Anand wins World Chess Championship!

Viswanathan Anand has won the World Chess Championship 2008 match over Vladimir Kramnik of Russia by drawing the final game!

Final score: Anand 6.5 - Kramnik 4.5

This marks the first time that an Indian, or a non-Russian since Bobby Fischer in 1972 has won the undisputed World Chess Championship over a match!

When Anand won the World Chess Championship 2007 in a tournament, people were hesitant to call him THE World Chess Champion because he had won it in a tournament instead of in a match like it is usually done.

When He won the World Chess Championship 2000 in a match sponsored by FIDE (the International Chess Federation), there was a rival World Chess Champion in PCA (Professional Chess Association), who was Kramnik.

But now, there is no doubt:

ANAND IS THE UNDISPUTED, NON-CONTROVERSIAL, WORLD CHESS CHAMPION !!

Personal Adaptation to Organizational Change

One of the important aspects of change in a company is that of an employee's adaptation to the change. There are people whose personality is such that they thrive on change, and welcome almost any kind of change in the company - they like the fact that nothing stays still. These people are the ones who adapt most easily to change.

On the other hand, there are people who would prefer if things remain the same so that they don't have the hassle of adapting to the change. They probably believe in the idiom "A known devil is better than an unknown angel - a known defect in the organization is better than the unknown benefits of change." These people have a hard time adapting to change.

What is Change?

The section on "What is Change?" in the textbook (page 315) talks about the multiple meanings of the word "Change". One definition that is proposed in the textbook is: "the difference(s) between two (or more) successive conditions, states, or moments of time."

In the context of an organization, I would also add the word "significant" to describe the kind of difference(s) that constitute change. For example, there may be insignificant changes in an organization that may be "change" as per the above definition, but that may not be very relevant to the organization as a whole - for example, a corner cubicle in the corner may carry a new painting on its wall, or there may be a coffee machine that has run out of coffee, or a document that no one reads may be corrected for spelling mistakes. These could be labeled "change" according to the above definition, but they aren't very relevant to understanding an organization.

Hence the alternative definition in the textbook that is more apt in the context of an organization is: "the process by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of a social system". This definition makes it clear that a modification needs to occur in the STRUCTURE and FUNCTION of a social system (like an organization) for change to be relevant.

Compromise

The textbook discusses the various options available to manage conflict in the workplace starting on Page 290. One subject that was covered was compromise, which is fundamental to conflict resolution and management. It is reasonable that when the parties involved in a conflict are open to compromise, there is generally an easy resolution to the conflict.

This is true of all organizations, including at the highest level of conflict between nations. It is only when nations give up trying to compromise for whatever reason that wars brew between them. One problem that nations face that companies usually don't face is religious conflict. It seems that religious conflict is one area where people don't usually compromise and generally stick to their belief system adamantly.

Conflict Without a Process

Page 287 of the textbook says that conflict is a process rather than an isolated event - Conflict usually arises over the course of time instead of being focussed on a single occurrence.

The textbook may be correct for a majority of the cases when conflict arises, but I feel that there certainly may exist cases when a conflict arises due to one event. I don't have a concrete instance that I can quote from my personal experience, but can conjure up a hypothetical example to support my view:

In an organization, most employees have customers who are also part of the organization. If an employee does not satisfy a customer's demand that was perceived as vital by the customer but not the employee, then a conflict may brew based on that one occurrence. The implicit understanding made by the customer is that the person serving him or her will satisfy the demands, but when that tacit promise is broken, then that could sow the seeds of the conflict - and may be based on a single event.

What is Conflict?

The definition given for "Conflict" at the beginning of the tenth chapter is, "the interaction of interdependent people who perceive incompatible goals and interference from one another in achieving those goals".

The textbook elaborates that "interaction" refers to communication, "interdependent" is for people who are close to each other in an organization, and conflict primarily stems from perceptions.

The most important part of the definition appears to be "perception", because from my experience, it is difficult to have two people share the exact same perceptions on any topic though they attend the same meetings and listen in on the same discussions. Even if the communication process is the same, there is a difference in perception of the same issue because no two people share the same history or the same sense of risk-taking, which is difficult to communicate to another person.

For example, presented with an identical project, one team-member may see the project as "doable" because 90% of the time the work yields good results. However, another team-member may feel that this project is important enough that 90% is not a good enough sense of certainty. This may result in a conflict with the first person voting for the project and the second voting against it, even though they both agree on all the basic data and theory that goes into the project.

Hegemony

Page 260 of the textbook refers to one group dominating others, so that this group first takes over and then maintains power over one or more groups.

Hegemony in the marketplace refers to what is more popularly known as a Monopoly. For example, Microsoft is also called a Hegemony because it has the dominant operating system that is used in personal computers across the world, having snatched the lead position from Apple, and then maintaining the lead in the market for several decades.

Hegemony in politics could refer to one country dominating another for a long time, such as imperialism. The British Empire which colonialized several other countries could be thought of as a political hegemony.

Who is to Blame?

The textbook says that one of the biggest issues with power in organizations is whom to blame (page 245). The textbook also refers to the novels of Franz Kafka, where the person who has taken the decision is "fuzzy", even though the decision itself is of serious consequence.

I've read Kafka's novel "The Trial", which takes us through the life of a man who is arrested, but does not have any idea why! He does ask questions about the reason for his arrest, but his questions are met with ignorance ("We are just constables, better ask your lawyer"), incredulity ("You don't know why! Come on!"), haste ("I really have to be some place, no time to explain now"), etc. It can be quite a frightful thing not knowing the reason for one being blamed!

Inequality in a Democratic Organization

Page 231 talks about the problem of dealing with Inequality in Democratic Organizations, where members of the organizations are considered to be equal in the eyes of the organization. One way to prevent an entrenchment of power by one person is by offering the role of director or other high position to people on a rotational basis.

The problem of inequality in a democracy is not likely to disappear if there is a free market associated with the democracy, since capitalism always results in an unequal distribution of wealth among the citizens. Most of the nations of the world are turning towards capitalism for their economic structure (over 95% of the world's countries have a capitalist economy now, including Russia and China), and in every country with a capitalist economy, the gap between the rich and poor is steadily increasing, which does not brood well for equality between citizens.

Teamwork

Teamwork can be easy when there is a good rapport and understanding between people in the team, but can suffer when one or more persons in the team do not interact harmoniously with the rest of the team. One reason for this can be that one team-member joined the team at a time when the rest of the team-members already developed a small "team culture", and bonded with each other deeply, and resist the idea of a new member becoming a part of the team. In this case, the new member has no option but to "bow" before the "team culture" to become accepted as a team player. Hazing in college campuses are a ritual that a new entrant must endure before becoming accepted as a part of the existing culture.

Team-building activities such as picnics and outings are invaluable in getting various members of the team to bond with one another.

Participation in a Democracy

Page 215 of the Textbook talks about how although the USA is technically a Democracy, voter turnout for presidential elections hovers around 50% in recent elections. This means that the president of the USA is sometimes elected by less than half the population - which is a poor measure of democracy, where the elected representatives are supposed to be "by the people" and not "by about half the people" :-) For instance, the 1996 election in which Bill Clinton was elected president saw a voter turnout of only 49%.

I believe that voter turnout in Australia is often higher than 90% because the country has a policy of compulsory voting - the voter who does not have a legitimate reason for not casting a ballot may be fined or imprisoned! That is a fine incentive to vote :-)

The Human Touch

The textbook refers to how employees respond to "The Human Touch" - feeling that they matter and are bringing something valuable to the organization. If the employees feel that they are important in the management's eyes, they are more motivated to do their job and the organization benefits as whole. The example given in the book is that of a hospital that greatly improved after the CEO treated people with a more human touch.

Treating people as valuable is an important part of leadership, and it stretches beyond only the employees to one's customers and colleagues - and in fact any human being (!). I remember reading about the patient who left everything in his will to only one doctor among many who treated him - because that doctor not only treated and cured his patients, but he also comforted them with compassionate words.

LMX Theory

Pages 192-3 in the textbook talks about the LMX (Leader-Member eXchange) theory, and how the leader may interact with one member of a group more than the rest, causing an imbalance in the manner of interaction the leader has with the members of the group.

This may be the case when one member a group brings more value to the team compared to others. The manager may therefore spend more time with that member, and place greater emphasis on that member's opinions compared to others in the same group. Although this is the natural response of the manager, it may not brood well for a group where other team-members may feel resentment because only one among them gets specialized treatment.

Leadership Skills and Experience

The beginning of the chapter 7 on Leadership in the textbook talks about the thousands of available textual materials (books, articles, etc.) on the topic, but there still exists a great difficulty in translating the essence of leadership purely by means of language to a beginner. This is probably an inherent problem with communicating leadership principles without giving the student the experience of what it means to be in the leadership role.

To clarify what I mean: I once attended a talk on managing in a leadership role, and asked the speaker a question about how one can understand the "boundaries" of what it means to be authoritative as a leader. The leader must be willing to let go of his/her authority in certain contexts - how does the leader know when to be authoritative and when to relax it? After a lot of hand-waving, the speaker finally said, "It comes from experience". Evidently, it is not easy to explain what it means to be a leader to a student who has no practical experience on the subject.

It's like the old catch-22: you need experience to get the job, but you need the job to gain experience!

Dyads

Page 157 of the textbooks refers to the building blocks of communication networks - Dyads - which constitutes the relationship between two people in the network. The reason for this being the fundamental unit is obvious - one person without any links to others cannot be a part of a network, and any network can be considered to be a collection of two-person dyads.

I find that some examples of dyads at my workplace that spans across teams is actually stronger than a relationship within either team. That is, two people who belong to different teams actually have a closer relationship to each other than they have to their own team. The reason for this is sometimes personal (two people in different teams are buddies from college) or professional (the two people have a similar work in different teams).

Stress at Home and Work

The textbook discusses the report of Arlie Hochschild that sometimes people actually use work as a way to relieve themselves of stresses at home (page 143). This seems like the twist to the common view that most people relieve their work-related stress by going home!

I believe that the two ways of stress relief operate due to different reasons. It is obvious why going home from work offers relief - because employees work in a competitive environment with tough deadlines, and are glad to be in a place where their work is not constantly evaluated. The converse happens when people might have a personal family related stress (e.g. death in the family) so work offers an outlet from home where one doesn't have to deal with stress at home.

One way to get away from it all is to take a vacation - a very long vacation. I heartily recommend Maui, Hawaii!

Risks of Over-identification

The textbook warns about the risks of high levels of identification of employees (page 115) to the organization. This may manifest itself in over-conformity, a lack of creativity, and the risk of lack of risk-taking!

I believe the case of employees staying with one organization over the course of several years, perhaps decades or even a lifetime falls under this scenario. They grow so attached to the organization that they become mypoic and fail to realize that there exist various different cultural norms and that their organization represents only one among many such norms.

This shows the hazards of managers who stay with one company for such a long time that they begin to expect unopposed acceptance by employees of everything that management says, instead of encouraging their employees to challenge existing theories in the light of new facts. This has the unfortunate potential to hinder the improvement of an organization. As we saw in Chapter two of the textbook, it is only by constantly rising up to challenges that an organization evolves in a healthy manner.

What is Identity?

Page 109 of the textbook provides a historical account of identity - in ancient Greece, the etymological root of the term actually meant SIMILARITY rather than INDIVIDUALITY. The word referred to in the ancient context was that which connected various people, such as the people of Athens identifying themselves with the "Athenian Identity". Under this ancient definition of the term, as an MBA student at San Jose state University, I would identify myself with other students at San Jose State University (we share the same University) or as an MBA student, I would identify myself with MBA students in other universities (we are in the same discipline).

It is interesting that the term Identity when used in late eighteenth century Europe, started being referred to an individual self exhibiting Uniqueness rather than Similarity. This is the meaning of IDENTITY that we generally know and use today.

Socialization of New Members

As a new member of an organization, I usually observe how the organization functions, and the working style of the my colleagues before I begin to socialize. It therefore takes some time for me to get accustomed to the organization before the socialization process begins. I guess I'm a bit cautious in my socialization style.

I do know of some new colleagues who begin the socialization process right away. They feel comfortable chatting in their new workplace as soon as they join the company or organization. They probably assume certain social realities as generally valid across all organizations in that particular field or geographical area, and are able to get a feel of the place quickly.