Shyamsunder Panchavati

Shyamsunder Panchavati
Linkedin now a follower of Shyam on twitter

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Despite High Positions & Perks , Executives feel professionally dissatisfied & unfulfilled. Why???

Despite High Positions & Perks , Executives feel professionally dissatisfied &unfulfilled. Why???


Despite their lofty job titles and impressive pay, many high-achieving executives feel professionally dissatisfied and unfulfilled, and it is not surprising. Looking back, they wish they’d accomplished more or even chosen a different career altogether. Often they feel trapped in their jobs (most of them do).

Let us examine why people arrive at this impasse, & offer them guidance on how to break through it and reach their full potential.

Many people feel like victims when, in fact, most career wounds are self-inflicted. Taking control begins with understanding yourself: seeking frank feedback about your strengths and weaknesses from colleagues above and below you, and figuring out what you truly enjoy doing.

That goal isn’t about getting to the top. Rather, it’s about taking a very personal look at how you define success in your heart of hearts, and then finding your own path there. To discover your way, you need to step back and reassess your career, recognizing that managing it is your responsibility.

Every individual has his understanding and definition of success. It is not very surprising to find that different coaches or mentors have different perspectives and road maps for success. So other people’s understanding of success should not be a guide for you in selecting career choices and goals.

Next, it’s critical to identify the three or four tasks central to your business and make sure you excel at them. It keeps you focused, it is easy to concentrate, monitor, evaluate, and affect periodic path correction as per need. Otherwise, success is likely to elude you or may not be to the extent you expect.

Once you’ve chosen the right enterprise, you must show character and leadership. Great executives put the interests of their company and colleagues ahead of their own. They’re willing to speak up, even to voice unpopular views. Many managers hit a plateau because they play it too safe. It should be a correct mixture of discretion and valor. And this mixture differs from case to case, opportunity to opportunity & situation to situation. But those willing to take calculated risks, identify their dreams, develop the skills to realize them, and demonstrate courage will find fulfillment. They may hit bumps along the way, but the resolve & application will guide them through success.

Best Wishes,

Shyam

I have received very good response from my friends on all the networks and groups. based on that,

Here is an afterthought from Shyam


Let us steer this discussion to slightly different but still hugely connected angle.


Let me put it this way.


Stimulus---------Reaction----------Action---------Result-------------Consequences ---------------------Reaction----------Stimulus--------


Here the stimulus is people around in the work place and their behavior which evokes a particular reaction from the executives resulting in an action and a related result.which again creates consequences & the chain continues.


We have a similar scenario in the personal life of the executive, which impacts a persons WORK LIFE BALANCE resulting once again in a chain of reaction action result &consequence at the work place.


How to address the personal scenario part impacting the professional performance?


Can a little social networking among the community by the family members(spouse & children) help?


Would it result in a de-stressing factor for the family members?


Social get together among the community and nieghbours social cultural activities. All these put together.


Can they alter the WORK LIFE BALANCE.?


To what extent it can impact positively the performance at wok place?


Would it result in changing the stimulus at work place to positive?


Once that gets changed, will everything else gets changed automatically?.


As usual please debate this


Best wishes,


Shyam

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Bald Heads & Bufferstock

Bald Heads and the Buffer stock (people with enough hair on their pate)


A Pickwickean from Shyam




There has been unending debate on this subject from the time immemorial. There is strong feeling that people with bald head or receding hairline are more accomplished in their field when compared to those with buffer stock (of hair on their pate).

At least Wayne Roonie the famous Manchester United striker feels so. The balding striker attributes him recent success to his bald head. He says he has been able to score more goals because of his bald head.

Former American president George W Bush has special infatuation for the bald heads. (Don’t forget to see the pictures).

In India certain communities consider balding as an auspicious happening. Receding hairline is considered and indication of increasing wealth. They are considered inversely proportionate to each other.

Bald head is a prize possession for whoever has it; unfortunately I am not so fortunate.

My friends in India would be happy to know that there is a place called Bald Head Islands in North Carolina in United States. It is a beautiful place and a holiday resort.
Does absence of hair on the pate result in faster and increased absorption and dissipation?

There is no specific data to suggest that. However history has the examples of the Bald heads outperforming the buffer stocks. India’s first prime minister & Deputy Prime Minister, Nehru and Patel. And all the subsequent male prime ministers who completed their term were bald, including the most successful, yet most forgotten PM P V Narsimha Rao. Lone exception being of course Vajpayee.

Great Britain’s Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister of second world war Sir Winston Churchill, Clement Atlee were bald.

In cricket dashing openers Jayasurya & Sehwag have more in common than just bald head.

Are bald heads more aggressive in their approach than others? You would say yes if you study the above personalities and Gorbachev, Andropov and Putin. The leaders played an important role in the history of Soviet Union & Russia.

For the Americans it has been a more or less a hairy affair. At least post Kennedy, except for Lyndon Johnson & Ford. President Obama has a short crisp and elegant hair style that adds to his Demeanor. Every thing about the president is majestic including the way he carries himself. Hope he has a performance to match all those attributes.

The debate can be endless. I request my friends to come out with their ideas

Best wishes,

Shyam


Tuesday, March 23, 2010

New Challenges for the HR



New Challenges for the HR

Now the boot is on the other leg, Post Recession, It is the organizations that are getting the boot from the Managers who have successfully withered the storm.

We have seen the nightmarish effect the recession had on not only on the professional but also personal lives of the executives. In the name of cost cutting, organizations have taken arbitrary decisions resulting in the loss of jobs and in some cases cutting of salaries, while at the same time increasing the workloads beyond all imaginable proportions.

Loss of loyalty on account of inflicted & inflected Domestic problems

Naturally this development has resulted in healthcare, mortgage, and other repayment problems, which has negatively impacted the personal lives of the executives, resulting in improper parenting, broken marriages, and in extreme cases death also. The effects of these are now felt on the employee loyalty towards the organization. However some organizations that have taken care to take the employees in to confidence regarding actual financial position and taken step for the rehabilitation of the laid of employees are not experiencing the factor.

The employee is now defining his own ROI parameters, which the organization are finding difficult to meet. HR department which is badly sandwiched between the two is facing the challenge of redesigning the talent pool with different levels of optimization.

Positive fallout of a negative development

Positive fallout of the recession is that it has thrown up a new breed of executives who have successfully come out of the recession with unimaginable levels of optimization and productivity. Now that the recession is over, the organizations are on the lookout to recruit such executives who are in heavy demand now. With loyalty no longer a factor the executives are more than happy to move to green pastures.

Now this being the situation, how can the HR prevent attrition?

How can the HR balance the new ROI expectation of the employees and capacity of the organizations?

How to design the work-nomics to deliver the desired economies?

These are the questions I would like my friends to discuss and debate.

Please feel free to express your opinion.

Best wishes,

Shyam

Saturday, March 20, 2010

CEO's that successfully fail

CEO'S THAT SUCCESSFULLY FAIL ! ! ! !

The myth that surrounds the persona of a CEO as a person who never fails has been blown away by the adversities that continuously affected the industry during the past couple of years. The supposedly best have bitten the dust, while some so called non entities have not only proven equal to the task but they have also successfully steered their organization out of the turmoil and put it back on the growth track.

Now what is the factor that separates the successful CEO from the ones that fail?

It's rarely for lack of smarts or vision. Most unsuccessful CEOs stumble because of one simple, fatal shortcoming. Here's what we aren't saying: That failed CEOs are dumb or evil. In fact they tend to be highly intelligent, articulate, dedicated, and accomplished. They worked hard, made sacrifices, and may have performed well terrifically for years.

Nor are we saying execution is the only reason CEOs falter. Sometimes they adopt a strategy so flawed that it's doomed, or they refuse to confront reality in their markets, or they antagonize their board. And when a CEO really goes down in flames, there's almost always more than one reason.

It's clear, as well, that getting execution right will only become more crucial. The worldwide revolution of free markets, open economies, and lowered trade barriers and the advent of e-commerce have made virtually every business far more brutally competitive. The frantic spread of information through technology is making customers everywhere more powerful and pushing toward the commoditization of everything. Institutional investors who now own a substantial portion of equities relentlessly demand results.

One important area of failure for the CEO’s is the failure to put, the right people in the right job, and of course the relative failure to fix problems in time..

Selection &; Retention factor.

Sometimes strange anomalies not strictly related to merit become the criteria for selection and retention of an employee. A relatively less confident CEO would avoid recruiting a highly accomplished deputy for the fear that the latter would attract the attention of the governing board and present a viable alternative to the incumbent CEO. A sense of insecurity within often dictates such decisions.

On the other extreme is the highly overconfident CEO, who thinks that he can mentor and coach anyone to exacting delivery levels. My man theory comes in to effect here. Here he selects a person who he thinks will remain loyal to him in adversities and not turn tables on him. The philosophy of “I would rather take the devil I know, rather than the one I don’t.

Other less important but influencing factor could be, the person creates a positive vibe in the social media, hence a good individual to be around. The person may be more acceptable to the majority of the members of the governing board. He has successes in a different field, and hence would succeed here also. Sometimes these people are selected in preference, to the home bred executives who have contributed positively to the organization. Sacking important executives may or may not impact the organization negatively, but retaining non performing ones would definitely, waiting indefinitely in the hope performance will definitely impact the organization negatively.

More often than not these deemed success turnout to be reasons for doomed bottom lines & careers.

The CEO’s role extends beyond the bottomlines. It pays to treat employees as stake holders.
Making the bottom line your top priority may not be the best way to improve profitability. Recent research shows that CEOs who put stakeholders’ interests ahead of profits generate greater workforce engagement—and thus deliver the superior financial results that they have made a secondary goal.

This finding is based on survey data gathered from 520 business organizations in 17 countries, many of them emerging markets. If a CEO’s primary focus is on profit maximization, employees develop negative feelings toward the organization. They tend to perceive the CEO as autocratic and focused on the short term, and they report being somewhat less willing to sacrifice for the company. Corporate performance is poorer as a result.

But when the CEO makes it a priority to balance the concerns of customers, employees, and the community while also taking environmental impact into account, employees perceive him or her as visionary and participatory. They report being more willing to exert extra effort, and corporate results improve.

Inspiring Vision

Jack Welch, the legendary former CEO of GE was well known for cultivating a breed of successful CEO’s from within, who were not only great success but also contributed to GE for more than a decade as CEO’s. The continuity factor at the top often creates the comfort , and puts them ahead of organizations that don’t have this factor.

It is important to create a vision that inspires and directs the organization. And ensure that, it is broad enough to allow great flexibility. Communicate your vision to everyone in your organization and create an innovation-adept culture environment that encourages entrepreneurial creativity to make the vision a reality.


"Leaders inspire people with clear visions of how things can be done better,“ writes Jack Welch “The best leaders do not provide a step-by-step instruction manual for workers. The best leaders are those who come up with new idea, and articulate a vision that inspires others to act.”

All said and done, it is still not possible to lay down the formula for the success or the reasons for the failure of the CEO’s. People with early setbacks in life like Steve Jobs have turned out to be great success in later part of their lives & career. "Lee" Iacocca's  story of the turnaround in Chrysler Corporation is a folklore people never tire of singing. Adversities sometimes throw up leaders that normal circumstances may not.
 
Hope you have enjoyed reading this article. Please come out with your valuable views.

Best wishes,

Shyam

Saturday, March 6, 2010

Gone with the wind


 What would have "Gone with the wind" movie engrossed with today's ticket rates???
 (From Harvard Business Publishing stats.)
$1.5 billion. That's what the box-office revenue would have been for Gone with the Wind if all tickets had been sold at today's estimated average price of $7.61, according to Box Office Mojo. The sales figure makes GWTW the all-time box-office winner, beating Star Wars ($1.3 billion), The Sound of Music ($1 billion), and — by a long shot — Avatar ($706 million).
As per the latest stats carried by the Harvard Business Publishing, the MGM movie “Gone with the wind” would have been the highest grosser at box office, if the ticket sales are calculated at today average rate. The Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh starrer film about war reconstruction and romance, released in 1940 created waves when it was released and during its numerous re-runs. Most of the people of my generation (fifties) must have seen it. I also watched the movie during my school days in sixties. I did not understand even a word of the English dialogues, but enjoyed the movie thoroughly.
Please view the stats and share your experience about the movie



DOMESTIC GROSSES
Adjusted for Ticket Price Inflation*

Rank
Title (click to view)
Studio
Adjusted Gross
Unadjusted Gross
Year^
1
$1,537,559,600
$198,676,459
1939^
2
$1,355,490,100
$460,998,007
1977^
3
$1,083,781,000
$158,671,368
1965
4
$1,079,511,500
$435,110,554
1982^
5
$996,910,000
$65,500,000
1956
6
$976,712,200
$600,788,188
1997
7
$974,679,800
$260,000,000
1975
8
$944,670,800
$111,721,910
1965
9
$841,427,600
$232,671,011
1973^
10
$829,490,000
$184,925,486
1937^
11
$760,370,300
$144,880,014
1961^
12
$747,154,600
$290,475,067
1980^
13
$745,780,000
$74,000,000
1959
14
$715,792,100
$309,306,177
1983^
15
$712,489,300
$712,489,342
2009
16
$678,377,100
$156,000,000
1973
17
$670,759,500
$242,374,454
1981^
18
$656,026,500
$357,067,947
1993
19
$651,198,300
$104,901,839
1967^
20
$645,524,400
$431,088,301
1999
21
$631,960,900
$76,408,097
1941^
22
$600,600,700
$134,966,411
1972^
23
$597,732,100
$329,694,499
1994
24
$594,963,600
$102,272,727
1964^
25
$587,733,900
$328,541,776
1994^
26
$585,374,500
$188,389,888
1978^
27
$569,228,000
$63,595,658
1965
28
$565,286,600
$533,345,358
2008
29
$560,704,100
$141,843,612
1967^
30
$553,064,800
$51,600,000
1959^
31
$540,697,600
$441,226,247
2004
32
$538,260,000
$238,632,124
1984^
33
$536,945,300
$102,308,889
1969
34
$532,685,900
$106,397,186
1970
35
$528,778,900
$403,706,375
2002
36
$527,136,100
$306,169,268
1996
37
$515,457,200
$285,761,243
1990
38
$512,939,400
$84,254,167
1940^
39
$511,266,100
$57,777,778
1963
40
$511,011,600
$234,760,478
1984
41
$504,543,000
$51,081,062
1964
42
$503,106,900
$100,489,151
1970
43
$500,085,700
$115,000,000
1973
44
$498,109,100
$36,000,000
1953
45
$491,821,900
$423,315,812
2006
46
$491,723,100
$42,000,000
1956
47
$484,851,700
$102,247,150
1942^
48
$481,161,400
$119,500,000
1974
49
$479,084,600
$251,188,924
1989
50
$477,490,200
$21,333,333
1945
51
$468,305,200
$377,027,325
2003
52
$467,068,800
$116,000,000
1974
53
$457,808,100
$373,585,825
2004
54
$456,600,000
$72,000,000
1964
55
$456,600,000
$36,000,000
1952
56
$455,764,900
$141,600,000
1978^
57
$454,353,800
$370,782,930
2004^
58
$451,460,100
$380,270,577
2005
59
$449,375,500
$210,609,762
1985
60
$438,567,500
$341,786,758
2002^
61
$438,177,200
$293,506,292
1999
62
$436,495,300
$134,218,018
1978
63
$433,039,000
$177,200,000
1982
64
$432,498,600
$126,737,428
1977
65
$428,728,200
$339,714,978
2003
66
$425,933,900
$43,656,822
1961
67
$425,497,800
$317,575,550
2001
68
$424,142,500
$93,602,326
1955^
69
$422,929,900
$132,088,635
1977^
70
$421,468,800
$44,824,144
1962^
71
$419,078,300
$112,892,319
1975
72
$418,854,200
$117,235,147
1976
73
$418,550,000
$23,650,000
1946
74
$417,803,900
$84,563,118
1972
75
$416,296,800
$314,776,170
2001^
76
$416,176,700
$241,721,524
1996
77
$415,632,900
$250,690,539
1997
78
$413,984,000
$27,200,000
1957
79
$410,186,100
$402,111,870
2009
80
$409,991,900
$46,332,858
1963
81
$409,478,900
$40,356,000
1960
82
$408,545,600
$108,981,275
1975
83
$408,536,800
$81,600,000
1970
84
$407,384,700
$179,870,271
1984
85
$406,895,100
$310,676,740
2002^
86
$400,928,200
$219,195,243
1993
87
$399,086,300
$217,350,219
1992
88
$391,650,300
$217,631,306
1990
89
$388,265,300
$20,408,163
1946
90
$385,438,100
$305,413,918
2003
91
$384,547,900
$23,750,000
1953
92
$383,199,600
$36,764,313
1954^
93
$379,814,700
$229,086,679
1997
94
$376,059,500
$197,171,806
1989
95
$372,237,700
$336,530,303
2007
96
$370,275,000
$204,843,345
1991
97
$366,217,500
$16,361,885
1941
98
$366,092,900
$260,044,825
2000
99
$364,035,900
$245,852,179
1999^
100
$362,627,200
$176,786,701
1986

http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/imdb2.bom.2/;p=rh;tile=2;sz=300x250;ord=680103619?
CHART NOTES
* Adjusted to the estimated 2010 average ticket price of $7.61. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable).
^ Indicates documented multiple theatrical releases. Most of the pre-1980 movies listed on this chart had multiple undocumentented releases over the years. The year shown is the first year of release.
Most pre-1980 pictures achieved their totals through multiple releases, especially Disney animated features which made much of their totals in the past few decades belying their original release dates in terms of adjustment. For example, Snow White has made $118,328,683 of its unadjusted $184,925,486 total since 1983. Click here for a full discussion of adjusting for movie ticket price inflation.
As per the latest stats carried by the Harvard Business Publishing, the MGM movie “Gone with the wind” would have been the highest grosser at box office, if the ticket sales are calculated at today average rate. The Clark Gable and Vivian Leigh starrer film about war reconstruction and romance, released in 1940 created waves when it was released and during its numerous re-runs. Most of the people of my generation (fifties) must have seen it. I also watched the movie during my school days in sixties. I did not understand even a word of the English dialogues, but enjoyed the movie thoroughly.
Please view the stats and share your experience about the movie