Dear All
Want your suggestion on a typical situation :-
There is a team of Marketing in a hierarchy from top to bottom like
Director - National Manager - Zonal Heads - Sr. ASM's - ASM's - Executive
In this scenario we are referrng to a problem of North Zone.
Zonal Head (north) is doing a wonderful job (Topper of all Zones)
Sr. ASM (north) one of the key performers in the team (Scenario If 100 is the turnover 40 is acheived by him rest 60 is the achievement of rest of the team) - Behaviour - Too Ambitious , Arrogant , Impatatient but self motivated does not take much support of the Zonal Head ( Except for stragegising and one ot 2 meetings if required) - Nobody likes him as a person except for his performance.
Now he fixes a meeting with a prospect without involving Nationa Head or Zonal Head straight approaches director to accompany him. Director agrees and attends the meeting when comes enquires about certain points with national head who shows ignorance about the case saying will check with Zonal head who in return gives similar reaction.
The case taken up by national head with sr. ASM why you didnot involve your senior in hierarchy answer recieved i wanted to close the deal without involving too many people.
Now how should the same be taken by Zonal Head - In a scenario where people like him as well as find him to be dynamic.
He is not considered as the senior by Sr ASM or He is trying to belittle him or He is trying to show he is the best.
How he should be handled by Zonal Head so that it does not get repeated again.Keeping in view his performance.
Thks for your time.
Want your suggestion on a typical situation :-
There is a team of Marketing in a hierarchy from top to bottom like
Director - National Manager - Zonal Heads - Sr. ASM's - ASM's - Executive
In this scenario we are referrng to a problem of North Zone.
Zonal Head (north) is doing a wonderful job (Topper of all Zones)
Sr. ASM (north) one of the key performers in the team (Scenario If 100 is the turnover 40 is acheived by him rest 60 is the achievement of rest of the team) - Behaviour - Too Ambitious , Arrogant , Impatatient but self motivated does not take much support of the Zonal Head ( Except for stragegising and one ot 2 meetings if required) - Nobody likes him as a person except for his performance.
Now he fixes a meeting with a prospect without involving Nationa Head or Zonal Head straight approaches director to accompany him. Director agrees and attends the meeting when comes enquires about certain points with national head who shows ignorance about the case saying will check with Zonal head who in return gives similar reaction.
The case taken up by national head with sr. ASM why you didnot involve your senior in hierarchy answer recieved i wanted to close the deal without involving too many people.
Now how should the same be taken by Zonal Head - In a scenario where people like him as well as find him to be dynamic.
He is not considered as the senior by Sr ASM or He is trying to belittle him or He is trying to show he is the best.
How he should be handled by Zonal Head so that it does not get repeated again.Keeping in view his performance.
Thks for your time.
Always remember 1 this in mind that boss is always right. OK then this positively in this scenario!!! Regards BSIngh Chauhan
From Greenland
From Greenland
This case is a strict Ego and Communication Problem across the levels.
Looking at the Scenario, The Director has obliged the Sr. ASM to accompany him to close the deal without even checking the Communication flow across the levels.
This shows the lack of Transperency and hierarchy in the Organization. The Senior team shall decide what should matter Business or Process. if this is a startup Business is important, so they shall not create too much of hierarchy and follow a horizontal Structure.
If the company is a stabilized company, they should focus more on the Process Oriented Approach and look for long terms yields.
All Depends on the Vision and the Clarity of Thought amongst Senior Team members.
I suggest the Senior members shall lay down guidelines / Meeting Etiquettes / Business Etiquettes to achieve the best results or else with the current structure there is always a chance of losing key customers due to the lapses in the system
Kumar
From India, Hyderabad
28Looking at the Scenario, The Director has obliged the Sr. ASM to accompany him to close the deal without even checking the Communication flow across the levels.
This shows the lack of Transperency and hierarchy in the Organization. The Senior team shall decide what should matter Business or Process. if this is a startup Business is important, so they shall not create too much of hierarchy and follow a horizontal Structure.
If the company is a stabilized company, they should focus more on the Process Oriented Approach and look for long terms yields.
All Depends on the Vision and the Clarity of Thought amongst Senior Team members.
I suggest the Senior members shall lay down guidelines / Meeting Etiquettes / Business Etiquettes to achieve the best results or else with the current structure there is always a chance of losing key customers due to the lapses in the system
Kumar
From India, Hyderabad
Hello neelambakshi,
This a typical attitude of quite a few Top Performers.
First & foremost, I think your Director did a mistake in going directly WITHOUT any of the seniors or at least keeping them in the loop--unknowingly he seems to have emboldened this guy into taking things for granted. And since the Director was the CAUSE for it [or at least the 'cause' for the trigger], it's HIM who has to sort it out. Suggest that he speak to this guy [personally or over phone] & resolve the issue.
Next, coming to the reply of this guy '.....i wanted to close the deal without involving too many people', did anyone ask him WHY? "Involving" too many people is one thing & "informing" too many people is quite another. See the difference? It's clear that HE wanted to take ALL the credit WITH THE HEAD BOSS--bypassing the middle hierarchy.
Even if he didn't want to 'involve' his seniors, the minimum he is expected to do is to 'inform' his local bosses.
This also leads to another possibility in the scenario--were there any earlier situations that's making him to behave this way NOW--maybe the boss took credit for what this guy did? Suggest check this aspect discretely.
I doubt if any talk to him by the Zonal Head or others would help--EXCEPT the Director. In fact, there is a risk of things going from bad to worse--since the Zonal head is one of the persons effected by this guy's behaviour the chances are high that his prejudices may come-out badly & the consequence COULD be a slowdown in this guy's performance [which is not in anyone's interest--his or the Company's].
I would also suggest that the HR Head/person be present in the meeting when the Director meets this guy--more to focus on the long-term & psychological aspects of his behaviour. Usually such headstrong guys TEND to listen ONLY to those who are important/powerful OR 'beyond-sight' Someone needs to tell him SOFTLY that this attitude is likely to hit HIM more than the company AND in the long run, he would be able to achieve MUCH MORE if he takes the others along with him.
Also, if practical/possible, I think he could be an ideal candidate for some managerial course focusing on the psychological aspects of S&M.
All the Best.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
This a typical attitude of quite a few Top Performers.
First & foremost, I think your Director did a mistake in going directly WITHOUT any of the seniors or at least keeping them in the loop--unknowingly he seems to have emboldened this guy into taking things for granted. And since the Director was the CAUSE for it [or at least the 'cause' for the trigger], it's HIM who has to sort it out. Suggest that he speak to this guy [personally or over phone] & resolve the issue.
Next, coming to the reply of this guy '.....i wanted to close the deal without involving too many people', did anyone ask him WHY? "Involving" too many people is one thing & "informing" too many people is quite another. See the difference? It's clear that HE wanted to take ALL the credit WITH THE HEAD BOSS--bypassing the middle hierarchy.
Even if he didn't want to 'involve' his seniors, the minimum he is expected to do is to 'inform' his local bosses.
This also leads to another possibility in the scenario--were there any earlier situations that's making him to behave this way NOW--maybe the boss took credit for what this guy did? Suggest check this aspect discretely.
I doubt if any talk to him by the Zonal Head or others would help--EXCEPT the Director. In fact, there is a risk of things going from bad to worse--since the Zonal head is one of the persons effected by this guy's behaviour the chances are high that his prejudices may come-out badly & the consequence COULD be a slowdown in this guy's performance [which is not in anyone's interest--his or the Company's].
I would also suggest that the HR Head/person be present in the meeting when the Director meets this guy--more to focus on the long-term & psychological aspects of his behaviour. Usually such headstrong guys TEND to listen ONLY to those who are important/powerful OR 'beyond-sight' Someone needs to tell him SOFTLY that this attitude is likely to hit HIM more than the company AND in the long run, he would be able to achieve MUCH MORE if he takes the others along with him.
Also, if practical/possible, I think he could be an ideal candidate for some managerial course focusing on the psychological aspects of S&M.
All the Best.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Hello Neelambakshi,
I am fully in line with the views expressed by Mr Kumar and Mr TS.
Systems and Processes should be in place, if
an organization has to function in a professional way.
An organization cannot ride on the brilliance of a few individuals for a long time.
From the details provided, National Manager and Zonal Head have
been sidelined for the meeting.
Is this a regular feature or the first of its kind?
The Director after attending the meeting (which is wrong in the first place
with two of his next senior members being absent) has no moral right to ask
his National Manager or Zonal Manager, knowing fully well that both
were not present in the meeting.
Any way since he is the super boss he can get away with this for a short period.
However both National Manager and Zonal Head have to sort out the matter at
Director level in a firm way, lest they would run the risk of getting sidelined again.
This will be the first step to the redress the situation.
They can ill afford to fail and if they are not successful in convincing the
Director, it is doomsday for both.
Once they win the confidence of the Director, they can tackle the Sr Manager.
and force him to mend his ways.Disciplne is first and Performance comes later.
If the situation does not change and Director encourages the Sr Manager,
he may himself be in for a nasty surprise and one day find himself in the receiving end.
Having created a Frankenstein you cannot take your own safety for granted.
If you fall back on Indian myth, 'Basmasura" who gained a boon by which he can turn
any individual to ashes, decided to try it out on Lord Shiva Himself after vanquishing many
(Lord Shiva grants Basmasura a boon by which Basmasura if keeps his hands
above the head of any individual that person would be turned to ashes).
V.Raghunathan..................................... ....Navi Mumbai
From India
I am fully in line with the views expressed by Mr Kumar and Mr TS.
Systems and Processes should be in place, if
an organization has to function in a professional way.
An organization cannot ride on the brilliance of a few individuals for a long time.
From the details provided, National Manager and Zonal Head have
been sidelined for the meeting.
Is this a regular feature or the first of its kind?
The Director after attending the meeting (which is wrong in the first place
with two of his next senior members being absent) has no moral right to ask
his National Manager or Zonal Manager, knowing fully well that both
were not present in the meeting.
Any way since he is the super boss he can get away with this for a short period.
However both National Manager and Zonal Head have to sort out the matter at
Director level in a firm way, lest they would run the risk of getting sidelined again.
This will be the first step to the redress the situation.
They can ill afford to fail and if they are not successful in convincing the
Director, it is doomsday for both.
Once they win the confidence of the Director, they can tackle the Sr Manager.
and force him to mend his ways.Disciplne is first and Performance comes later.
If the situation does not change and Director encourages the Sr Manager,
he may himself be in for a nasty surprise and one day find himself in the receiving end.
Having created a Frankenstein you cannot take your own safety for granted.
If you fall back on Indian myth, 'Basmasura" who gained a boon by which he can turn
any individual to ashes, decided to try it out on Lord Shiva Himself after vanquishing many
(Lord Shiva grants Basmasura a boon by which Basmasura if keeps his hands
above the head of any individual that person would be turned to ashes).
V.Raghunathan..................................... ....Navi Mumbai
From India
Hi Neelam,
I find replies above as text book replies, which has low contact with reality.
To me reality looks like this:
Such unprofessional environment in indian organisations is a norm rather than an exception. This rut starts at top, which percolates down. In the process some good managers despite their good work donot get recognition, authority and position which they deserve. This is not the fault of an individual, but the prevailing organisational climate, which breeds the culture of talking to top directly and i dont blame this ASM, as he is a growth oriented person, wants to rise in life and has necessary job capability and skills.
In such organisations hierarchies, HR teams exists for the sack of name, they seldom work independently on their conscience. Top fellow doesn't have professional attitude so he doesn't work through hierarchy of his team (as top person has lack of confidence, conviction in himself and his fellow senior team members). In such cases even medicore successes of bottom line like said ASMs are directly or indirectly appreciated by top overlooking hierarchies. This breeds consequential arrogance in people like this ASM, who have proved their metal by their good performance.
So the key question: How should ZM take it?
In my view, ZM must take stock of ground reality if it exists as above. He should focus on issues than person (that means I will have high regard for a performer with arrogance than a polite decent non performer. My experience says mostly such arrogance is not result of attitude of individual rather this is result of organisational climate wwhich boss (ZM) will have to learn to accept and innovate new ways to make his subordinate to accept him as his boss (one plus than him!!!).
From India, Delhi
I find replies above as text book replies, which has low contact with reality.
To me reality looks like this:
Such unprofessional environment in indian organisations is a norm rather than an exception. This rut starts at top, which percolates down. In the process some good managers despite their good work donot get recognition, authority and position which they deserve. This is not the fault of an individual, but the prevailing organisational climate, which breeds the culture of talking to top directly and i dont blame this ASM, as he is a growth oriented person, wants to rise in life and has necessary job capability and skills.
In such organisations hierarchies, HR teams exists for the sack of name, they seldom work independently on their conscience. Top fellow doesn't have professional attitude so he doesn't work through hierarchy of his team (as top person has lack of confidence, conviction in himself and his fellow senior team members). In such cases even medicore successes of bottom line like said ASMs are directly or indirectly appreciated by top overlooking hierarchies. This breeds consequential arrogance in people like this ASM, who have proved their metal by their good performance.
So the key question: How should ZM take it?
In my view, ZM must take stock of ground reality if it exists as above. He should focus on issues than person (that means I will have high regard for a performer with arrogance than a polite decent non performer. My experience says mostly such arrogance is not result of attitude of individual rather this is result of organisational climate wwhich boss (ZM) will have to learn to accept and innovate new ways to make his subordinate to accept him as his boss (one plus than him!!!).
From India, Delhi
Hello Mr M K Sharma,
The first line of your message is a moot point.
All the three postings have considered practical aspects as well.
Perhaps I can agree to disagree with your observation expressed in the first line.
Coming to the case you have expressed that Zonal Manager should
1.0 take stock of the situation to ascertain if it really exists.
2.0 focus on the issue
Some more questions arise.
The situation as presented describes an event that has already occurred.
Focusing on the issue is certainly a progressive way of looking forward on how the
National Manager and Zonal Manager should go ahead.
The issue is both National Manager and ZM have been kept in dark
and when questioned by National Manager the ASM had the audacity to
tell that he didn’t want to involve too many people. How can some
one declare the higher ups in hierarchy as “too many people” ?
The issue is still ‘live’ for the National Manager also.
If the Director continues to give his support to ASM will the issue get settled?
Your views are solicited.
V.Raghunathan……………………………………… Navi Mumbai
From India
The first line of your message is a moot point.
All the three postings have considered practical aspects as well.
Perhaps I can agree to disagree with your observation expressed in the first line.
Coming to the case you have expressed that Zonal Manager should
1.0 take stock of the situation to ascertain if it really exists.
2.0 focus on the issue
Some more questions arise.
The situation as presented describes an event that has already occurred.
Focusing on the issue is certainly a progressive way of looking forward on how the
National Manager and Zonal Manager should go ahead.
The issue is both National Manager and ZM have been kept in dark
and when questioned by National Manager the ASM had the audacity to
tell that he didn’t want to involve too many people. How can some
one declare the higher ups in hierarchy as “too many people” ?
The issue is still ‘live’ for the National Manager also.
If the Director continues to give his support to ASM will the issue get settled?
Your views are solicited.
V.Raghunathan……………………………………… Navi Mumbai
From India
If I have understood you correctly this is main point where more clarity required.
Sir,
I will again refer you to points suggested by me on the take of ZM. I further presume that ZM/ NSM are competent/ mature fellows (No aspect of personality conflict involved on their part).
If situation like I have mentioned exists, than both ZM and NSM (if they are sound professional and believe in real professional work culture and environment), should move out of this organisation and join a more professional organisation.
This is easier said than done. So alternately they should bear with this unprofessional situation (since shifting job today and getting good alternate today is not easy) and start working on this arrogant ASM rather than giving lessons of management good practices to top brass. While working with this ASM, they should focus on.............
Further I appreciate and respect your right to agree to disagree. I have tried to paint a picture, which I have seen prevailing around much. However these are complex situations, more experienced and enlightened managers can even suggest better ways.......however that would require, putting your foot in shoes, where it pinches.......
Best Regards
From India, Delhi
Sir,
I will again refer you to points suggested by me on the take of ZM. I further presume that ZM/ NSM are competent/ mature fellows (No aspect of personality conflict involved on their part).
If situation like I have mentioned exists, than both ZM and NSM (if they are sound professional and believe in real professional work culture and environment), should move out of this organisation and join a more professional organisation.
This is easier said than done. So alternately they should bear with this unprofessional situation (since shifting job today and getting good alternate today is not easy) and start working on this arrogant ASM rather than giving lessons of management good practices to top brass. While working with this ASM, they should focus on.............
Further I appreciate and respect your right to agree to disagree. I have tried to paint a picture, which I have seen prevailing around much. However these are complex situations, more experienced and enlightened managers can even suggest better ways.......however that would require, putting your foot in shoes, where it pinches.......
Best Regards
From India, Delhi
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Organisational Behaviour.ppt