Valley Crossing

This blog is about the lesson learnt about teamwork through a valley crossing exercise. In this case there is a valley which cannot be crossed by an individual alone because it is 2 steps wide. Now the exercise shows how if 3 people come together and a pole of sufficient length is provided using innovative thinking all 3 people can cross the valley.

So the situation is a very simple demonstration of what organizations do, they form a group of individuals to attain goals beyond the reach of any one person and to attain that they need resources which is the pole and innovative thinking.

But this is not all only having a team and resources is not enough to be a successful organization there are many more things which need to fall in place to attain success. What these parameters are I learnt through a simple valley crossing exercise and would share those learning with you in this post.

The Problem

The Gap between the three Persons involved in the activity and the gap between the edges are directly related, The relation being that the gap between the people involved in the activity plus one standard step length has to be more than the gap between the edges.

If we give them numbers in order they cross the Gap then what are the commonalities and differences of a typical No1,2 & 3

Commonalities:

1) Trust on the team and self: The entire task is dependent on trust. The ideal line of thought in this case should be “I am the part of the team, so trust amongst the members is MY RESPONSIBILITY"

2)  Discipline: It’s very important that the team walks on the same bit. Everyone should have a same rate of walking with each step taken at the same time. A quintessentially military practice of shouting LEFT-RIGHT might come to good use for this purpose.

The major learning that comes out of this experience is that it does not matter whether you are strong or week. In a team everyone has equal responsibility and no one can take the complete team along. 

Three monks no water- Management lessons through FUN

Three Monks no water to drink is a Chinese animated short, released in 1980 and directed by A Da. It is one of the most famous and beloved of Shanghai Animation Film Studio's productions, and has won awards at film festivals throughout the world. 

The film is based on the ancient Chinese proverb "One monk will shoulder two buckets of water; two monks will share the load, but add a third and no one will want to fetch water.

This film was shown by our professor Dr T Prasad during one of our Principles of Organisational Management lectures. Through this film he explained us the intricacies of how a team dynamics is build. He also used it to show us how easily we complicate a very simple situation and instead of reaching at a simple solution we provide with a complex solution.

Dr Mandi stopped the movie at three points and talked to us about the part that he had shown.

First Part (0:00- 6:52)

The first part of the movie showed that there is a monk who lives in a monastery on the top of a hill. He has to come down to fetch water from the river and he living happily. Then a second monk comes and starts living with the first monk. The problem starts when they go to fetch water. They are unable to decide how to divide the work amongst them as no one wanted to do any extra work.

Dr Mandi asked us for solution to this problem. We all came up with different solutions but all were complicated and tedious. Then he played the film and showed that all the monks had done was calculate the length of the stick carrying the bucket and hang the bucket in between. Dr Mandi then explained that as managers our job is to find the simplest and easiest solution. They solution should be universal so that there is no impact of the kind of user on the application of the solution. We have to device a system that anyone can use anywhere without the use of any special knowledge or skill. Organisation with complex rules and regulation mostly do not thrive.

Second Part (6:52- 16:50)

Now as the video proceeds it shows that a third monk has come. The coming of the third monk creates a conflict as to who two will bring the water. Since they are not able to resolve this conflict no one goes and the monastery is without water. Then one day fire broke in the monastery and the three monks with their combined efforts put it out.

The discussion that followed this part was based on whether time of crisis has any effect on the team management. Our view was that it does have an impact, as in crisis, people think quickly and the goal of averting the crisis is in sight. This is short time management as the decisions are being taken for a very short duration of activity.

Third Part (16:50 – End)

This part showed the monks coming together as a group and devising a technique for drawing water which will require less effort and better coordination of the three people.

Learning

The story of the three monks tells us about the basic human nature and the requirement of have a proper coordinating team. People mostly tries to off load their work to others instead of making a collective effort and divide the work properly. Also for any activity to be done successfully, the coordination between the team members is very vital. And for proper coordination the team members must feel friendly towards each other. As in the video when the three monk become friends towards the end they were able to come up with the innovative idea of the pulley system.

Tower Building - Analysis

	Factor  1 to 8	Scenario – I	Scenario - II	Scenario - III	Scenario - IV
1 & 2	Historical Tower height achieved by team	Low - 5 High -  18	Low - 5 High - 20	Low – 5 High – 21	Low - 5 High - 23
3	Achievable Performance -          ( Estimate / Guess )	18 +	20+	22+	25+
4	Goal proposed by the Manager	18	22	22	18
5	Goal proposed by the worker	12	12	12	20
6	Goal Mutually agreed for building the tower between worker and manager with the support of the manager	15	22	18	15
7	No. of cubes Tower manager and worker team could build / achieve at the end of the exercise	18	18	18	18
8	P O T E N T I A L T O W E R   H E I G H T	?	?	?	?

My Analysis

Sl. No.	Measure for Managerial Excellence	Scenario – I	Scenario – II	Scenario – III	Scenario – IV
1	Gap if any between Tower height  so far achieved and Achievable performance of tower ( Factor 3 and 7)	The achievable performance estimated by the manager was 18+ and the worker could achieve 18 which show that the manager pushed the worker by constant motivation.	The achievable performance estimated by the manager was 20+ and the worker could achieve 18 which show that although the manager trusted the worker but he could not motivate him enough to achieve the set goal	The achievable performance estimated by the manager was 22+ and the worker could achieve 18 which show that the goal set was too high for the worker who has estimated the number as 12 only.	The achievable performance estimated by the manager was 25+ and the worker could achieve 18 which show that the team did not work well together at all.
2	Gap if any between goal proposed by the Goal proposed by the Manager and mutually agreed team goal   ( Factor 4 and 6)	The goal proposed by the Manager is 18 and mutually agreed team goal is 15. This shows that the team has a sense of reluctance; the worker does not trust the manager.	The goal proposed by the Manager is 22 and mutually agreed team goal is 22. This shows that the team is in perfect sync, the worker  trusts the manager	The goal proposed by the Manager is 22 and mutually agreed team goal is 18. This shows that the worker is not willing to give his best; he already has estimated a very low number for himself.	The goal proposed by the Manager is 18 and mutually agreed team goal is 15. This shows that the team has a sense of reluctance, the worker does not trust the manager
3	Gap if any between goal proposed by the manger and the goal proposed  by the worker   ( Factor 4 and 5)	The goal proposed by the manger is 18 and the goal proposed by the worker is 12. The manager is a  Y type manager, he motivates his workers but the worker is lazy and not willing to work	The goal proposed by the manger is 22 and the goal proposed by the worker is 12. The manager is a  Y type manager, he motivates his workers but the worker is lazy and not willing to work	The goal proposed by the manger is 18 and the goal proposed by the worker is 12. The manager is a  Y type manager, he motivates his workers but the worker is lazy and not willing to work	The goal proposed by the manger is 18 and the goal proposed by the worker is 20. The manager is a  X type manager, he does not trust his workers while the worker is willing to work
4	Gap if any between goal proposed by the worker  and mutually agreed goal by team  ( Factor 5 and 6)	The goal proposed by the worker is 12 and mutually agreed goal by team is 15. This shows that the manager was able to motivate the worker to increase his goal and to aim at a higher target than what he had proposed for himself	The goal proposed by the worker is 12 and mutually agreed goal by team is 22. This shows that the manager was able to motivate the worker to increase his goal and to aim at a higher target than what he had proposed for himself	The goal proposed by the worker is 12 and mutually agreed goal by team is 18. This shows that the manager was able to motivate the worker to increase his goal and to aim at a higher target than what he had proposed for himself	The goal proposed by the worker is 20 and mutually agreed goal by team is 15. This shows that the manager was a X type manager, he believes his worker is lazy and that is why even when the worker proposes to do 20 he reduces the target to 15.
5	Gap if any between achievable performance  and potential tower  ( Factor 3 and 8)	The worker was able to do as much as was the achievable performance.	The worker was able to do a little less than the achievable performance.	The worker performance was less than the achievable performance.	The worker has done a lot less than the achievable performance.
6	Gap if any between  performance achieved ( at the end of the exercise ) and  goal mutually agreed by manger and the worker   ( Factor 6 and 7)	The manager motivated the worker to achieve more than the agreed goal.	The worker was not able to achieve the agreed goal.	The worker achieved as much as was the agreed goal.	The manager motivated the worker to achieve more than the agreed goal.
7	Gap if any between  performance achieved ( at the end of the exercise ) and  achievable goal    ( Factor 7 and 3)	The gap is slightly less. The manager was able to motivate the worker.	The gap exists. The manager was not able to motivate the worker.	There is a noticeable gap. The manager was able to motivate the worker.	The gap is very large. The manager was able to motivate the worker and could not get even close to the target.
8	Gap if any between  performance achieved ( at the end of the exercise ) and  the potential    ( Factor 7 and 8)	The potential is not determinable so there will always be a gap.	The potential is not determinable so there will always be a gap.	The potential is not determinable so there will always be a gap.	The potential is not determinable so there will always be a gap.

Khan Acedamy

Khan Academy started with a very simple thought, when Salman Khan, an Harvard MBA saw his cousin Nadia needing some help in mathematics, he started tutoring her using yahoo notepad. When other relatives and friends sought similar help, he decided it would be more practical to distribute the tutorials on Youtube. This started the revelation we now know as khan academy. The popularity of the videos and the testimonials of appreciative students prompted Khan to quit his job in finance as a hedge fund analyst at Connective Capital Management in 2009, and focus on the tutorials full-time. 

Salman Khan

The project is got funded by donations. Khan Academy, a not for profit organisation, is now with significant backing from the Bill & Melinda Foundation and Google. Google announced it would give the Khan Academy $2 million for creating more courses and for translating the core library into the world’s most widely spoken languages, as part of their Project 10.

The khan academy works towards the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free world-class education to anyone anywhere. The initiative which started for the help of Nadia is now benefiting millions. Khan academy has a video library with over 3200 videos in various topic areas and over 165 million lessons delivered. It also does automated exercises with continuous assessment; there are 320 practice exercises, mainly in math and peer-to-peer tutoring based on objective data collected by the system, a process that will be projected in the future.

The Khan Academy serves as a perfect example as to how motivation help achieve great heights. Salman Khan showcases all qualities of a Y manager. He believed that people are willing to learn if provided with the opportunity to learn. 

Lecture 2

Goal Setting

In the second lecture we picked up the discussion about the implication and inferences drawn from the Tower Game. Dr Prasad related this activity to goal setting.  He explained how a manager should never discount his subordinates. He should have full faith in their ability and push them to achieve more them they believe themselves to be capable of.

The discussion led to Pygmalion effect. Pygmalion was a mythological Greek sculptor who fell in love with the statue he created and when he kissed it, it came to life. The reason why Dr Prasad took this example I believe is that this is the same thing managers have to do. They have to believe in their team so much that the team perform beyond its perceived limits. I have also read a play “Pygmalion” by George Bernard Shah. In that play, the main character, Professor of phonetics Henry Higgins makes a bet that he can train a bedraggled Cockney flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, to pass for a duchess at an ambassador's garden party by teaching her to assume a veneer of gentility, the most important element of which, he believes, is impeccable speech. This play also justifies the point made by our teacher.

Theory  X and Y

The second part of the discussion was on the theory of X and Y. theory of X and Y says that there are two types of managers. Type Y, who are always positive about their team. They always think that their team members are hard working. They motivate their team. Almost all the parents and teachers are type Y people.

The second type of managers is type X. They are always sceptical about their team. They always find fault in whatever their team’s work as they believe that the team members are lazy and not putting in their sincere efforts. These type of managers can never motivate a lazy employee to be hard working instead they demotivate the hardworking person as well.

Employee type Manager type	Good	Lazy
Y	Thinks employee is good	Thinks employee is good
X	Thinks employee is lazy	Thinks employee is Lazy

I have witnessed both type X and type Y managers during my work experience. My boss was a type Y manager. He would always motivate us. He would correct us whenever we would be wrong. He used to say that it does not matter how hardworking my team members are, it is my job to get the best out of each of them and the best of each will not be same.

There was also a type X manager. He was in a different department.  He had a pre conceived motion that all diploma holders are lazy and do not like to work. He used to treat all with a sight of contempt and would always just find faults in their work.