Whose Business Is It Anyway? - By John Zenkin
A FEW weeks ago, I was in Phnom Penh running a training programme for Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotian regulators. During our discussions on what was needed to develop high performance organisations, we talked about the importance of values as the glue that holds an organisation together in times of rapid change or trouble.
We agreed that the organisation mission and vision could change over time to reflect changing circumstances but the values do not.
To illustrate why values matter so much, I used the example of Securities Industry Development Corp (SIDC). We are not a large organisation; yet we have four ethnic groups. There are Malays, Chinese and Indians as well as myself as the “Mat Salleh”. We span three generations: from a few baby boomers to the bulk of the company being made up of Gen X with an increasing intake of Gen Y.
Even though everybody is Malaysian, except for me, we all have subtly different assumptions about what matters in life and work and how to behave.
These differences are even greater when it comes to the assumptions of the generational divides: baby boomers are supposed to be optimists believing anything is possible, Gen X are supposed to be buttoned down and serious, while Gen Y are supposed to be self-centred and interested in instant gratification, living in cyberspace at the expense of real contact with others.
These stereotypes may or may not be correct. That is beside the point. The point is that our diversity and our differences in age do lead us to have different assumptions about what is the right work-life balance and what is the appropriate way for people to talk to each other, for example.
Yet we are able to work together effectively because we agreed among ourselves what our five values are. We did this in a way that translates these values into measurable and observable behaviors that allow people to achieve their key performance indicators (KPIs).
In fact, the values are integrated into every job description and everyone is appraised and assessed not just on their ability to meet quantitative targets but also on how well they live the values.
To help everybody understand how the values translate into expected and acceptable behaviour, we have drawn up a set of questions that people can ask themselves whether the way they behave is acceptable or not.
So we have defined expected and acceptable behavior and we have also spelt out what is unacceptable behavior, explaining why in each case, so everybody can understand why they are expected to behave in the ways prescribed by the values.
The advantage of defining prescribed behaviour so clearly is that it makes appraisals much easier. Conversations are based on whether targets have been met or not and how people have behaved – in line with the values or not as the case may be.
Most important, everybody knows that they will be appraised according to these values and they will be rewarded or otherwise, depending on how well they adhere to the values.
A total of 30% of the assessment relates to how well we live the values. Clearly-articulated values also allow us to publicly recognise examples of good behavior who become role models for others to copy.
So we use the values to recruit, reward and promote people. They make it much easier because there is clarity of understanding in what is expected and so people know why one person was promoted and another not and can see that it is fair.
There is a serious downside to not living the values. We use the concept of FIFO – “Fit In or Fall Out”. This means that everybody is on notice that they have a choice – a genuine choice – to be happy in SIDC; adhering to our values and delivering the behaviors we expect, or else to go and be happy elsewhere where they will fit better.
Not everybody is comfortable with permanent change and innovation; not everybody is comfortable with empowerment and accountability. Many people dislike ambiguity, preferring certainty instead and waiting to be told what to do.
Yet, as a team, we have agreed we expect people to take responsibility, not to wait to be told what to do but to propose what to do to superiors instead. We expect people to question why they do what they do, as part of seeking to create value every day rather than being complacent and becoming obsolete.
Some people would rather do things the way they have always done it; they are likely to be unhappy at SIDC. We do not want unhappy people: they demoralise others around them and are not productive because they cannot give their best.
So we give them a genuine choice: think carefully whether they belong in SIDC and then change their mindset, or “fall out”.
l The writer is CEO of Securities Industry Development Corp, the training and development arm of the Securities Commission.
No comments:
Post a Comment