- Performance gaps : the organization is not performing as well as it can
- Opportunity gaps : there are some market opportunities which the organization is not exploring
Today we discussed a case of a high performance leader, who was an AMPer sometime back. This case was an example of how high performing leaders hit a wall after a while. Common characteristics of high performance leaders are:
- Exceptionally talented and bright
- Have a strong track record
- Ambitious, striving and competitive
- Not perfect - has limitations and flaws as well as strengths
However, all of us have seen high performing leaders fail; what are the common reasons:
- Over dependence on a single strength or resource
- Most likely former strengths become limitations
- Depends too much on a uni dimensional talent
- Loses a champion, mentor or corporate sponsor
- Difficulty in building an effective team
- Unable to motivate and staff effectively
- Over manage and under-delegate
- Difficulty in making transitions to broader scope jobs
- Lack of strategic thinking
- Unable to deal with complexity
- People handling issues
- Seen as self-centered
- Abrasive, insensitive
- Lacks composure under pressure
- Differences with top management
- Disagrees with top management on strategy and goals
- Unable to handle conflicts with boss
- Unable to handle different views
- Initial strengths can become fatal flaws
The last one particularly can be devastating. Some examples are given below:
- Track record : Makes an impressive impact in functional or technical area
- Flaw: Can be seen as too narrow in a particular area
- Brilliant: Seen as uncommonly bright
- Flaw : Intimidating, dismissive of other's ideas
- Sacrifice/Commitment: Extremely loyal to organization
- Flaw: Defines life in terms of work; expects others also to do the same
- Charm : Capable of considerable charisma and warmth
- Flaw: Can use this selectively to manipulate other people
- Ambition: Does what ever is required to achieve success
- Flaw: Does what ever is necessary to achieve personal success, even at the expense of others
In this case, the leader was given feedback on many aspects, which helped him to grow and take much higher roles within the organization.
Today’s case on stratgey examines a classic competitive battle between British Satellite Broadcasting (BSB) and Rupert Murdoch’s Sky Television. The discussion will focus on a framework for competitor analysis and an introductory application of game theory.
Clealy BSB missed seeing Sky as a potential competittor. How:
- BSB was too focussed on the traditional
- Mis-read the technology - was a big mistake
- Complacent and arrogant
- Expected the regulated market structure to continue
- Leadership came from different business - no experience
- Missed the political wave
Had BSB looked at their key strengths, they would have definiitely identified "license" as one of them. If someone had questioned what are the alternatives that the competition could come up with, instead of licenses, the following would have showed up:
- Is license a wrong assumption ?
- Is there a way to operate without a license (beam from outside the UK ?)
- Can the rules for license be bent ? If yes, who is likely to bend them ?
The last one was important, becuase Murdoch was supporting Thatcher in a big way and he clearly wanted to dominate in the media space. BSB also waited too long - as you wait too long, your options dwindle. Hence it is important to think ahead of competition.
We also had a short peek at using Game theory to show what the end game was. BSB played the end game quiite well here to get the maximum value out of Sky, when they decided to merge. We might have a special session on Game Theory - if it happens, will post on it separately.
The final case for the day was Yahoo and its activities in China. Let me give a brief history of what happenned. Shi Tao was a journalist working for newspaper in Hunan province. In April 2004, the Chinese government issued a notice to all journalists, not to cover any news in the media related to an event that was being planned for June. To be precise, there was a planned "pro-democracy" event being planned for June 4th, which was the 5th anniversary of the Tiananmen square protests. Shi Tao, used his private Yahoo email id and sent a brief of the government order to an US based forum called Asia Democracy Foundation. The Chinese government found this and asked Yahoo to give the details of the user. Yahoo turned in the informaton without asking for the reason - shortly thereafter Shi Tao was arrested and put in jail for 10 years; Crime : disemminating state secrets !
Did Yahoo do some thing wrong here ? It was complying with the laws of the land. The bigger issue is this: as an organization if you decide to enter a country, it is important to look if the laws/values of the country will be in conflict with your company values. Here Yahoo was seen as the upholder of freedom of speech, but had to share personal information to the authorities in China. From China's point of view, the issue is crystal clear: Shi broke the rules and hence needs to be punished as per the law of the land. Yahoo's problem was two fold: did it warn the customers using their email id's in China on the laws of the country ? And secondly, it did not put in place mechanisms to deal with such requests.
The question of ethics is serious and companies have to face it. The three things to look for are:
- How serious are the ethical stakes ?
- What are the vulnarabilites of the parties at risk
- How severe are the consequences and harm, if any
- How deeply implicated will the company and company personnel be ?
- What can the company really do?
- Realistic assessment of the likely impact
- Resources required and cost likely to be incurred to face a situation
The issues can become more complex as technology advances. Is the company providing the infrastructure responsible for the content ? In this case Yahoo provides email infrastructure. Is a telecom company responsible for the conversation content between two telephone users ? Fortunately for us, the telecom companies don't store the conversation - else the government can ask for it, in which case the telecom companies have to give it ?
Fundamental issue is the conflict between increasing government pressure to comply with domestic laws and policies - and internationally recognized human rights of freedom of expression and privacy. Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) companies will be under tremendous scrutiny, given the global security climate.
In response, a multi-stakeholder group of companies, civil society organizations (including human rights and press freedom groups), investors and academics spent two years negotiating and creating a collaborative approach to protect and advance freedom of expression and privacy in the ICT sector - called the Global Network Initiative. Microsoft, Yahoo and Google are members of this forum. See http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/index.php
More later .....
No comments:
Post a Comment