#91: From co-operation to sub-optimization
Quite correctly, managers want people to co-operate. But be warned: co-operation can lead to sub-optimization.
Whenever people try to co-operate, there is a risk that everyone will ultimately perform at the level of the lowest contributor or the weakest member. This happens because (one) co-operation does not necessarily happen amongst equals; (two) the weakest member cannot hide and is aware of being weak; and (three) nobody likes feeling that they are doing more than others without receiving more in return (at least not for any length of time).This can create a pathological state where the weak want to be ‘rescued’ and the strong wonder why they should bother. The weak sense this, and create ‘irritations’ (mainly through passive-aggressive behavior) so that the strong are kept off-balance. In this way, the weak claim some power.
The outcome? Although co-operation is meant to make all parties perform better, it more often leads to sub-optimization.
I’m james@nonsenseatwork.comCopyright: 2007 James Henry McIntosh
James can be heard on Public Radio, 88.9 FM WCVE, Richmond VA.
Monday - 7:19am and Saturday - 8:19am
#90: Perceptual errors at work - part 8
Did you know that the order in which you receive information can influence how you interpret that information? This was demonstrated by Solomon Asch in 1946. Listen carefully:
If I describe someone as intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious, what impression do you form? Most people don't have a problem with the description critical; they tend to view critical as meaning that she made good use of her intelligence. And stubborn suggests that she stuck to views that, because of intelligence, were probably correct.If I describe a person as envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious and intelligent, what would you think? Having learned that this person is envious and stubborn, most people view the fact that he is also intelligent as suggesting that he is crafty or sly. Did you?Yet, the descriptive words are identical, only their order differed.
I’m james@nonsenseatwork.comCopyright: 2007 James Henry McIntosh
James can be heard on Public Radio, 88.9 FM WCVE, Richmond VA.
Monday - 7:19am and Saturday - 8:19am
#89: Pay-for-output, reward-for-input
Much of modern management stems from Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management methodology, formally introduced in 1911, almost one hundred years ago.
One legacy of Taylor’s thinking is the idea that workers should be paid for how much they produce in a given time period, and not for the number of hours they actually worked. In other words, pay-for-output and not for time put in.
However, a great deal of what a manager does is intangible, without immediate outputs or results. From a worker perspective, it can appear as if managers are rewarded for merely being at work, for the time they put in. This payment for output-by-workers versus reward for input-by-managers is often at the root of workers feeling that they are being exploited.
This already big gap between pay-for-output and reward-for-input continues to increase as we shift from braun-power to brain-power. And workers’ discontent increases along with it.
I’m james@nonsenseatwork.comCopyright: 2007 James Henry McIntosh
James can be heard on Public Radio, 88.9 FM WCVE, Richmond VA.
Monday - 7:19am and Saturday - 8:19am
#88: Perceptual errors at work - part 7
Here are two more perceptual errors, namely framing and anchoring.When we judge people or events, we are often influenced by the way information is presented. This is known as framing. For example, if we are told that a project has a 40% chance of success, we tend to view it more favorably than if we were told initially that the project has a 60% chance of failure.
If we are told that a project is likely to take three weeks, we are likely to negotiate for more time. This means that we have accepted the three weeks as a reference point. We have ‘anchored’ our thinking around the three weeks, instead of discussing how much time is realistically needed to do the job properly. We have allowed the starting value to unduly influence our judgment.The point is this: don’t let your judgment be influenced by information which, rationally, should not have any effect.
I’m james@nonsenseatwork.comCopyright: 2007 James Henry McIntosh
James can be heard on Public Radio, 88.9 FM WCVE, Richmond VA.
Monday - 7:19am and Saturday - 8:19am
#87: Conning the manager
Here is an April Fool’s lesson for you. I learned this from a subordinate many years ago. We were walking down a busy street during lunch time when he suddenly interrupted himself and said, “See this guy with the pink shirt coming toward us? He’s a con artist.”
I studied the guy as he passed us and then my subordinate started laughing. “I don’t know that guy from Adam,” he said, “But I bet, now that I’ve planted the seed, the next time you see him you’ll still suspect him of being a con artist.”That incident set me wondering about managers being conned by subordinates into poor judgements and snap decisions. I have realized over the years that often the ‘con’ on the part of subordinates could be unintentional.Yet, the seed is real and will germinate. If it turns out to be a weed, it is up to the manager to kill it in time.
I’m james@nonsenseatwork.comCopyright: 2007 James Henry McIntosh
James can be heard on Public Radio, 88.9 FM WCVE, Richmond VA.
Monday - 7:19am and Saturday - 8:19am
