Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Dr. Gitika Dutta (Faculty Member, IIPM Hyderabad) is of the view that a carrot-and-stick policy need not always be resorted to, for building employee loyalty

Managers can, and often do, provide a range of incentivising and disincentivising KITA – bonuses, rewards, rules, work conditions, status – hygiene factors. These will have an effect, but will it be desired and long-term? A resounding ‘no’! Alfred Kohn sums it up neatly: “Do incentives work? The answer depends on what we mean by ‘work’. Rewards, like punishments, are extremely effective at producing one thing, and only one thing: temporary compliance. But carrot and sticks are strikingly ineffective at producing lasting change in attitudes or even behaviours. They do not create an enduring commitment to any value or action; they merely, and temporarily, change what we do.”

Some two dozen studies from social psychology have shown that people who expect to receive a reward for completing a task (or doing it successfully) do not perform as well as those who do not. This has been found with all sorts of rewards, people, and tasks (with the most destructive effect when the task involves creativity). This means that desired changes cannot be achieved by dangling goodies. Organisations need to learn that incentives only work for short-term movement; if you want motivation, do not start here. Can an organisation train its employees to be motivated? No! Motivation comes from within an individual. We do things, or do them well because the outcome is appealing to us. Read More..

Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Editorial at 4:49 PM 0 Comments

Saturday, September 01, 2012

Iran: The war is over, finally!

With the Obama administration playing down the Bushehr reactor issue, US finally accepts Iran; B&E brings out a completely hidden fact of the timing of the State Department’s pro-Iran statement

“We recognize that the Bushehr reactor is designed to provide civilian nuclear power and do not view it as a proliferation risk!” With this one statement on August 13, 2010, Darby Holladay of the US State Department created history by changing a decades’ long policy stand of United States towards Iran. The statement was brilliantly timed, given the propensity with which Israel was preparing to attack Iran’s nuclear plant. The statement also defined a historic moment in US-Israel relations, by communicating to Israel that the US was no longer ready to blindly accept any anti-Iran tirade.

These voices from the Obama government express an opinion considered improbable just a few months back, when US was said to be on the brink of attacking Iran. In February 2010, Obama had warned, “Despite their (Iran’s) posturing that their nuclear power is only for civilian use, they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization.” Given such a negative statement, the current US stand is momentous.

For the trained political analyst though, the past year should have been enough to give much evidence of what was around the corner in not only Obama-Iran relations, but most importantly Obama-Israel relations. Last year, when US Vice President Joe Biden, during an interview with ABC Sunday, announced that US would not “stand in the way” of Israel attacking Iran, US President Barack Obama had immediately backtracked asserting that US had “absolutely not” given any go ahead to Israel for attacking Iran. Obama had reiterated further, “We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East.” For Israel, that was bad news, and not just because of worsening political relations with US – Israeli fighter crafts would have had to pass over Iraq to attack Iran; and Iraq was under US control then.


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Editorial at 12:01 PM

Friday, August 10, 2012

BARACK OBAMA: A PROMISE IS A...

Obama made several promises during his campaign days, but precious few seem to have been realised. Will America and the world cherish his presidency the same way they had welcomed it? For that to happen, Obama will have to live up to expectations that could be well beyond his reach.

Quoting from one of our previous surveys, take for instance Woodrow Wilson who promised to keep the US out of World War I and ended up pushing the US into the same war. Then came Herbert Hoover in 1928, who, in his presidency speech, pledged to end poverty and promised “a chicken in every pot and two cars in every garage”– but eventually gifted the US ‘The Great Depression’ and gave many chickens a new lease of life! By the end of 1932, the unemployment figure touched the 24.9% mark with around 5,000 banks failing. Following the trend, Franklin D. Roosevelt graciously ‘un’met his 1932 pledge to maintain balanced budgets and to keep the US out of World War II. He bombed Japan and his government’s spending increased from 8.0% of GNP to 10.2%. The national debt, in turn, doubled from 16% to 33.6%. Richard Nixon promised resolutely in 1968 to ‘quickly’ resolve the Vietnam War. He didn’t! George H.W. Bush Senior promised in 1988, “Read my lips: No new taxes!” For records, he increased taxes and strangely parted with exclusions for high-income taxpayers. It seems that Obama, is on his way to keeping the spirit of freedom alive and kicking.

Nothing can indicate this more than Obama’s southward moving rating graph. His approval rating has dropped from 67% in 2009 to 50% today, the lowest ever rating at the end of a president’s first year term. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were the only other presidents polled who, like Obama, started their second years as president in the 50s (percentage wise), earning 55% and 54%, respectively. Then there’s more. A YouGov Polimetrix poll for The Economist found that 51% people think Obama says what people want to hear and not what he believes in. The same poll further reveals that a huge percentage disapproves the way Barack Obama is handling the Iraq issue (43% disapproval), the economy (47%), immigration (47%), terrorism (42%), health care (45%), social security (43%) and the Afghan war (49%).

Obama’s sycophantic speeches haven’t helped his cause post election so far. And beyond any apprehension, the second year will be even tougher. With Obama losing support (and majority) at the Senate, passing health care bills, moving his immigration policy further and ensuring more green jobs will become harder. But then as his campaign showed, Obama is known to be at his best with his back to the wall, at least when it comes to giving off his spiel against countries like India and China and the business threats they pose to the future of America. Irrespective of his spiel, there would be five simian issues that Obama would find hard to get off his back in the coming year. The IIPM Think Tank provides its analysis of the list.




Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

posted by Editorial at 4:16 PM