fong's family

Blogger beta

2006-12-18T15:57:00.000+08:00

I have just switched to the new beta.

testing from Picasa2

2005-10-07T22:24:00.000+08:00

Warning

2005-09-15T16:17:00.000+08:00

There are few words of warning offered by the author, i.e. this method requires the use of empathy and it takes time and effort. You also don't know what you are getting until you have successfully unwrapped a person and you may not be able to transform every unmotivated employee. The final outcome may disappoint you but at least you and your problem staff will know either that an avenue for improvement has opened up or agree to disagree. After all it was the managers' judgment that certain employees worth the effort of being motivated. Now let us look at some actions in greater details.

Step 1: Create a Rich Picture
The use of empathy is in fact putting yourself in other's shoes. This important first step requires you the manager to ask few questions and collect information to answer them. The questions are:

What drives that person?
What blocks those drives?
What might happen if the impediments are removed?

Note also that these questions are asked within the context of these problems occurring and you the manager play a key role in most cases. The article has suggested many ways of collecting information informally and this must be done careful as the manager may be the main cause of the employee's lack of motivation. You may have to use a proxy in such as case.

A New Approach

2005-09-13T15:58:00.000+08:00

The new way is to turn it around, from subject to object and from boss to subordinate.    The problem of motivating problem staff must be looked at from a complete new perspective.   The manager needs to look at the employee (who labeled "problem employee") with the word "problem" removed from his forehead and as a real person to be understood.    This approach is based on 3 principles (or assumptions).

1.   Everyone has motivational energy – this principle or assumption appears fundamental.    That is to say that the employee can be motivated in the first place but his/her drive and commitment was not displayed at work.

2.   The motivational energy is blocked in the workplace – This is a follow on from first principle above.    If the employee has motivational energy it was either not displayed at work or has been blocked in the workplace.    Impediments can be caused by stresses at home, relationship with spouse/partner or peers, or something that has accumulated incrementally over years, e.g. broken promises at work or being misunderstood/ignored by their bosses.

3.   Removing blockages require employee participation – this is easily understood.    Provided principles 1 and 2 above are true then the employee is the only person who knows exactly the way to have the blockages removed.    The author used judo to explain this, i.e. find the locus of energy and leverage it to achieve your goal.    As in judo, if you find the way you could use least effort to do the job.    Forcing your way as in the traditional approach will not work with problem employees.

How to Motivate Your Problem People

2005-09-12T10:38:00.000+08:00

HBR 2002 - by Nigel Nicholson

The article starts off by mentioning a very valid fact about theory, i.e. motivation strategy works with only a fraction of employees and a smaller fraction of managers. Interesting enough that the author used hero like Nelson Mandelas or Winston Churchills to illustrate that exhorting managers to become one of those will get you no where. The author answered the question in the caption by saying that the question itself was wrongly asked. The fact is that those so called problem people in an organization that is taking up disproportionate amount of manager's time can't be motivated. ONLY the problem people THEMSELVES can.

The article used 2 examples to demonstrate typical cases of problem staff and how managers make common mistakes. Most managers would believe that motivating problem people is like selling his own idea, value and perception. It's like if I can see he/she should see it the same way and it's just a matter of talking to him/her again or let's find someone who can have friendly dialogue to do the talking for me. According to the article this approach proved to be wrong and in most cases you'll only get "sure, boss" and the problem keeps repeating itself over time. It is an impossible goal for the managers because changing people's character is impossible. Change comes from within.

My experience

2005-09-07T15:00:00.000+08:00

It is true that we all use our experience in our decision making.    In our business life things are happening so fast that the circumstances do not allow careful objective and scientific deliberation process to be carried out.     In many cases your success depends on how fast you could make up your mind, e.g. in closing a deal or submitting a proposal or tender.

For reasons just described it is only possible in the perfect world that one could "adjust" their decision making mechanism in their mind by following advices in this article.    Even if you can afford the time and have the discipline to follow the guidance you will be over taken by your competitors.

Some people are born leaders and they are normally smart decision makers.    In my experience the mind of these people operate like a computer and the more decisions they make the smarter they become.     The funniest thing is that the algorithm they used in computing a solution bases on very few principles.    These are normally very fundamental principles in life such as ethics, human value and interaction with personality.

In fact some of the techniques described in this article are not workable.    E.g. decisions for large corporation are not made by individuals but in group.    When you work with others you have to consider hidden agendas of others and very seldom you could analyze a situation with all facts laid out with honest contribution from everybody involved.     Furthermore if your organization does not have a culture to use analytical methods in decision making all these recommendations by the article are useless.    You still have to resort to your political skills trying to persuade people to decide smartly for the benefit of all.

After all it is the result that counts in most cases.    It would be naïve to assume that the boss will even know and appreciate your decision making process if the result does not turn out right.

TEST OF WORD FOR BLOGGER

2005-09-06T17:14:00.000+08:00

This is a test of using Blogger for Word.

Does it show different fonts or formatting such as this and that?

I always have trouble with this when doing cut & paste:

Bullet

Numbering

Three

Let’s have a look at the results

THE END

Estimating and Forecasting Traps

2005-09-06T15:04:00.000+08:00

We make estimates everyday.     For most of these estimates we don't normally get feedback on their accuracy therefore as a result our minds never become calibrated for better accuracy.     In making big decisions involving estimating under uncertainty we use the basic instinct we have, which is not accurate, which has a distorting effect in uncertain situations.   There are 3 of the most common of these uncertainty traps:-
1.   The overconfidence trap – we tend to be overconfident about our accuracy.     This may due to the fact that anchor has been set in our mind and we are pulled to that anchor therefore being overconfident in our estimates in order to get closer to our goals.    Aggressive people will fall into this trap.
2.   The prudence trap – this takes the form of overcautiousness, i.e. a reverse to the first trap above.    This is actually practiced in many industries where worse case scenarios are required to be examined even though the odds of those circumstances actually coming to pass were infinitesimal.
3.   The recallability trap – even if we could avoid the traps described above we may still fall into this one.    In our mind we forecast based on past events in our memory.    We could be overly influenced by dramatic events that leave a strong impression on our memory.    E.g. a plane crash that killed hundreds but daily killing due to car accidents do not forge as much an impression in one's mind as for a plane crash.    Anything that distorts your ability to recall events in a balanced way will distort your probability assessments.
Ways to avoid these traps:

To avoid the overconfidence trap in making estimates, always start by considering the extremes, the low and high ends of the possible range of values. This will avoid being anchored by the initial estimate.
To avoid the prudence trap, always state the estimates honestly and explain to anyone who will be using them that they have not been adjusted. Test estimates over a reasonable range to assess their impact. Do a sensitivity analysis to reassess your estimates.
To minimize distortion due to your memory, carefully examine all your assumptions. Invite someone to offer fresh perspectives that do not have those memories that may have affected you. Get actual statistics if all possible.

The Framing Trap

2005-08-31T13:47:00.000+08:00

If you start off from the wrong foot you will never get there.    The first step in making a decision is by asking the question.    If the wrong question is asked your mind will be anchored by the way it is asked then the decision is deemed to be wrong.    There are 2 types of framing traps, they are:
1.   Frames as Gains vs Losses – we naturally want to avoid losses.    Researches have revealed that people are risk averse when a problem is posed in terms of gains but risk seeking when a problem is posed in terms of avoiding losses.
2.   Framing with different reference – different reference points will get different responses.    Studies have shown that many people would refuse the 50-50 chance for a choice with reference point of zero (neutral) but accept a choice with positive reference point putting things into perspective by emphasizing the real financial impact of the decision.
What can you do about this?   You can

Always reframe the problem in various ways and observe distortions caused by the frames.
Try posing problems in a neutral, redundant way that combines gains and losses or embraces different reference points.
Deliberate hard throughout the process about framing trap. At the end ask yourself if you would change your mind if the question is asked differently.
When others recommend decisions, examine the way the framed the question. Challenge them with different frames.

Blue Sky

2005-08-31T10:15:00.000+08:00

P1000461
Originally uploaded by sfong15.

The sky is rarely so blue. This year we have lots of rain, little sunshine and almost no typhoons. Why? I guess this is global warming and the North is so warm that typhoons can go towards that direction instead of normal route due West.

The Confirming-Evidence Trap

2005-08-29T14:40:00.000+08:00

This is easily understood as a psychological behavior we all have but very difficult to avoid falling into. Our mind follows the decision making routine and tries to get affirmation unconsciously from people you trust. To demonstrate this, consider a case where all of us would love to get our buddies accepting and getting along with our choice of girl/boy friend. In all cases decisions have been made and your friend parents or acquaintance would just go along with your choices. What can you do about this? Let us look at these ways:

Check if you are looking at all evidence with equal rigor.
Get someone in your team to play devil's advocate
Be honest with yourself about your motives
In seeking the advice of others, frame your questions carefully to avoid asking leading questions that invite confirming evidence.

The Sunk-Cost Trap

2005-08-26T17:10:00.000+08:00

This is very similar to the Status-quo trap discussed above and has relationship with it. We tend to make choices that justifies past choices (i.e. status-quo in effect). Past choices are "sunk costs" which could be a problem employee or an investment that didn't turn out right. This in fact goes beyond what the article has covered because when we come to make big decisions concerning past choices it touches on company politics if you are in middle management. Even if one was involved in the decision making of some big decisions normally it was the top guy who signed on that. If you were asked to review an poor performing investment, an problem employee you agreed (or didn't disagree) to hire you would be naturally cautious when offering your comments. Naturally people would tend to protect the status-quo and will fall into this trap. How do we avoid this? Let's try these:

Set aside sunk costs – anything that would muddy your thinking about choices at hand. E.g. keep the original decision makers away from the group/team reviewing this past decision.
Have a fresh mind by listening carefully to people who were NOT involved with the earlier decisions.
Examine why admitting to an earlier mistake distresses you, your boss or the CEO.
Be sensitive about the influence of sunk-cost biases.
Cultivate a fearless culture for employees that are examining the past decisions and empower them appropriately.

The Status-Quo Trap

2005-08-25T16:35:00.000+08:00

Again this is a behavioral phenomenon that we repeat everyday. The article uses example such as investment inherited. I could see that we unconsciously go to the same restaurant drive the same route or consume the similar kind of food in our daily life. Our tendency is to take the least resistance, less effort, and less psychological risks when making trivial decisions. This tendency of protecting the status-quo becomes a bad habit when big decisions are being deliberated. How do we lessen the status-quo pull in our decision making? Let's try below:-

State your objectives. It'll be obvious that the status-quo, i.e. do nothing is only one of the options that may not serve all your objectives well;
Identify other options just to balance the pull from status-quo;
Avoid exaggerating the effort and costs of alternatives other than status-quo;
Remind yourself that the desirability of the status-quo changes with time, look further into future rather than choosing the easiest move shortsightedly;

The Anchoring Trap

2005-08-24T15:51:00.000+08:00

The anchoring trap is a common mental phenomenon. When considering a decision, the mind gives disproportionate weight to the first information it receives. The first impression, given as data information or figure, anchors subsequent thoughts and judgments. We fall into this kind of trap all the time. This is a trick normally used by a good negotiator, salesperson or even service/product survey not professionally designed. To avoid this trap one should follow below techniques:-

View a problem from different perspectives;
Look at the problem on your own before consulting others;
Be open minded;
Not to anchor others who may be advising you;
Be very careful of anchors in negotiations. Carefully evaluate your position before entering any negotiations.

Flickr

2005-08-24T12:40:00.000+08:00

www.flickr.com

This is a Flickr badge showing public photos from sfong15. Make your own badge here.

The Hidden Traps in Decision Making

2005-08-23T16:41:00.000+08:00

HBR Sept–Oct 1998 - by John S Hammond, Ralph L Keeney, and Howard Raiffa

The punch line of this article is that your own mind may be your worst enemy in decision making. We make decisions everyday from picking a route when driving to deciding who to lunch with and meeting schedules during the day. We take it for granted that we are making wise decisions most of the time without examining what is the mechanism under the hood of the decision making machine, i.e. our mind. Researchers and behavioral scientists attempted to uncover how our mind works for decision making and give us advices on how to avoid hidden traps.

Most decisions during the day were routines as few examples above. We use unconscious routines for trivial decisions but also for complex ones. These routines, known as heuristics, serve us well in most situations. In the article few well-documented psychological traps are discussed.

After the rain

2005-08-22T16:09:00.000+08:00

P1000371
Originally uploaded by sfong15.

After many weeks (lost count) of rainy days this is the first day with little bit of sunshine. Got hold of a friend to lunch in Kellet Island yacht club and took this photo from that end. This is the beauty of slim digital camera you could also carry it in your pocket.

SCARCITY and LEARN AND PLAY

2005-08-22T15:23:00.000+08:00

SCARCITY – people want more of what they can have less of.    This is a powerful tool indeed but also a dangerous one.    It is powerful because it is human nature to treasure what is exclusive, limited and scare.    E.g. senior executives normally have access to confidential information about business deals, promotion opportunities etc.    If information exclusive to you is used properly you could persuade people.    However if this is used too often or the exclusivity or the information itself is faked then this could be very harmful to the relationship and both the creditability of the persuader or the organization would be at stake.

LEARN AND PLAY – once said all these techniques are not rocket science.    How to apply them at work everyday is still an art in my opinion.    In most cases I think the situation will not be plainly set upon you that you could instantly know which principle or principles in combination should be applied.     Your best endeavor, from my personal experience, is still an application of these principles from your heart, i.e. you treat your peers, partners and business associates with your heart.    In time, once practiced and experience gained, you should revisit these principles and you will know what adjustments are needed.    If you are a leader in an organization and persuading people is your job the 7th principle is maintaining high EQ, emotional quotient.      There are bound to be people that you could not persuade, no matter how good you are and how sincerely you are at heart.     You have to take on your defeat and turn it round as your drive.    Perhaps the "love your enemy" virtue could be the 8th principle but this is certainly more easily said than done.
In my view persuasion techniques are not standalone tools.    Good persuaders are normally good leader because by persuading people those will lead and motivate well.    For that reasons leadership style plays a key role in the shaping of a good persuader.

CONSISTENCY and AUTHORITY

2005-08-19T11:27:00.000+08:00

CONSISTENCY – the key is to "make their commitments active, public, and voluntary".
There is empirical evidence to show that a commitment made out loud, written down or otherwise made explicit is likely to affect one's future conduct than the same choice left only in mind/heart. May be this is why commandments are engraved in stone. In office life it is important that commitments, communications that are important are delivered and received in writing. This is not just for a matter of record but also that if people are accustomed to putting commitments in writing they will surely think twice before making them to others and to themselves. Last but not least commitments must be voluntary and not forced, coerced or imposed on. It is important that the one committing must feel that he/she owns that commitment.

AUTHORITY – defer to expert is a human nature. Human being is follower; we naturally follow those who display authority. We naturally seek leader and decision makers around us to follow. It is a wrong assumption that your peers know everything about you and how much you are relatively superior than them at certain things. Executive and leader of a team should therefore establish their authority in order to exert influence. You may have time to establish your authority with your own staff but you may have to plan ahead if you wish to let your external working partners to know more about your expertise. It would be better if relevant information about you is conveyed causally rather than through formal introduction at official sessions. You may be seen as showing off if your messages are misread.

RECIPROCITY and SOCIAL PROOF

2005-08-18T11:00:00.000+08:00

RECIPROCITY – this is about "give what you want to receive". The best way to make friend with others is to give before you demand. This is the same to say that open up yourself before you expect others to open up. This behavior is especially important when one attempts to build good working relationship with another department or another company in a joint venture. Being too "mean" on things and do not show your generosity before demanding assistance will be harmful to the relationship in the long run.

SOCIAL PROOF – this is about "using peer power (or pressure) whenever it's available". This appears to be common sense but we seldom can harness its power at work. Human being is species that live together in groups. Our basis instinct is to follow behavior of others in the group that we live in. If you browse outside a restaurant that you have not been to and see nobody inside you surely will hesitate to step in. If you see a packed restaurant you surely will give it a try. If you can spot a friend of you eating inside a restaurant you definitely will jump in without hesitation. At work a charismatic leader will first capture the "heart" of a few people before making an attempt to convince a much larger group publicly. A risky and controversial approach will win alliance much easier if a few at the meeting support your proposal or even defend on your behalf. Gaining consensus by a group this way is a lot smarter than saying "I'm the boss, let's do it".

Harnessing the Science of Persuasion

2005-08-17T10:54:00.000+08:00

HBR October 2001 - by Robert B. Cialdini

The article is about the Science of Persuasion. Most of us may have wondered why some people are so good at persuasion and this article is trying to tell us that behavioral scientists have proved that persuasion skill is in fact Science which can be harnessed through learning. There are 6 principles identified in the research by the author and by behavioral scientists during the last 5 decades, they are:-

LIKING
RECIPROCITY
SOCIAL PROOF
CONSISTENCY
AUTHORITY
SCARCITY

Let's examine each one of the above with some examples in our business/office life.

LIKING – The key behind this method is that "people like those who like them". In the office environment most of us will naturally make friends with peers in order to make life easier. Unconsciously we want to know each other not just their duty at work, goals for this quarter but also their personal interests and how they kill time after work. We would automatically adjust our area of interest during daily encounter with peers and attempt to find similarity on various aspects of our life such as hobbies, interests, where to go or what to eat etc. You will observe that those born persuaders can find themselves playing an active role in any conversations and everyone enjoys his/her participation. Natural persuaders also can use praise properly especially on the opposite sex. People of same sex may resent praise if it is not delivered genuinely and carefully. Praise for opposite sex must be used with care to avoid being misunderstood and unnecessary harassment.

Real Life Example on Job Sculpting

2005-08-15T16:11:00.000+08:00

C is a competent Sales and Marketing Manager who is good at "managing people and relationship" and "influence through language and ideas", so to speak. Her previous experience was limited to managing relationship with clients instead of subordinates in a large company. C was recruited to the company S due to her outstanding sales experience, academic background and outgoing personality. C's first post was Sales and Marketing Manager for department M which deals with mostly existing accounts. After few years of successful performance the company posted her to do a difficult assignment of sorting out a 60% owned subsidiary S1. C was not happy being made Managing Director of S1 although the promotion was envied by her peers. The assignment requires none of her core skills. The scary part was that a Director was sent earlier to that position for a year but has failed to achieve what he was told to do. The subsidiary S1 has around 150 people, was in a mess with the 40% owner still taking much control of the day to day operation, and with a client base that C has never dealt with before. C was not really an operation manager type of person with very little knowledge and confidence in herself about managing technical managers and technicians. The management board of company S was expecting C to straighten out S1 in about a year. In about 6 months C successful strike a deal with the 40% owner to sell their shares at a much lower price than what was budgeted. Again C has exceeded expectation but she was not happy with the outcome. The better than expected performance of C has prompted yet another plan by the management to further push C up the ladder for tougher assignments. C will be very soon 3 levels above her first boss in the company. Is C happy with these moves? C isn't happy because her own team in the original department M has been broken up by the management also because of the good performance, i.e. they worked themselves out of the job they all liked. One member of the sales team was asked to manage a smaller subsidiary S2; another one left behind became General Manager who has to work with few new comers to the department. Performance of department M deteriorated; there are also 3 unhappy employees.

From the company perspective job sculpting isn't required because what's more important is getting tough tasks accomplished and positions filled with suitable people. Company S belongs to a large British group and it has well established HR policy. Great deal of money was spent in training and development and there is a saying that C was picked as successor for a tougher position up in the ladder purely because of her past performance and was a "popular piece" of a large puzzle in organization reshuffle. Why the theory of Job Sculpting doesn't apply here? Why didn't C threaten to leave so as to trigger company C to observe the need for job sculpting and ask her about "deeply embedded life interests"? The truth of the matter is that not too many people can afford to quit a job for something they desire to do deep down in their skin. They have many other considerations in life which might have pushed "deeply embedded life interests" down the priority list. These considerations could be family, financial, market situation and career prospect of the company….etc. Work satisfaction is sometime not a prime concern to most employees in certain culture. Job Sculpting is also not in the agenda of HR professional because retaining talent doesn't appear to be a problem in a competitive market. Will unsatisfied employees still deliver their best, yes in this competitive environment I'm sure most of them will.

The Big Eight

2005-08-12T15:14:00.000+08:00

From the research by the authors it is found that most people in business are motivated by between one and three deeply embedded life interests.     All business work could be broken down into eight types of core activities of what they called "business core functions".    These core functions represent the way deeply embedded life interests find expression in business.    A summary is as follows:-
1.   Application of Technology
2.   Quantitative Analysis
3.   Theory Development and Conceptual Thinking
4.   Creative Production
5.   Counseling and Mentoring
6.   Managing People and Relationships
7.   Enterprise Control
8.   Influence Through Language and Ideas

Does the Theory Work?
The article appears to draw conclusion from a serious of interviews with business professional.    Those interviewed may have revealed, through tests, their true deeply embedded life interests who may have said that they could have been more satisfied if their career path was leading to their interests.    However it is not sure if the organizations where these interviewees have worked in have practiced job sculpting as described in the article and what quantitative improvements at the bottom line are found.

In practice there are many obstacles to put this theory to work.   Firstly the organization has to be fairly established, systematic, well organized and large enough for talented people to move around.    For a large organization one would assume that there are many talented people and before job sculpting is practiced and became a culture in HRM a good percentage of the talented people may be placed wrongly.     Theoretically when job sculpting starts the game of music chair begins and people move around to a position where they belong.    Even if the company is well organized there is bound to be teething problems due to people movement, lost of productivity and even higher operating costs due to changes to remunerations, relocation costs etc.     Furthermore if a talented staff is already performing superbly for the company a steady state has been established with respect to people chemistry, team spirit, client/vendor/partner relationships etc.    Although it may be sensible to move this smart employee to a more suitable position for long term gain of the company it will be extremely difficult for his/her Manager to justify this short term pain.    Would the Manager sacrifices his own performance for a better future of his smart subordinate?    Will the superior of the Manager understands and supports the move?    What will be reaction of others that do not appreciate the justification to this job sculpting act and see this as nepotism?    If many more are asking for the same treatment then who get listened to and who do not?

What is Job Sculpting?

2005-08-11T10:09:00.000+08:00

This is the art of matching people to jobs that allow their deeply embedded life interests to be expressed. The authors believe that by carefully designed career path with job sculpting in mind would increase the chance of retaining talented people.

What Has Gone Wrong With Traditional Career Development
The mistakes made by a traditional HR department in career development:

- People are satisfied with jobs they excel at
- People get promoted by preset schedule or when performance standard is met
- In organization reshuffle music chair is played, i.e. key positions are filled then empty slots are filled by second grade people according to abilities.
- People demanded promotion and got moved to position with stretched responsibilities
- The Manager has no say in career development for talented people

The Techniques of Job Sculpting
The authors have discovered that the key is deeply embedded life interests therefore the key technique would be to identify these interests of the staff you want to retain. The discovery is best done by the Manager, not the HR department, because it is all about observation and communication between the supervising Manger and the staff being retained. May be you could observe what he/she is most excited at, discuss with him/her about their real interests and what part of their daily route they hated most. The desire of uncovering key staff's deeply embedded life interests can also be openly discussed such that talented people can help in examining themselves. The self examination could be done by way of a written assessment of accomplishments, goals setting, identification of training requirements and future growth/advancement etc prepared prior to a regular performance review/appraisal. Once such a culture in identifying deeply embedded life interests is established staff can then actively participate in the process and communicate honestly with their Manager about what they like and dislike at work.

Job Sculpting

2005-08-10T14:49:00.000+08:00

HBR, Sept-Oct 1999 - by Timothy Butler and James Waldroop

This article is about retaining best people. The research by the authors began in 1986 for a period of 12 years. The authors have interviewed 650 professionals from a wide range of industries and a battery of psychological tests were done on the interviewees in order to assess what factors contribute to their work satisfaction. The authors have drawn a conclusion that you can retain your best people if they are satisfied at work and if the job matches their "deeply embedded life interests" that will lead to work satisfaction.

What are "Deeply Embedded Life Interests"?
These are not hobbies (e.g. opera, skiing…etc) nor are topical enthusiasms such as history, politics or investment. "Deeply Embedded Life Interests" are long-held, emotionally driven passions, intricately entwined with personality and these bon of an indeterminate mix of nature and nurture. The word "embedded" implies that these interests are hidden within oneself which is not easily uncovered. These interests also do not determine what people are good at; instead drive what kinds of activities that make them happy. The research has shown that deeply embedded life interests start showing in early childhood, then embedded and forgotten, and remain relatively stable throughout our lives. Whereas education and training would equip someone smart to succeed in virtually any jobs that throw at him/her. Most people grown up to fulfill other people's expectation on them due to the subject their parents selected, the first successful job application or the career path with least resistance.