Thursday, May 17, 2012

"Make Your Enemies Your Allies"


John Clendenin was fresh out of business school in 1984 when he took on his first managerial position, in Xerox’s parts and supply division. He was an obvious outsider: young, African-American, and a former Marine, whose pink shirts and brown suits stood out amid the traditional gray and black attire of his new colleagues. “I was strikingly different,” he recalls. And yet his new role required him to lead a team including employees who had been with Xerox for decades.
One of his direct reports was Tom Gunning, a 20-year company veteran who believed Clendenin’s job should have gone to him, not to a younger, nontechnical newcomer. Gunning also had a cadre of pals on the team. As a result, Clendenin’s first days were filled with strained smiles and behind-the-back murmurs. Though he wasn’t looking for adversaries, “I knew these guys were discontented about me coming in,” Clendenin remembers.
He was right to be wary. Anyone who has faced a rival at work—a colleague threatened by your skills, a superior unwilling to acknowledge your good ideas, or a subordinate who undermines you—knows such dynamics can prove catastrophic for your career, and for your group or organization. When those with formal or informal power are fighting you, you may find it impossible to accomplish—or get credit for—any meaningful work. And even if you have the upper hand, an antagonistic relationship inevitably casts a cloud over you and your team, sapping energy, stymieing progress, and distracting group members from their goals.
Because rivalries can be so destructive, it’s not enough to simply ignore, sidestep, or attempt to contain them. Instead, effective leaders turn rivals into collaborators—strengthening their positions, their networks, and their careers in the process. Think of these relationships not as chronic illnesses you have to endure but as wounds that must be treated in order for you to lead a healthy work life.
Here we share a method, called the 3Rs, for efficiently and effectively turning your adversaries into your allies. If you execute each step correctly, you will develop new “connective tissue” within your organization, boosting your ability to broker knowledge and drive fresh thinking. The method is drawn from our own inductive case studies—including interviews with business leaders such as John Clendenin, who agreed to let us tell his story in this article—and from empirical research conducted by Brian and others investigating the physiology of the brain, the sociology of relationships, and the psychology of influence.
Emotions and Trust
Many well-intentioned efforts to reverse rivalries fail in large part because of the complex way trust operates in these relationships. Research shows that trust is based on both reason and emotion. If the emotional orientation toward a person is negative—typically because of a perceived threat—then reason will be twisted to align with those negative feelings. This is why feuds can stalemate trust: New facts and arguments, no matter how credible and logical, may be seen as ploys to dupe the other side. This effect is not just psychological; it is physiological. When we experience negative emotions, blood recedes from the thinking part of the brain, the cerebral cortex, and rushes to its oldest and most involuntary part, the “reptilian” stem, crippling the intake of new information.
Most executives who decide they want to reverse a rivalry will, quite understandably, turn to reason, presenting incentives for trustworthy collaboration. But in these situations, the “emotional brain” must be managed before adversaries can understand evidence and be persuaded.
When John Clendenin looked at Tom Gunning at Xerox, he immediately saw grounds for a strong partnership beyond a perfunctory subordinate-superior relationship. Gunning had 20 years’ worth of organizational and technical knowledge, and contacts around the company, but he lacked the leadership skills and vision that Clendenin possessed. Conversely, Clendenin understood management but needed Gunning’s expertise and connections to successfully navigate his new company. Unfortunately, Gunning’s emotions were getting in the way. Clendenin needed to employ the 3Rs.

"India improves world ranking in trade logisitics"


By pursuing reforms and going in for public-private partnerships in infrastructure, India has improved its position in the world ranking of countries in trade logisticsdespite a global slowdown in the sector in the last two years, says the World Bank.
India with a Logistics Performance Indicators (LPI) score of 3.08 was ranked 46th in the bank's latest survey of international freight forwarders and express carriers.
Singapore with a score of 4.12 listed as the top performer among the 155 economies included in the survey.
In 2010 India was ranked 47th with an LPI score of 3.12. However in the context of global recession the World Bank singles out Chile, China, India, Morocco, South Africa and the US as countries which have continued to improve. As the report says: 'Against others in their income group, the most overperforming non-high-income countries are Vietnam, India, China, and South Africa.'
'All top performers show strong cooperation between the public and private sectors, and a comprehensive approach in the development of services, infrastructure and efficient logistics,' said Mona Haddad, sector manager in the World Bank's international trade department.
'Infrastructure stands out as the chief driver of progress in top performers, followed by improvements in logistics services, and customs and border management,' Haddad added.
Trade logisitics refers to the capacity of countries to efficiently move goods and connect manufacturers and consumers with international markets which spur faster economic growth and help firms benefit from trade recovery.
Trade logistics is therefore key to economic competitiveness, growth, and poverty reduction.
The LPI is an interactive benchmarking tool created by the bank to help countries identify the challenges and opportunities they face in their performance on trade logistics and what they can do to improve their performance.
As a multidimensional assessment of performance, the LPI compares the trade logistics profiles of 155 countries and rates them on a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The LPI's six components include the efficiency of the clearance process (speed, simplicity, and predictability of formalities) by border control agencies, including customs, and the quality of trade and transport-related infrastructure (ports, railroads, roads, information technology).
Other factors are the ease of arranging competitively priced shipments and the competence and quality of logistics services (transport operators, customs brokers) and the ability to track and trace consignments and the frequency with which shipments reach the consignee within the scheduled or expected delivery time.
According to the bank's 'Connecting to Compete 2012: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy' report, high income economies dominate the top logistics rankings, while the economies with the worst performance are least developed countries that are also often landlocked, small islands, or post-conflict states.
In the upper-middle income country category, top performers include South Africa, China and Turkey.
In the lower-middle income category, India, Morocco and the Philippines have above average performance improvements. And among low-income countries, outperformers included Benin, Malawi and Madagascar.
The survey suggested that a country create sustainable improvements in its logistical capabilities only by fostering cooperation between the public and private sectors, and by considering the impact of all agencies on the supply chain.