or, if it is given, not take seriously the input of someone lower in rank.

This view of genius in eighteenth-and nineteenth-century Romanticism merged with Hobbes's belief in the nature of the individual, and the belief in how they interact from Newtonian science, and created the myth of leadership in twentieth-century organizations to justify rank-based forms of social arrangements. It is a belief that must be constantly justified in organizations. The justification is enforced through the tight control of information via closed books and closed meetings; through the media's obsession with celebrity and emphasis on leaders as larger-than-life individuals; and through the plethora of popular books on leadership.

Knowledge at the Top vs. Knowledge at All Levels

In the fifth rank-based assumption, knowledge and understanding are also considered to be the domain of the few.

Rank-Based Assumption

Employees tend not to know the best thing to do, while leaders do know.

Peer-Based Assumption

Individuals closest to where the work is done have a good grasp on what needs to happen.

Numerous books on leadership promise to reveal the leadership secrets of Attila the Hun, Moses, or Abraham Lincoln, or even Jesus as a CEO. They attempt to justify an implicit theory of motivation and human nature where only a few great individuals can lead—and if you want to lead, you have to be just like them. Not surprisingly, it is also a theory that tends to reward only a few with tremendous benefits in salaries and other bonuses; for if it takes superhuman abilities to lead, then it also requires superhuman salaries to reward these few "Great Men." So, the myth in many ways justifies the great disparity between salaries paid to senior executives and the wages of the majority of people-in organizations. It certainly helps drive executives' compensation way out of proportion to their actual worth to organizations.

In fact, some recent studies show an inverse relationship between executive compensation and profit performance of the company. A report issued by Scott Klinger (2001) of United for a Fair Economy showed that over half the companies in the top 10 percent in executive pay had a stock price that underperformed the S&P 500. In addition to the poor profit and stock performance, companies with the highest paid CEOs were more likely to announce significant layoffs within three years of their CEO appearing on the top paid list. An interesting aspect to exorbitant executive pay is that if minimum wage had increased at the same rate as executive pay since 1990, which was at a rate of 571 percent, then it would be not $5.15 an hour, but $25.50 an hour.

More often than not, celebrity CEOs are a product of their organization and not its cause. Very few find similar success when they go somewhere else, though they do pull in quite substantial compensation packages. Not surprisingly, the myth is supported by those who have been anointed leaders as well as by those who would like to be anointed leaders and reap the huge monetary and social rewards.

Paradoxically, our present myth of leadership, which arose from currents of thought that stressed individualism and individual greatness, has resulted in organizational managers turning into carbon copies of one another. In the words of Edward Young (1683-1765), "Born originals how comes it to be that we die as copies?" Further, what Vaclav Havel (1994) observed about political leaders could be said as well for CEOs of organizations:

He becomes a captive of his position, his perks, his office. What apparently confirms his identity and thus his existence in fact subtly takes that identity and existence away from him. He is no longer in control of himself, because he is controlled by some thing else: his position and its exigencies, its consequences, its aspects, and its privileges. (73-74)

The myth of leadership also creates several mistaken assumptions about ways to motivate employees. For instance, many leaders assume that the chief way to motivate employees is to give them more money. However, research conducted by Fred Emery has shown that money, while a work satisfier, is not a work motivator (Weisbord 1991, 167-168). Understanding the difference between work motivators and work satisfiers is important in creating a successful organization. What will motivate employees is to give them greater control and influence over their work; however, this is something a leader who accepts the myth of leadership will never do.

It makes it almost impossible for people in organizations to focus on results such as increasing profitability and decreasing costs because results are only valued insofar as they sustain a person's position against other individuals in the company. This leads to withholding information and resources from others, as well as trying to control others, even while blaming them for any failures. Workers who don't treat others the way they should can justify their behavior by buying into the myth. It also makes it nearly impossible to organize true teams when the implicit assumptions are that only the very few are "management material." It makes it seem as if an employee's character were fixed in a way that somehow predetermines his or her level in the organization, with only the "cream" rising to management position.

Manipulation vs. Cooperation

The sixth rank-based assumption concerns how to manage employees.

Rank-Based Assumption

You must manage (manipulate) employees to get them to do what you want.

Peer-Based Assumption

You don't manage peers; you cooperate with them.

I was once asked by a regional vice president to deliver some out-of-the-box leadership training to a group of salespeople. They all worked for the company that created the training I was to deliver. In fact, they sold the training to companies on the East Coast. I was told that most of these sales leaders had not had the opportunity to see the content of the training, so the objective was for them to have a "live" workshop experience. So that's what I prepared. Unfortunately, it was only after I began the training, and they all started vigorously protesting, that I realized we had been set up.

It seems that the regional VP perceived this group of sales representatives as troublemakers who asked too many questions. The VP figured that by attending a leadership seminar together, they'd learn to be more compliant to his wishes, but he knew they'd never agree to come to such an event. So, he told them it would be sales training, while hiding this important point from me. When they saw they were not in sales training, that they had been misled, I became the scapegoat for the absent VP who was two thousand miles away. The VP, in classic rank-based fashion, knew he could not win support for himself or his ideas through discussions, so he would have to resort to manipulation and some trickery instead. I felt sorry for this man. Though he felt superior to these sales reps by virtue of his position, he was also afraid of them and afraid to speak to them as peers, out of concern that his own lack of competence would be revealed—bursting the illusion of his leadership.

From the Book

The Myth of Leadership—Creating Leaderless Organizations

Jeffrey S. Nielsen

Davies-Black Publishing

Published by Davies-Black Publishing, a division of CPP, Inc., 3803 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 800-624-1765.

Special discounts on bulk quantities of Davies-Black books are available to corporations, professional associations, and other organizations. For details, contact the Director of Marketing and Sales at Davies-Black Publishing; 650-691-9123; fax 650-623-9271.

Rank Based V/s Peer Based Organizations

RANK-BASED VS. PEER-BASED ORGANIZATIONS

Obviously, an organization designed to be peer based will be very different from its rank-based counterpart. Rank-based thinking suppresses the heart and intelligence of the majority of an organization's employees. Command-and-control managing under the influence of rank-based thinking tends to be harsh, coercive, and demotivating. It is likely to create a poisonous atmosphere in the organization that kills an employee's natural desire to cooperate and be productive. Peer-based thinking rejects rank and supports a different type of organization, one that respects all members of the organization as peers.

The very form of peer-based organizations promotes the heart and intelligence of all employees. The more individual employees participate in decision making, the more their energy and dedication are enlisted by the organization. Allowed to share in business deliberations, individual employees expand their range of concerns beyond narrow self-interest to include a disciplined concern for the well-being of the whole organization. Most rank-based companies discourage the average individual's participation in decision making.

Deprived of a share in business deliberations, individual employees become almost totally absorbed with their own individual concerns and needs. Many rank-based leaders view this as further proof of their need to control decision making. They are blind to how rank-based leadership by nature creates self-centered employees. Thomas Kuhn (1962) said we don't see something until we have the right metaphor to let us perceive it. Most of our mental models, particularly in business, are still rank based. We need a new gestalt.

John Case (1993), in a cover story for Inc. magazine, pointed out that "a twenty-first century company's task will be to organize work so it can be carried out by businesspeople—by men and women who take responsibility and who share in the risks and rewards of enterprise" (93). Ten years later, most companies still have not created this sort of organization. I believe a main reason for this failure is the absence of a proper understanding of rank-based versus peer-based thinking. When a leader tries to share decision-making responsibility with others but fails to address the underlying rank-based thinking, any positive results will be short-term. The long-term results will include an increase in employee cynicism and an increase in rank-based control.

From: The Myth of Leadership

Jeffrey S. Nielsen

Davies-Black Publishing

Published by Davies-Black Publishing, a division of CPP, Inc., 3803 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303; 800-624-1765.

Tranquility in the midst of disturbances

All around us, if you examine, countries are facing a very turbulent today.

Pakistan is in flames due to the untimely sacking of its Chief Justice. The Musharraf regime is faced with violence all over the country with political pundits predicting his fall in the very near future. People seem to have had enough of the dictatorship. I think one of the reasons that Pakistanis tolerate the dictators is that they bring along with them American Funding (due to Washington's strategic interest in the region) that basically keeps the country alive and kicking. Having achieved freedom at the same time as India, Pakistan's industrial progress makes for sad reading. The establishment is now resorting to gaging its people even placing a ban on blogs published by the locals. This points to a systemic failure of the state.

Look east at Bangladesh and you have a caretaker government in place. It seems that violence between the two dominating political parties is the natural thing to do. Up north, you have the troubled state of Nepal which has witnessed a complete breakdown in its law and order and down south, Sri Lanka is in the grip of strife caused by the LTTE.

Amongst all this we seem to be in a sea of calm. It seems that the democratic process has taken deep roots in the collective psyche of the nation. With the transfer of power happening in a smooth manner in one of the largest states of the country, UP, it seems that all is well with the democratic process.

Now all we need is for the thinking people to participate in the democracy in an active manner such that the rotten scum of existing politicians are replaced with right people.

Right people who take the country forward.

Strange Case of Mahajan V/s Mahajan

It is almost a year since Pramod Mahajan died at the hands of his own brother Pravin Mahajan.

Pravin Mahajan shot his brother in cold blood in a premeditated attempt on his life. Immediately after shooting him, he went and surrendered to the local police and also gave up the weapon of crime.

Now we read about the trial on a daily basis. Is this not a fit case for speedy disposal? Why is the court interested in hearing the testimony of witnesses produced by the defence? Why has Pravin Mahajan pleaded not guilty? If Pravin did not shoot and kill Pramod who did?

From what has been reported in the media, it is an open and shut case and Pravin should be punished as soon as possible, rather than allowing the trial to drag. Justice should not only be done but should also be seen as having been done and swiftly at that. Only such an action will allow people to once again repose their faith in the judiciary.

Credit card cos make extra (Rs 6000 Crores) bucks Mumbai:

Credit card cos make extra (Rs 6000 Crores) bucks Mumbai:

You always knew your credit card company was charging you an exorbitant rate of interest for the convenient mode of payment it offers. But were you ever tempted to figure out how much “extra’’ these companies have made from people like you in, say, the last ten years? Well, don’t rack your brains. For the Credit Cardholder’s Association of India has worked out some chilling numbers for you. According to the association, these companies have made at least Rs 6,000 crore extra from credit cardholders in India in a span of ten years, through “hidden charges’’ such as overdraft fee, late fee, cash advance fee among others.

“We have studied the interest income and non-interest income columns in the balance sheet of many banks for a period of ten years. We have found that non-interest income is 10-15% of the gross income in the case of national and private sector bank in the country. When we studied foreign banks, we have found that the non-interest income forms 50-60% of the gross income for them.’’ Says CV Giddappa, general secretary of the association. “The figure is highly suspicious. We think these banks have made this extra money by keeping various charges hidden from the customers at the time of joining,’’ he added.

The association is planning to call for a general body meeting on May 28 in Bangalore to decide its future course of action. “Our delegates will meet and decide whether we should approach the supreme court to ask for refund of these extra charges levied by the bank,’’ said Giddappa, who claimed Indians pay the highest rates of interest on credit cards in the world.

Foreign banks, however, refused to join the issue. “We don’t have details to comment on the issue. Anyway, it is too general for us to comment,’’ said an official at a foreign bank. Another foreign bank official refuted the claim that Indian pay the highest rate in the world. “It is well known fact that countries like Argentina and Brazil have the highest rate of interest in the world. Also, the argument of hidden charges is not true. Details of all charges are given to the customers. In fact, they will get details of these charges through net, credit card bills,’’ said the official.

According to financial experts, interest rates on credit card is always highest because of the possibility of default on them. “If you get into the habit of rolling on a credit card, you may in all possibility would fall into a debt trap. In fact, in theory, you could go on paying forever if you opt to pay only the minimum amount due every month,’’ said a financial advisor. Check the fineprint before applying for a credit card

Mumbai: Recently, a 49-yearold Mumbai consumer reached her bank ATM to find that her account balance of Rs 42,440 was reduced to a mere 0.94 paise. When she contacted the bank’s 24-hour customer care number, she was told that the amount had been adjusted against her credit card outstanding. “This has really shocked me as there has been
no intimation whatsoever from the credit card department to this effect,’’ she says.

In order to avoid a shocker of this sort, the next time you get a credit card offer from your bank, you must must go through the fineprint minutely before signing up. Such offers could carry a “right of setoff ’’ clause, which allows banks to set off outstanding credit from any of the cardholder’s accounts held, singly or jointly, with the bank—without any notice.

The Mumbai consumer, too, remained unaware about the clause because, she says, “when you apply for a card, you just sign on the form, you don’t really read it.’’ Her grouse is that the clause could have been invoked in case she were absconding. “But the recovery agents were constantly in touch with me and I had informed them of my intentions to pay up.’’

Says H N Sinor, chief executive at the Indian Banks’ Association (IBA), “Banks do not immediately invoke such a clause. Bankers prefer that you do not pay the first time so that interest accrues. A two- threemonth delay in payment is considered good business for a bank. Only after three-four reminders, do banks trigger such a clause.’’

According to Sinor, if a bank plans to invoke such a clause, it does not require to send across a specific notice to a customer, as “the mandate is already obtained upfront’’.

A senior banking consultant, though, deems this a malpractice. “Banks must send one or two notices to a customer to give him an opportunity to pay up, as he may have kept the money aside for other purposes.’’ Like, the Mumbai consumer who needed the sum to pay her medical bills. “If at all an amount is to be adjusted, it could have been only the immediate due amount and not the entire outstanding amount,’’ she says, as the bank was charging her interest, late payment fees and service charges on the dues.

This case brings to light the lack, and thus, importance of transparency and clarity in bank dealings. As per the IBA’s Fair Practice Code for Credit Card Operations, “Our banks’ dues collection policy is built on courtesy, fair treatment and persuasion. We believe in fostering customer confidence and long-term relationship... We will provide you with all the information regarding dues and will give sufficient notice for payment of dues. Our staff/ agents are governed by Model Code for Collection of Dues and Repossession of Security issued by Indian Banks’ Association.’’

If a consumer faces trouble with his card issuer, Reserve Bank of India’s master circular on credit card operations of banks, issued in July 2006, has laid down redressal guidelines. It says a time limit of 60 days may be given to a customer to refer his grievances. Besides, the card-issuing bank should constitute a grievance redressal machinery within the bank and publicise it through media. Redressal officers’ names and contact numbers must be mentioned on the credit card bills. The designated officer should ensure that genuine grievances of card subscribers are redressed promptly without delay.

“There should be a system of acknowledging customers complaints for follow-up, such as complaint number/ docket number, even if the complaints are received on phone,’’ the circular says.

Who are ‘clever people’?

2nd Article in the Series How to Manage Clever People and grow your organization as appearing in The Times of India, Mumbai Edition, dated 7th May 2007 and originally appearing in Harvard Business Review.

Who are 'Clever People'?

ROBERT GOFFEE & GARETH JONES

Clever people are highly talented individuals with the potential to create disproportionate amounts of value from the resources that the organisation makes available to them. Clever people are not simply those with the highest IQ or the most impressive academic qualifications (although many do score highly on these two measures).

Of course, precisely what these clever people do within organisations depends on the context. In pharmaceutical companies they carry out scientific research and produce ideas for new drugs; in professional services firms they solve complex client problems; in ad agencies they understand customers, brand values and craft highly innovative communications that connect the two. Typically they are a scarce and valuable resource able to bring creativity, innovation and complex problem solving skills to all they do.

Sometimes clever people can create value more or less alone. Others are dependent on teams and yet others need the complex support systems of large organisations. Think, for example, of a research scientist working on a new cancer drug. He or she cannot work effectively without research funding and facilities such as a laboratory. Or, think of an advertising executive who needs the resources to make and broadcast a TV commercial or, increasingly, create an online marketing campaign.

The clever people we are talking about require a symbiotic relationship with an organisation. They may not always realise this fact, or be especially pleased about it, but it is true nonetheless. Herein lies a paradox that is at the heart of leading clever people. The challenge for leaders is to be the organisation of choice for these people. Fail to do so and you encourage them to walk into the open arms of your competitors.

The starting point, if you are to effectively lead clever people, is to better understand their key characteristics. Our research suggests that the key attributes of clever people are:
Their skills are not easily replicated. If they were, then they would not be the scarce resource they are.

Their knowledge is tacit (it is embedded in them and in their networks). If it was possible to capture their knowledge within the organisational fabric, then all that would be required would be better knowledge management systems. It isn’t.
They are smart enough to be in the right place—and they know it. They will find the organisational context where their interests will be most generously funded.

Unlike some who are driven to reach the top, they may not be hierarchically aspirational (indeed, many are resistant to the notion) but they are often organisationally savvy because they are so driven by their own obsessions. They challenge the status quo and, therefore, are often sources of creativity in organisations. This can make them uncomfortable if they feel as if they are in a subordinate role. It can also make them difficult to lead.

They are well connected to other clever people. In other words, they are plugged into highly developed knowledge networks—who they know is often as important as what they know.
But beyond these characteristics, the way to identify clever people is this: typically, they say they do not want to be led nor to lead others. This is the central paradox we referred to earlier. But in our experience, neither of their assertions is really true. They do want to be led—indeed they require leadership if they are to achieve their full potential—and they have the ability and motivation to lead others. But in both cases it is a special sort of leadership. Understanding this brand of leadership will be crucial for all who wish to succeed and lead in the clever economy.

The 10 Commandments of Networking

From © Mark McGregor

Getting The Most Out of Business Networking

Networking is a lot of fun! Business networking is when a group of like minded business people gather and help each other. If you check, you will surely find a networking group in your area. The networking group can meet as often as they wish, as is convenient for the participants.

Regretably, most people start with a networking group by looking for immediate gains.... that is, for favorable results for themselves. If this is what you are trying to achieve, you are networking for the wrong reasons and will be sticking out like a sore thumb.

Many people think that the size of a networking group makes the difference in networking. When groups start falling in size, members will say, "we have to build up our numbers." Now, what numbers are they referring to? Is it the number of participants? I would rather belong to a networking group of two people who can help each other on a regular basis then have a large group of business people not following the Ten Commandments of Networking. It is not the quantity, it is the quality.

"I haven't got any leads yet!" Well excuse me, have you given one, ever? Or, have you made a suggestion that might help a fellow member? Did you call anyone with a compliment and say, "Just wanted you to know, Jim, that your comments on the XYZ expansion was right on the money." One must be willing to put in time waiting also. It might take a while before people feel comfortable with offering you a referral.

Networking groups will come and go. To get the most out of your networking experience, you need to build a relationship with people who you want to have contact with. Not all members will be able to help you, nor will you be able to help them. That doesn't mean you should snub them! I still have strong relationships with my networking friends from groups that are long gone.

When networking, spend most of your time and effort on people who can help each other out, for the long term. That is right. This is a long term project. Countless times I have been to business networking events and have seen people actually run from person to person, with the expectations of first giving away their card and hoping to gather the other person's. How can you possibly build a relationship with a person when your objective is to get out there, and collect cards? Some networking groups make a game out of it to see who can collect the most in a certain time. What a waste of business cards!

You will find that a highly effective networker will "work the net". What I mean is that they will go into a function with a goal in mind. My usual goal when business networking is to have the expectation that I will "meet" and "understand" only three people per event. I know what kind of person that I can help and expect that this person will be able to do the same for me. A win/win situation is what I am talking about. The highly effective networker will take the time to cultivate a rapport.

After the business networking event is when the real work begins. After all, you are only at the networking event to meet and build rapport. Follow up ASAP. Now is the time to send a nice customized card, and call a few days after to arrange a time to meet for a coffee or to have lunch. That is when you can listen to the details of what your new "friend" requires. You might even have the chance to offer your goods and services, only after listening.

If you want to gain the most out of business networking, follow the Ten Commandments of Networking!

• 1) Thou shalt drop the "what is in it for me?" attitude.
• 2) Thou shalt listen.
• 3) Thou shalt build a relationship.
• 4) Thou shalt give the first referral.
• 5) Thou shalt not tell others of the referral you require; thou shalt "show them" with a story.
• 6) Thou shalt be specific of the type of referral.
• 7) Thou shalt reciprocate when appropriate.
• 8) Thou shalt participate in the network executive, functions, and network time.
• 9) Thou shalt thank the person who gave a referral.
• 10) Thou shalt follow up on the referral within 24 hours.

Business networking is productive and fun, and that is why it will always be part of the Bigger Picture.

Mark McGregor is a keynote speaker and professional presenter with Speaking of Hearts. He is a motivational and inspirational speaker on business and stress matters. Mark is available to speak for your next Canadian and American conference, trade show or event.