July 05, 2015

Absolute management

In my earlier blogs I have always emphasised on the fact that no theory is absolute and that different variables dictact different circumstances and a snigle theory might not apply to all of them. Finally, I have come across a set of principles that, even though open to interpretation, are still relevant in all combinations of different variables and circumstances.

Knowledge management is just as relevant in a developed country as it is in an under-developed country. The scope of the business and the culture of the organisation and the locality may effect the implementation of these principles but the essence remains the same. These principles are used everyday in our daily lives and are used by managers in their usual affairs without being aware of doing so. This unconcious act of conducting a knowledge audit, identifying knowledge banks and establishing knowledge networks to manage resources and assets adds integrity to the vailidity of these principles.

These principles are so universally applicable that they can be used to manage households, small events to mega scale projects. Not to mention, the application of these principles in your dissertations can make your research thorough enough and well managed enough to make a different in the score you attain. This set of principles is by far the most flexible and practical concept studied this year, including some content from RDM as well.

June 05, 2015

The Culmination

This module really was the culmination of the all the other modules. We had a time contraint that made us think hard to reach robust decisions. There was process improvement and product improvement. And all the while we were aiming for a roadmap to excellence. The waveriders are now equipped with a robust plan with a long term objective aiming at excellence and a well trained and motivated work force. I was a different experience to continue the with the same case study in three different modules with added information with every successive module.

The EFQM was not only a focus for this project but also a framework for the execution of the plan to make the project.

The New boy gets the credit

Quincy came bearing with him so many new opportunites for us. He made this module truely the culmination of the whole course. He presented us with the challenge to think differently, not being a person from this course. He took us from a whole different route to the final destination. This was a whole new experience for the group as we rarely got to do something out of our comfort zone. We got to judge his leadership style and analyse how he was leading the group. This also brought to the stage the elimination of group think and the elimination of biases. He just said that it was definitely a contrast. This was not just a learning experience for us but for him as well.

The Seth culture

the seth culture as pointed out by a Pakistani national in our class actually refers back to the Pakistani management culture. It refers to the management style of people like Mian Mansha owner of Mansha Group and Sadaruddin Hashwani of the hashoo group. Both leading businessmen and wealthiest people in Pakistan. Their leadership cannot be attributed to a single style. Their style varies with every person they deal with. Mainly autcratic in nature, these people are hugely successful in what they do. Academics may disagree with their practices but their success proves otherwise. Thus giving birth to the term seth culture. Seth in urdu means landlord which are known to be autocratic towards their workforce. Their practices show that leadership is nothing that can be taught in aclassroom.

The origination of this term shows that different circumstances command different leadership styles. This term of a third world country is not know by people in the developed country and therefore assumptions cannot be made. No knowledge is absolute, If you want to negate the way these people operate, first go work in that environment and earn the right to comment.

March 23, 2015

Leadership succession

Let’s assume for a second that John Excellence agrees to my proposal and becomes a smashing entrepreneur with rocketing sales and a highly motivated work force, and this happens because from the inside he has an authentic leadership style. A few years later he parties so much that his success celebrations land him into a horrid medical condition and he is unable to run the business and lead his workforce. What now? His father, brother, sister or any close successor comes to take over his place or one of the directors act on the already devised succession policy and replace John by themselves.

Whoever comes to fill his place will be succeeding him but will their leadership capabilities be able to matchup to the benchmark set by John? Will there be any similarities in leadership style at all? Of course not! It’s hard to replace someone as it is but imitate his every move is practically impossible. The new person will bring his own leadership style to the table which definitely will not favor the company. The workforce that was so loyal to John has already lost their source of inspiration in losing the leader. The last thing they want is someone to take John’s place and be different from him. People generally do not accept change and people who try to bring change will always face a certain level of hostility.

What can be done to fix that? The answer probably lies in devising a system that not only transfers leadership but also transfers the leadership style. A code of conduct for impression management and to standardise the leadership style for anyone who wants to take over the position. It should be set out in the policies as to how the company should be led and it would be preferred that a person from the board succeeds with the position as it would be someone with prior knowledge and experience of how the company was being run.

Dispersed Leadership

All theories mentioned in the books and in journals take a very individualistic perspective of the leaders, while another academic concept gaining increasing acknowledgement is that of dispersed leadership. This multi-disciplinary theory, with its roots in sociology and anthropology, interprets leadership as a process that diffuses throughout an organization rather than lying merely with the formally designated leader. The importance therefore shifts from breeding leaders to catalysing the process of making leadership oriented organisations.

The Trait theory is a method of identifying the key features of successful leaders. It is assumed that through this approach critical leadership traits could be isolated and that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected, and installed into leadership positions. This approach was common in the military and is still used as a set of criteria to select candidates for commissions.

After having studied this in detail, I got to know various leadership theories. These theories are applicable to today’s management as they have to improve according to the situation. Paradigm shifts in the cultures of organisations and the consistent parallel and horizontal development of companies have raised the need to look at leadership in a new angle.

Even though traditional hierarchies cannot be eliminated from the business world today but it is my belief that an effective workforce is not one with leadership at the top but one with leadership throughout the hierarchy. This does not mean that everyone has the responsibility to lead but instead that everyone should possess the qualities and willingness of being a leader whenever the situation demands.

A leader must show some traits and demonstrate certain characteristics to be an effective leader. These essentials are:

1. Good Communicator.

2. Exude positivity

3. Truthful no matter how bitter it might be

4. Promote workplace equality

5. Patient

6. Refreshing the vision within the workforce

9. Accept risks associated with decisions

10. Stay determined

What a coincidence

It just happens to be Pakistan day today and while I was writing my PMA I was listening to a documentary on the partition of the subcontinent and how it happened. The documentary highlighted three people of high significance. The first was M. A. Jinnah leading the Muslims, second was Gandhi leading the Hindus and the third was Viceroy Lord Mountbatten sent by the British to finalise the partition. Both Jinnah and Gandhi were part of the congress and partition committee. But their ability to lead the masses had nothing to with their positional powers. It would be very unusual if millions of people just started following someone for no reason. What Jinnah and Gandhi did was that they made these people realise that they had no vested interests in what they were doing. They did not want money or fame, they had a vision far bigger than materialistic things and people believed in that vision. So on one side we have these two leaders who had charisma and were driven by their vision. No one really questioned them.

On the other side we had the viceroy who had been commanding another part of the British Empire and was now here to deal with the matter. He was known to be a decisive leader who deliberated before making decisions to rationalise but at the same time was quick and rigid with his decisions. He did not really go down as a likeable person in the history books because he favored some people over others. From that his leadership style could be considered at paternalistic as he listened to everyone but did whatever he decided and no one could budge him from his decision. He also picked favorites and ignored what and who he deemed unimportant.

The popularity of these people in the history books can be argued by their capacity as leader and the role they played. Maybe if Gandhi was sent by the British to deal with the separation he would have been just as disliked. But then again, they were in different capacity and they were really different people as well. They might have handled the situation differently in a way that everyone stayed happy, mutual consent. Jinnah and Gandhi were phenomenal leaders and they had millions of followers because they had the authentic leadership style. Their leadership was based on their personal traits making them more likeable and inspirational.

So there is a leadership lesson from the history books. Hope it makes sense. Happy Pakistan Day!

March 20, 2015

RDM – The Waverider Task

The first day in class we were given a brief and were required to make a location decision in a matter of minutes. After three days of knowledge bombardment it was up to us to turn our intuitive decisions in to educated decisions. Armed with an arsenal of tools the group set out to decide the most relevant tools and to apply them on the data provided to remove all biases and to back our decisions with rationale. What we came up with was a combination of qualitative and quantitative tools to produce impartiality. Not only did we do that, we made the process of decision making robust by using our knowledge to eliminate groupthink.

What this demonstrated was that no matter which form of leadership was adhered to, the aim of robust decision making in itself served a much bigger purpose. It eliminated groupthink, ensured equal participation, and included all perspectives and points of view. This strengthened good leadership and group efforts and at the same time minimised and made ineffective all negative aspects that came with the task at hand.

It all started by reaching a consensus on the decision of tools to be used. To make the decision of whether to continue with the prototype or not, the tool used was the decision tree. All cash flows were mapped out in accordance with the various probabilities of different potential situations and the outcome was to continue with work on the prototype. The decision tree, being a quantitative tool, also substantiated the results from the qualitative tools used to decide the location for production of the sea catch. The qualitative tools used were the grid analysis and the comparative SWOT analysis. The decision reached from these tools was to establish our production site at Lymington. The cash flows and optimum decision reached by the decision tree backed this decision.

After the decisions of continuing with the prototype and setting up production at Lymington, the last decision to be made was that of the tools to be used for marketing. The tools available for marketing were the usual; internet, TV, magazines and newspapers, flyers and handouts, billboards and radio. After assigning weights to the benefits provided by the tools, the extent of those benefits was measure using tools such as the analytical hierarchy process and SMART. Though the results from these two tools varied a bit in proportions of priority, mainly the result was the same. As pointed out by the SMART analysis, the most cost effective mix of tools included the internet, billboards and flyers. The cost per impressions and conversion rates were taken into account by these tools and in the AHP, the option using TV was also dominant. Though everything seemed fine and dandy, it was later pointed out that the obvious options left out were radio and newspapers, a form of entertainment that fishermen mostly use while fishing. This was probably because of the fact that the quantitative tools had lacked qualitative criticality. It can also be said that the tools left out could be attributed to selection bias.

At the end though there were some loopholes in the process, it can be confidently said that the decisions made were highly robust, if not fully.

March 13, 2015

Robust Decision Making

It’s exactly how our classmate Bekzhan articulately said, “After these three days, life doesn’t make sense anymore”. We have been so conditioned to maintain the assumption of neutrality of our opinions and perspectives that we almost always position our biases in the blind spot of our brain. Though some of us are open to our opinions being challenged, while others are not, the first impression we have of our own opinion is that of absolute impartiality. That can never be true. The exercises we underwent in this module, the optical illusions and the tampered statements, demonstrated the two ways in which the brain works, the conscious and the subconscious. Our conscious mind generates an opinion while we make a decision and that opinion seems perfectly rational to us. What we are not aware of is that this opinion is actually under mammoth proportions of influence of the subconscious mental activity. Our thought process takes into account even the smallest experiences and events while generating judgements. We might not even remember these events but they are lodged somewhere in our brain and influence the smallest decisions like your choice for breakfast to relatively larger decisions like your choice of coming to WMG. Our lack of rationale and judgement is more observable in our decisions made by our instinctive system, System-0, and our intuitive system, System-1. System-2, our process based system, is slower and more conscious and therefore makes an effort to eliminate bias and influences on decisions, but this cannot be achieved completely. The heuristics that are almost always in play while decision making are:

Representativeness – based on the likeliness of occurrence of a sample from a population

Recognition or Availability – based on how easily we can relate to or generate examples from our memory pertaining to certain situations.

Anchoring and adjustment – based and anchored down by previous knowledge and experiences

Affect – based on emotional evaluation

The word bias can be compared to white light. It seems very simple and definitive in its meaning but when you pass it through a prism you will get a wide range of distribution of various types of biases that are covered by that single word in everyday life. Every decision we make is impacted by a certain type of bias. There are numerous biases, the main ones of which are:

  • Hindsight bias
  • Confirmation bias
  • Illusion of control
  • Pessimism bias
  • Pseudocertainty
  • The gamblers fallacy
  • Stereotyping
  • Subjective Validation
  • Status quo bias
  • Selective perception
  • Bandwagon effect
  • Ambiguity effect

Cheerleader Effect

And on a lighter note we also have the cheerleader effect also stated by Barney Stinson in ‘How I met your mother’ that basically states that people in group tend to seem more attractive than when viewed individually.

How these biases work in a group are somewhat different as the symptoms for groupthink are different. Groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty decisions as group pressure leads to:

Direct pressure on dissenters – Members are under pressure not to challenge or contradict the group decision

Self-censorship – views different from that of the group are not expressed

Illusion of unanimity – the view of the majority goes unchallenged and so the decision seems unanimous

Self-appointed ‘mindguards’ – information that is problematic or may complicate the decision making process is kept behind the curtain

The solution for prevention of most of these biases have been academically developed but, who knows, maybe the developers of the solutions had some biases as well. The conclusion that I have come to is that there will always be a certain level of bias as it is immensely hard to control our subconscious mental activity but we can make an active effort to control our biases and curtail the effects of our previous experiences and knowledge. This will not only help us make robust decisions individually but will also help eliminate groupthink to reach a decision free from bias and objections.

February 22, 2015

Set aside the morals

Don’t judge what he was doing, judge how he was doing it. By that criteria the name that pops up in my mind is Adolf Hitler. Without questioning his motives if we look at him from a leadership point of view, he was a very effective leader who convinced a huge nation that what they were doing was the right thing even though now what they did is condemned. His leadership qualities were:


Effective communication





The man had the ambitions of taking over the world which made his thinking process and his motivation to be of monumental proportions. He was driven by his goal, and his charisma and leadership style made him highly desirable to be followed by his people. All it takes is self-belief and a little sense of organisation and people skills. Some say leaders are born, others argue that leaders are sculpted by their circumstances. The debate of nature over nurture will always remain that, a debate. But leaders like Hitler are not born every day.

September 2023

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Aug |  Today  |
            1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30   

Search this blog


Most recent comments

  • Haha, the credit goes to the team. It was amazing working with you guys! by on this entry
  • I agree with you and I share your sentiments but we if we look at it from a leadership context you'l… by on this entry
  • It definitely does have a lot to do with the atmosphere and the swaying level but it more importantl… by on this entry
  • Best nurturing doesn't really stand for everything. You have quite a lot of knowledge about the Paki… by on this entry
  • A nice and impressive reflection. I feel like when we say family. We actually mean the environment t… by on this entry

Blog archive

RSS2.0 Atom
Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder