A very practical question which arises in every organization that rarely gets answered and seldom addressed with rewards. I always felt it has to work both ways.
A CAPTAIN is As Good As his Team. In Corporate or Team Game, Captain rarely works alone. Hence if the 'BOSS', or better, the 'Team Leader' is Successful, the Acknowledgement (& Rewards) are due to the Coworkers also.
However, this is possible with Project where a Team is Assigned a particular job. (Project-Team Matrix). We see a better implementation of it in Sales & Marketing (a particular Zone or a District or an Identifiable Small Territory Performing much better).
Developing Good Deputies & getting Best from the Deputies is a SKILL the BOSS must have to be successful (Limited Resources, always). Obviously the Boss needs to be Complimented for Junior's Success (for the guidance, support & freedom for work he has given).
The SHARING of SUCCESS can be used to CORPORATE ADVANTAGE of MOTIVATION for the ENTIRE GROUP.
Sharing Success means Rewards. Apart from Financial Rewards (which are important) 'a Certificate to depict the Achievement of the Group' of the Team and giving it at a (small) function arranged immediately or at Annual Gathering makes a lot of difference. Not only the team members are PROUD but others May look forward for the Glory thereby motivating the entire Organization.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
16A CAPTAIN is As Good As his Team. In Corporate or Team Game, Captain rarely works alone. Hence if the 'BOSS', or better, the 'Team Leader' is Successful, the Acknowledgement (& Rewards) are due to the Coworkers also.
However, this is possible with Project where a Team is Assigned a particular job. (Project-Team Matrix). We see a better implementation of it in Sales & Marketing (a particular Zone or a District or an Identifiable Small Territory Performing much better).
Developing Good Deputies & getting Best from the Deputies is a SKILL the BOSS must have to be successful (Limited Resources, always). Obviously the Boss needs to be Complimented for Junior's Success (for the guidance, support & freedom for work he has given).
The SHARING of SUCCESS can be used to CORPORATE ADVANTAGE of MOTIVATION for the ENTIRE GROUP.
Sharing Success means Rewards. Apart from Financial Rewards (which are important) 'a Certificate to depict the Achievement of the Group' of the Team and giving it at a (small) function arranged immediately or at Annual Gathering makes a lot of difference. Not only the team members are PROUD but others May look forward for the Glory thereby motivating the entire Organization.
Dr. Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
Many companies have bonus payouts on their organizational performance... In some way, this is has shades of this question. Interesting to note the variety here.
Ulhas, your point is right, probably one needs to get some more inputs from other HR practitioners. A captain is as good as his team... well, I maynot buy it totally. Do you really believe in that??? I know there could be a string of conditions attached :-), but your entire argument is based on unconditional acceptation of this statement.
Sayeed your point is right as well. In an army scenario, there is no room for any other model but this one... There is nothing for the individual as such... So, this model is to be used in organizations with very strong 'chain of commands'? Do you think selective rewarding should be abolished in such organizations? Army men still get medals, but the regiment is probably the bigger 'bull'.
Maturity as mentioned by SAK, is hard to quantify (assuming he tried some quant method to do so).
The other interesting aspect is that there is a good correlation between the ratings of bosses and subordinates when the bosses have good ratings...
Would invite views from Simhan and Archana as well, on these points.
From United States, Daphne
Ulhas, your point is right, probably one needs to get some more inputs from other HR practitioners. A captain is as good as his team... well, I maynot buy it totally. Do you really believe in that??? I know there could be a string of conditions attached :-), but your entire argument is based on unconditional acceptation of this statement.
Sayeed your point is right as well. In an army scenario, there is no room for any other model but this one... There is nothing for the individual as such... So, this model is to be used in organizations with very strong 'chain of commands'? Do you think selective rewarding should be abolished in such organizations? Army men still get medals, but the regiment is probably the bigger 'bull'.
Maturity as mentioned by SAK, is hard to quantify (assuming he tried some quant method to do so).
The other interesting aspect is that there is a good correlation between the ratings of bosses and subordinates when the bosses have good ratings...
Would invite views from Simhan and Archana as well, on these points.
From United States, Daphne
Hi Nikhil,
You are in a way right. Even I do not mean it totally. What I meant was Captain's success rating depends upon associates. Captain may be brilliant but his personnel average or even awful (nepotism, favoritism by him or management) then there can be gaffe and by performance yard-stick the captain fails.
A Top Class Tennis player and a Cricket Captain would illustrate what I mean. A top lawyer not getting correct brief on time, a top Quality Assurance Manager having a few poor analyst, a top Marketing Manager having poor Product Managers and/or Medical Reps with poor communication skills failing the entire strategy, was in my mind. I agree, Brilliant solo workers may win but for bigger projects, teams overall participation & performance should matter.
Indeed as suggested by you, HR has a major role. May be they can come with an organizational SOP for recognition to prevent personal likes & dislikes playing dirty tricks.
Dr Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
You are in a way right. Even I do not mean it totally. What I meant was Captain's success rating depends upon associates. Captain may be brilliant but his personnel average or even awful (nepotism, favoritism by him or management) then there can be gaffe and by performance yard-stick the captain fails.
A Top Class Tennis player and a Cricket Captain would illustrate what I mean. A top lawyer not getting correct brief on time, a top Quality Assurance Manager having a few poor analyst, a top Marketing Manager having poor Product Managers and/or Medical Reps with poor communication skills failing the entire strategy, was in my mind. I agree, Brilliant solo workers may win but for bigger projects, teams overall participation & performance should matter.
Indeed as suggested by you, HR has a major role. May be they can come with an organizational SOP for recognition to prevent personal likes & dislikes playing dirty tricks.
Dr Ulhas Ganu
From India, Mumbai
SAK,
Your post indicates two things: The system failed to reward them, and you also believe in selectivity (from your post, it appears you don't share things everytime!)...
Or have I misunderstood? Do you think it should always be the case?
It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is the analogy appropriate here?
In a perfectly aligned organization, the boss's reward must DIRECTLY be linked to the subordinate's reward... Else, there is a conflict of objectives at some level... So, being directly rewarded for the boss's work is of course there... 100%.... Is the assumption incorrect?
From United States, Daphne
Your post indicates two things: The system failed to reward them, and you also believe in selectivity (from your post, it appears you don't share things everytime!)...
Or have I misunderstood? Do you think it should always be the case?
It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is the analogy appropriate here?
In a perfectly aligned organization, the boss's reward must DIRECTLY be linked to the subordinate's reward... Else, there is a conflict of objectives at some level... So, being directly rewarded for the boss's work is of course there... 100%.... Is the assumption incorrect?
From United States, Daphne
Ulhas, In Europe, some of these things (like mobbing) were formally dealt with. I was surprised to see such an instrument, but it did exist and was fairly effective.
From United States, Daphne
From United States, Daphne
I had made a point before that a Captain is as good as his team, not wholly but it is true to some extent.
When we look at India Cricket Team performance on recent England tour,we see the same Dhoni came a cropper because the core team players were missing. To implement strategy successfully, one needs competent colleagues. A few weak members can be carried but not many. Thus the Team Leader should have freedom to choose majority of colleagues and reward of success should certainly be shared
From India, Mumbai
When we look at India Cricket Team performance on recent England tour,we see the same Dhoni came a cropper because the core team players were missing. To implement strategy successfully, one needs competent colleagues. A few weak members can be carried but not many. Thus the Team Leader should have freedom to choose majority of colleagues and reward of success should certainly be shared
From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr. Nikhil,
The system is a set of procedures defining process. As you are aware that, there are not many systems related to REWARDING AN EMPLOYEE. To me the whole process should be simplified, UNBIASED and it is a TWO WAY PROCESS.
1) There are factors associated with ONE'S SUCCESS where one may rely on anyone(may be boss or team leader/superior) but then, we can't award the success to an individual. We must define their involvement associated with OUTCOME. This is a TEAM WORK.
2) At times an individual might have achieved his targets without associated with his team members. At this juncture, how can we related a team member(individual) success with his boss.
Since you said i don't share much, let me share a live example with you while correlating with your quote
you said "It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is the analogy appropriate here"?
. Actually its not all about fate, its about our role and our involvemement.
A xyz organisation was awarded couple of projects. Boss proudly shared with his team members about the same. His team had supported him throughout the process where his involved was just 15-20%. To execute the project, he needs dedicated team else THE BOSS WILL FAIL to meet clients deadline. DEDICATED/EXPERIENCED TEAM MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED and WORK IS ON/FULL SWING.
KINDLY NOTE THESE POINTS
1)Without DEDICATED TEAM WORK, the PROJECT DOCUMENT wouldn't have been submitted ON TIME. Kindly do understand individuals involvement ratio that defines their responsibilities associating with their OUTCOME.
2) TOTAL WORK is divided into BITS & PIECES where every shares a piece of cake(responsibility)
3) Though BOSS delegates respective assignments to his team members, majority of the work is done by the TEAM MEMBERS.
4) Without TEAM MEMBER's contribution, Project cannot be completed ON TIME.
5) TEAM MEMBERS who worked hard or smart was not compensated to the minimum/least extent the way BOSS was compensated for securing or bringing BUSINESS TO THE COMPANY. Here THE SYSTEM OF REWARDING EMPLOYEE(or BONUS PAY) was not implemented by the BOSS itself.
6) EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION LEVELS WERE NOT MEASURED WHEN THEY ARE MAJORLY HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING PROJECT IN TIME.
7) Employees had tried their best level to meet their BOSS EXPECTATIONS but BOSS did do the same
8). SUCCESS was FELT/SHARED by the BOSS(few close team members were involved) only because EMPLOYEES DID NOT FEEL THE SAME AS THEY WERE NOT COMPENSATED PROPORTIONALLY.
9). BOSS only believes to GENERATE REVENUE but never understood that IF EMPLOYEE WERE REWARDED PROPORTIONATELY, THEY WILL ESCALATE ORGANISATION'S STANDARDS, HELP ORGANISATION TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE AND LOT MORE CAN BE EXPECTED.
Henceforth below mentioned is only possible when TEAM WORK STRATEGY is adopted as we are only discussing about SUCCESS ASSOCIATED with BOSS AND HIS TEAM MEMBERS but not COMPENSATION which is missing.
1) "The success of the boss is directly linked with the success of the subordinate" and
2) "the success of the subordinate directly linked to the success of the boss only when BOSS IS SUPPORTIVE/COOPERATIVE and LOT MORE"
The word MATURITY is that not difficult to define because it is visible in all our activities and it is associated with our lives 24X7. Its not just limited to DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT or WRONG but, its all about PERFECTION, PERCEPTION, KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM.
A TRUE BOSS/PERFECT LEADER will never worry about his OWN SUCCESS RATIO instead he will drive/support/coordinate with his team to achieve SUCCESS AT ALL LEVELS because he knew that HIS SUCCESS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HIM TEAM. Henceforth "WE = TEAM WORK"
There are qualified, skilled, talented, passionate employees who want to take additional responsibilities, want to prove themselves and may want to do more than their bosses did. A TRUE BOSS will allow and help such employees to unleash their hidden talent because he doesn't possess INFERIORITY COMPLEX nor feeling of insecurity that his team members may over ride him.
On the other hand, you will find BOSSES possessing inferiority complex, feeling in-secured. Such one's will never trust his team members, will not coordinate/cooperate or give them sufficient room to play their own game. So what is missing his "SELF DIRECTED TEAM".
Kindly do feel to clarify if you have anything to be clarified with my views.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
The system is a set of procedures defining process. As you are aware that, there are not many systems related to REWARDING AN EMPLOYEE. To me the whole process should be simplified, UNBIASED and it is a TWO WAY PROCESS.
1) There are factors associated with ONE'S SUCCESS where one may rely on anyone(may be boss or team leader/superior) but then, we can't award the success to an individual. We must define their involvement associated with OUTCOME. This is a TEAM WORK.
2) At times an individual might have achieved his targets without associated with his team members. At this juncture, how can we related a team member(individual) success with his boss.
Since you said i don't share much, let me share a live example with you while correlating with your quote
you said "It is said that 50% of our 'fate' is based on what our parents did/do and 50% is left to us... Is the analogy appropriate here"?
. Actually its not all about fate, its about our role and our involvemement.
A xyz organisation was awarded couple of projects. Boss proudly shared with his team members about the same. His team had supported him throughout the process where his involved was just 15-20%. To execute the project, he needs dedicated team else THE BOSS WILL FAIL to meet clients deadline. DEDICATED/EXPERIENCED TEAM MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED and WORK IS ON/FULL SWING.
KINDLY NOTE THESE POINTS
1)Without DEDICATED TEAM WORK, the PROJECT DOCUMENT wouldn't have been submitted ON TIME. Kindly do understand individuals involvement ratio that defines their responsibilities associating with their OUTCOME.
2) TOTAL WORK is divided into BITS & PIECES where every shares a piece of cake(responsibility)
3) Though BOSS delegates respective assignments to his team members, majority of the work is done by the TEAM MEMBERS.
4) Without TEAM MEMBER's contribution, Project cannot be completed ON TIME.
5) TEAM MEMBERS who worked hard or smart was not compensated to the minimum/least extent the way BOSS was compensated for securing or bringing BUSINESS TO THE COMPANY. Here THE SYSTEM OF REWARDING EMPLOYEE(or BONUS PAY) was not implemented by the BOSS itself.
6) EMPLOYEE SATISFACTION LEVELS WERE NOT MEASURED WHEN THEY ARE MAJORLY HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING PROJECT IN TIME.
7) Employees had tried their best level to meet their BOSS EXPECTATIONS but BOSS did do the same
8). SUCCESS was FELT/SHARED by the BOSS(few close team members were involved) only because EMPLOYEES DID NOT FEEL THE SAME AS THEY WERE NOT COMPENSATED PROPORTIONALLY.
9). BOSS only believes to GENERATE REVENUE but never understood that IF EMPLOYEE WERE REWARDED PROPORTIONATELY, THEY WILL ESCALATE ORGANISATION'S STANDARDS, HELP ORGANISATION TO GENERATE MORE REVENUE AND LOT MORE CAN BE EXPECTED.
Henceforth below mentioned is only possible when TEAM WORK STRATEGY is adopted as we are only discussing about SUCCESS ASSOCIATED with BOSS AND HIS TEAM MEMBERS but not COMPENSATION which is missing.
1) "The success of the boss is directly linked with the success of the subordinate" and
2) "the success of the subordinate directly linked to the success of the boss only when BOSS IS SUPPORTIVE/COOPERATIVE and LOT MORE"
The word MATURITY is that not difficult to define because it is visible in all our activities and it is associated with our lives 24X7. Its not just limited to DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT or WRONG but, its all about PERFECTION, PERCEPTION, KNOWLEDGE and WISDOM.
A TRUE BOSS/PERFECT LEADER will never worry about his OWN SUCCESS RATIO instead he will drive/support/coordinate with his team to achieve SUCCESS AT ALL LEVELS because he knew that HIS SUCCESS IS ASSOCIATED WITH HIM TEAM. Henceforth "WE = TEAM WORK"
There are qualified, skilled, talented, passionate employees who want to take additional responsibilities, want to prove themselves and may want to do more than their bosses did. A TRUE BOSS will allow and help such employees to unleash their hidden talent because he doesn't possess INFERIORITY COMPLEX nor feeling of insecurity that his team members may over ride him.
On the other hand, you will find BOSSES possessing inferiority complex, feeling in-secured. Such one's will never trust his team members, will not coordinate/cooperate or give them sufficient room to play their own game. So what is missing his "SELF DIRECTED TEAM".
Kindly do feel to clarify if you have anything to be clarified with my views.
With profound regards
From India, Chennai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Success-is-a-wa y-of-thinking23 32_530.ppt