Conversations that matter

When we are unable to talk about issues that matter, but everything and everyone seems ok, we're on the border of the undiscussables. If we're attentive, we may sense some words not being said, or topics just ignored or parked for later, unnecessarily.

Saying hello to the elephant in the room means acknowledging these realities.

If this is a regular occurance, it means that it's now become a part of the culture.  The organization will have difficulty reaching its goals, and the employees will find it difficult to work together at all levels - a sure recipe for failure. Also, employees will reduce their engagement and top performers will leave sooner rather than later.  The organization will be left with people good at saying 'yes'  and doing the absolute minimum, along with the blame-game and siloed working.

Having worked with a few leadership teams on articulating and transforming their culture, do get in touch with me on +919820155778

Reverse Benchmark?

Photo Credit - Pixabay

In the 80s, 90s and 2000s benchmarking was a big part of organization strategy.  The approach was to copy excellence of the industry leaders and apply them to your own organization. There were mixed results for sure. 

Those who tout the virtues of benchmarking are a kind of copycat.  Most of the time the benchmarking exercise doesn't yield the kind of results that are expected.  That is because of the difference in the key factor - people.  By people I include all levels, particularly the leadership.  While the skills of people from Organization A may be similar to those in organizations that it is trying to benchmark against (even though they are in the same industry), the mindsets will be different, and therefore, the way that variations in methods are applied would be different.   This means that their organizations' cultures would be different. 

This is also the reason why top performers from one organization don't always do as well in another organization they move to, even though the industry and business is the same.

Even if there are positive results, they don't really do much to make the organization stand out i.e. distinguish itself from it's competition.  Customers are not going to be in a hurry to come to you if you are offering services or products that are commoditized.

pexels-maksgelatin-4412924

In the current adoption of AI scenario, we see similar attempts to incorporate AI into the organization without sufficient thought (beyond costs) of the possibilities and probabilities of long-term multiple -layer benefits.  This will eventually lead to the feeling of sameness.  Today, some of us are able to tell when a document (email / report / presentation) has been written by AI.

What might happen if the organization were to reverse benchmark?  Have a look at the short clip  that inspired this short piece.

Definitely food for thought for me- please share yours.

Perhaps this Reverse Benchmarking might help us make better choices when choosing how to apply AI at work or in our lives.

Over half of leaders regret replacing people with AI: Will you be next?

Photo by Vojtech Okenka: https://www.pexels.com/photo/photograph-of-chocolate-cupcake-with-red-strawberry-toppings-1055272/

There's a rush by organizations to incorporate AI in the workplace processes, and also a rush for candidates to gain AI skills through various courses.
However, there are timew when it's felt that they should have taken more time to consider factors, including the future before taking the decision.

For eg., I wonder if those rushing to learn MLL, have considered that one day, they might be made redundant by AI systems that they have created.

Here's a thought-provoking article on why there are regrets for replacing people with #AI.

From the article: "your competitors will buy AI technologies similar to, or better than, those you are using to replace your people. Any first-mover advantage will be quickly lost.".

Read the entire article here