Slow Down to Move Faster

“Fast is good” seems to be the mantra.  Speed is gratifying.  Going slow is boring.

More and more I am noticing organization cultures plagued by this “Fast is good” syndrome.  Maybe it is good if it found in the lower levels of the organization.  Or when the problems are not complex.

But when the top management exhibit this, it can be disastrous. 

At the top, “Slow is better”.

Thinking needs time.  Creative thinking needs more time. 

The larger the decisions, more time is needed…… to assess all sides of the problem, prioritize the tasks, think of the what/how/when/who of a solution…… a solution that will meet the least resistance while implementing. 

The larger the decisions, the more the need for a collaborative process to arrive at a decision as it impacts the various stakeholders adversely.  This dialogue needs even more time.

“Run the show” and “manage Change” – these are the two buckets under which all tasks of a manager can be put.  And both have their demands on his/her time.

The trouble is when the top managements are overburdened with “running” the day to day show.  They are left with no/little time to think creatively and consult the other stakeholders – i.e. “manage Change”.

The trouble is that "running" requires speed and the managers have become slaves of the go fast habit.  And given that a habits is a habit, this habit stays when they "manage Change" or when they handle complex problems.  Decisions have to be taken, even if the decisions is "let's not decide".

No doubt such organizations show performance in the short term.  But since their responsiveness to change is very low, they find it difficult to survive/thrive in the long run.

Just thinking

Shridhar

PS : I’m not saying that going fast is completely wrong.  There are situations where it is needed and others where it is warranted.  Will cover it in Part 2 of the Blog.

Which MF will outperform in the Future - A New Paradigm of Assessing this

Investors in Equity Mutual Funds are often confounded with the job of assessing which Asset Management Company is the best and will remain the best for the next 3-5 years.

The current methods of assessing this ARE OUTDATED.

Very often, the data given to investors is pertaining to past performance. 

While all agree that this is just indicative (no guarantee) of future performance the question remains - how can we really assess future winners?

No one has attempted an answer, at least not a convincing one.   Let me attempt one. 

An AMC whose management is able to create and sustain a vibrant internal culture of Mutual Trust & Respect (MT&R) will outshine. 

Let me use a formula to explain :

Any AMC, even the largest one, has limited energy.   There is no unlimited energy.  And this energy is allocated predictably. 

First, the energy is allocated to “Internal Marketing” and only the surplus is available for “External Marketing”.

Let me explain.

This AMC’s limited energy is needed to do all the activity that leads to satisfy the clients (“investors”) – Fund Management, market segmentation, fund distribution/channel strategy, etc.    In Adizes, we call it “External Marketing”.

But all this energy is not available.  There is a leak. Why?

Because “Internal Marketing” robs the AMC of some portion of the energy.   Each team has to “sell” its ideas to one another team – the Investment Managers, Marketing, Sales, Compliance, etc.   This is inevitable.  Teams have diversely opposite Roles & Interest and each team spends energy to “explain, convince and sell” its ideas to other teams.

When MT&R between the teams is LOW…. there is a lot of politics in the AMC…….a lot of energy gets consumed in “Internal Marketing” and such AMCs do not have energy to give to the client. 

When MT&R is HIGH, the energy needed for “Internal Marketing” is low.  A lot of energy is conserved.  This energy is very useful in serving the client better.

Let’s face it. Capabilities wise each AMC has almost equal level of talent, at least over a period of time.  So “capabilities” are not going to give them a competitive advantage.   Any other AMC can replicate it.

What cannot be replicated is a Culture of Mutual Trust & Respect.   And that can be the biggest and sustainable competitive advantage.   In the words of Dr. Ichak Adizes :

“What is the biggest asset a company can have?  It’s not what you have, but what you ARE.  What you have and what you do will change with time.  It will become obsolete even before you blink your eyes.  What you are is forever.  What is the biggest asset a company can have – it is a culture of Mutual Trust & Respect.    What is the role of Management?  It is build and nourish the culture of Mutual Trust & Respect.  That is you biggest asset and unfortunately it does not appear on the balance sheet, but it should.”  

It is very easy for a wealth manager to assess an AMC.  It is his role.  He must do it before recommending the products (especially Equity Schemes) of an AMC it to its investor clients.

For that he must focus on finding out what’s happening in the AMC?  Is there excessive politics, back-stabbing, rumors machine??  Or is there a proactive and dynamic system in place that helps the AMC’s teams to resolve (not bypass) conflicts and generate an atmosphere of Mutual Trust & Respect.

Wealth Management Firms and MF Distributors who can know each AMC from inside must use this knowledge to recommend or give “avoid this AMC” calls to investor clients. 

Just thinking.

Flipkart's "Performance Improvement Plan" - will it really do so

Flipkart's layoff program disguised as "Performance Improvement Program" is in news.

At the end of the Program some 600 employees will be sacked.

Will this improve Flipkart's performance?  Yes and No.

Yes, in the short run.

No, in the long run.

You see, sacking employees has "short term" and "long term" implications.   Both are loggerheads with each other.

Short term benefit :
- Saving cost of sacked employees
- A clear message to the remaining employees that "performance" matters

Long term costs :
- a fear laden atmosphere amongst the unsacked employees (will this promote "performance"?)
- a chink/dent in the culture of "Mutual Trust & Respect" that has been built so painstakingly till now
- an negative atmosphere in which an extraordinary person too may perform below-ordinary

Next question : what made the employees non-performers?   Their innate "individual" qualities?   Or the "atmosphere" of the organization?

The atmosphere is composed of Vision/Mission/Values, the Structure and the Managerial Processes.    Who creates it?  The management.

A management's primary role is to proactively and continually "change" the organization's Vision/Mission/Values, Structure and Processes to adapt to change in its lifefcycle stage.

What is the use of blaming and sacking employees (individuals) who were once recruited through the stringent processes of the company itself?

In short, "changing people" is God's job.  The best managements cannot do it.  Then, shouldn't the management focus on providing an "atmosphere", a culture replete with Mutual Trust & Respect.......in which an ordinary person can perform extraordinarily?

Just thinking