Skip to main content

RBO (Role-Based Organisation) or ROB (rob)? Choice to be made


Peter principle applies automatically and people at the top are idle, with less work or no work! They just feel, they are there for only strategic insights, if at all many of those have ever given a single strategic insight in decades. Lots of dead-wood make orgaisations top-heavy or top-sick. And if you are sick at the top, you have lost your mind and what pulls you down is your heavy, uncontrolled weight who knows nothing but law of gravity.
So, what is needed? ROB. Yes! Role-Based-Organisation (ROB). This Role Based approach makes the associate to be known by their role and not by their designation. Vadim(2008) illustrates that role based is very internal to the organisation and the structure of the organisation is influenced by the role that is played by the associate. The competency and responsibility of the associate are the two major factors which defines a role in an organisation. It can be inferred that in such a kind of role based organisation the competency of an associate determines the rewards and compensation.

UP or OUT
McKinsey adopted the policy which evaluates the performance of the employees and terminate who were failed in getting promoted by the organisation within a specific time and termed as up-or-out. The up-or-out policy was adopted by McKinsey in 1948 from a revolutionary old management concept know as the ‘Cravath System’ named after Paul Drennan Cravath who introduced this concept in the 19th century. On the go this concept became very famous and was inherited by many law and consulting firms. The Cravath system is widely known as the ‘Rank or Yank’ or the ‘UP-or-OUT’ system in the business world. Jack Welch the former CEO of GE who is awarded ‘Manager of the Century’ terms the same concept in his own way as the ‘vitality curve’. This strategy is known to be a huge reason behind the increase of revenue by 28 folds for GE.


Shyamal Majumdar a writer in the ‘Business Standard’ explains the style and concept of Jack Welch’s ‘Vitality Curve’ in one of his article ‘The Rank-and-Yank appraisal system’. According to the author managers should rank the employees under him/her in a 20:70:10 ratios. Jack Welch in one of his interviews points out that there are three ways the employees can be categorised. The first are the employees who have both results and values. According to Jack Welch these people are the great source of productivity and they should be appreciated and rewarded. The second category is where a significant amount of employee falls who has the values but not enough results to be in the creamy layer. As these standard performers are accountable for the organisation’s operational success they should be rewarded and given all support to lift up their performance to the astonishing level. The final category employees are the foot-draggers who don’t have values or give out results and eventually they have to be moved out.



Up-or-Out is a strategy which gets amalgamated with the culture believed to bring in fresh ideas, new skills and talented resources. The big blue chip organisation like Microsoft, GE, Ford, Motorola, Enron, Coke and Accenture which adapted this culture believes that this strategy will increase the productivity and performance of the organisation. Most of the organisations which possess this culture see that it is an opportunity to bring in new people who could have the ability of bringing a big difference. In addition Jeff Skilling former CEO of Enron Corporation explains in one of his employee meetings (2001) that they have to take such hasty decision in order to sustain even at hard times. He further argues that ‘’if a firm does not have a process of making hard decisions over the people who are not pulling their weight could pull everybody down’’. This strategy hark back a famous phrase ‘’Survival of The Fittest’’ quoted by Herbert Spencer.





Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What is The Hay Group Total Reward Framework

The Hay Group Total Reward Framework A new way of understanding reward Reward strategies must be anchored in business reality to be effective. Which means linking it to your business strategy – and the needs of your employees as well as your organisation. Our Total Reward Framework helps you optimise reward, no matter how challenging the conditions. The issue Remuneration tends to be one of the worst-managed parts of an organisation’s cost structure. But with 10-70 per cent of total costs wrapped up in it, reward cannot be ignored, particularly in a downturn. To be effective, reward programmes must reflect the needs of the business, now and in the future. Only if they are tied closely to company strategy, business performance and the needs of employees can reward programmes deliver the ROI that is needed in tough times[MK1] . The Hay Group Total Reward Framework takes strategy as a starting point – and it focuses on total reward: every financial measure together with no

Aon Hewitt Total Rewards Framework

Aon Hewitt Total Rewards Framework The Aon Hewitt model and approach believes in considering Total Rewards as a business tool and very much linked to overall business objectives! Reward as understood is a very complex mechanism and some efforts of correcting the base pay and titling in a hurry by many MNCs in India have done a bigger crime by trying to correct it by market adjustments without looking at the talent map, complexity and expectations out of role and mapping it against the benchmark. Titles in India are a big misnomer and hardly any survey on compensation ever probes and captures and calibrates the tangible outcome based bench marking! If we dive deep, we will find that the key factors of Education, Experience and Quality of Education, Quality and relevance of experience and education are not calculated granular! A diploma holder technical manager gets the salary benchmarked for the top T-school manager with top quality experience in a challenging and break-through

Well-known interviewing technique “laddering,” the Means-End Chain!

Courtesy HBR article...  The 30 Elements of Consumer Value: A Hierarchy (hbr.org) Understanding Consumer Decision-Making with Means-End Research - Rockbridge (rockresearch.com) Many of the studies involved the well-known interviewing technique “laddering,” which probes consumers’ initial stated preferences to identify what’s driving them In our research we don’t accept on its face a consumer’s statement that a certain product attribute is important; instead we explore what underlies that statement. For example, when someone says her bank is “convenient,” its value derives from some combination of the functional elements  saves time,   avoids hassle,   simplifies,  and  reduces effort.   We have identified 30 “elements of value”—fundamental attributes in their most essential and discrete forms.  These elements fall into four categories: functional, emotional, life changing, and social impact. Our model traces its conceptual roots to the psychologist Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs,