Behavioral Consequences


From behavior of people within an organization come such important consequences as productivity, satisfaction, and revitalization. Productivity refers to the quality and quantity of products and/or services, i.e., the output (in relation to inputs) that is ostensibly the organization’s logical or formal purpose. Satisfaction refers to the positive feelings of the people in a group about themselves and their situation. How much of what kind of satisfaction are they getting? Revitalization refers to the increased ability to cope with and adapt to changes in both the internal and external environments. For the individual this includes growth, in terms of emotional health or skill or learning of various kinds. For the social system in which individuals behave, it means the capacity to change internally to permit more productivity and/or satisfaction in the long run.

Productivity, satisfaction and revitalization are collectively referred as collectiveness. This term implies that to be effective a system must purchase all three. The complexity imposed by these multiple criteria for effectiveness demolishes any meaningful idea of maximizing effectiveness—at best, an organization can only approach an optimization of these criteria. The components of effectiveness may be viewed from the vantage point of any of the principal entities; namely, the individual, group, and organization. The consequences of behavior may vary by entity and category.

A second major behavioral consequence of importance to small groups is cohesiveness. By cohesiveness  is meant the tightness of the inter-personal bonds that hold a group together. Cohesiveness and effectiveness are essentially different concepts.

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, and my Lectures.

 

Advertisements

Simple Language, Smart Thinking


If you know the difference between skills, knowledge, and talents, you can use these terms to throw light on all the other words used to describe human behavior—words like “competencies,” “habits,” “attitude,” and “drive.” At present many of us assume that they all mean virtually the same thing. We use phrases like “inter-personal skills,” “skill set,” “work habits,” or “core competencies” so naturally that we rarely question their true meaning.

This isn’t just careless language. It’s careless thinking, it leads managers astray. It leads them to waste precious time, effort, and  money trying, with the best of intentions, to train characteristics that are fundamentally untrainable.

So let’s look more closely at competencies, habits, attitude, and drive. Which of these are skills, or knowledge, and therefore can be changed in a person? And which are talents and therefore cannot?

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please visit www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight

Efficiency and Values


The term ‘efficiency’ is a concept that has meaning only in the context of an agreed set of objectives. Such objectives can include objectives about inter-personal distribution, typically reflecting one or other interpretation of equity. Occasions when the goals of efficiency and distribution conflict of the agreed set of objectives does not include equitable distribution. Indeed, historically and still to a great extent, the dominant interpretation of ‘efficiency’ has typically included only the objective of measured economic production/consumption. We should at most call this interpretation ‘economic efficiency’ and not honor it with the label of efficiency in general. But the efficiency label has enormous legitimizing power and functions as a trump card in the modern vocabulary. No one can declare themselves against it. If a policy option is deemed inefficient that usually sinks it. So contenders try to capture the label, to serve their particular set of objectives. This is what business interests and mainstream economists have successfully done for a long time. We need ask: Efficiency by which values?

 

Mainstream economists have focused on growth of aggregate production and national income. Business and other sectional interests may focus on sectional gains but advocate these behind the language of ‘efficiency.’ Not infrequently, the policies behind an efficiency label have been less economic as well as less equitable, and an ‘efficient’ only for elites.

 

My Consultancy–Asif J. Mir – Management Consultant–transforms organizations where people have the freedom to be creative, a place that brings out the best in everybody–an open, fair place where people have a sense that what they do matters. For details please contact www.asifjmir.com, Line of Sight