ScottProfessor.com

A boss takes credit for your work.  A CEO expects more from you but pays you less than other workers. A supervisor overschedules you and under utilises others.  A human resources department writes you threatening yet unnecessary warning letters. A manager refuses to sign-off on your work-related expenses.  An executive watches your every move giving you no space to work as if you are a child. An arrogant director brags about her own minimal accomplishments and neglects to listen to any ideas from subordinate staff.

Any of the before mentioned scenarios amongst a myriad of other possible causes leads one to toil and deliberate on whether to stay with an employer or quit.  Unfortunately, incompetent managers abound worldwide that frustrate staff while negligent companies disturb workers.  On the other hand, managers that do progressively supervise employees retain an inspiring following of acolytes who work because of, not in spite of, their leadership.  

The psychology behind employee intentions to quit permeates through mountains of social science research.  Business Talk previously wrote in-depth on intentions to quit in the Business Daily February 5, 2016 edition.  Workers desire to stay and executives want low turnover.  However, often the two do not achieve their target and staff end up leaving organisations.

Business Talk receives multiple requests from readers each month seeking advice on when to quit their current employers.  Inasmuch, over the next several weeks, Business Talk now embarks on a multi-part series empowering employees to discern when to quit jobs. ScottProfessor.com will then publish an online overarching survey in July 2016 for Kenyan employees to fill out and receive automated assessment and advice on one’s own work decisions: quit or stay.

The series and the upcoming online employee turnover tool will help you ascertain the appropriateness of your job amongst the following plethora of critical factors: job satisfaction, autonomy, perceived organisation support, supervisor support, organisational justice, procedural justice, fairness, organisation citizenship behaviour of colleagues, organisation commitment, organisation trust in executives, supervisors, and coworker ability, benevolence, integrity, reliance, and disclosure, felt trust from management and supervisors, transformational leadership, types of leadership power utilised, workplace empathy, your own emotional intelligence, your career trajectory, job learning, type of performance evaluations, self-esteem, equitable workplace practices, personality work-fit, job task boredom, task significance, workplace stress, organisation culture, and finally your workplace’s environment.

Hopefully the tools shared over the coming weeks will enable you to make smart job choices for the rest of your career.  So, in starting off, one of the greatest indicators that cause employees to desire to quit or stay with a firm involves job satisfaction. Researchers Weiss and Brief define job satisfaction as a pleasurable emotional state resulting from an employee’s appraisal of his or her job.  

Job satisfaction is a behavioural attitude.  It leads towards one’s behavioural intention and thereafter behavioural action.  One’s behavioural attitude covers many aspects of a job.  Researchers Mark Griffin, Malcolm Patterson, and Michael West in Australia and the UK developed questions that employees can ask themselves in order to decipher their pleasure with their employment.    Further research by Seyed Rahim Benrazavi and Abu Daud Silong in Malaysia highlights workers’ needs for achievement, recognition, and nature of work.  

So taking the powerful research into account, ask yourself the following sixteen statements that represent different levels of satisfaction that you hold with your current workplace.  Take each declaration and judge it in your mind on the following 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 point scale whereby each number represents your following opinion of your workplace as: Extremely Dissatisfied (1), Dissatisfied (2), Somewhat Dissatisfied (3), Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (4), Somewhat Satisfied (5), Satisfied (6), Extremely Satisfied (7).

Write your numeric answer for each of the following proclamations: Your fellow workers.  Freedom to choose your own method of working.  Opportunities to use your abilities.  Management-worker relations.  Your immediate boss.  Physical working conditions.  Recognition you get for good work.  The amount of variety in your job.  Your job security.  Your chances of promotion.  Your rate of pay.  The amount of responsibility in your job.  Attention paid to your suggestions.  The type of recognition you can gain through doing good work.  Ability to achieve important milestones for your career.  Type and nature of the regular work required.

Now add up the numbers for each of your answers.  Take your total and divide it by sixteen (16) to give you your average response.  If you scored a 5.5 or higher, then you enjoy a good job fit.  If your average result resulted between a 3.5 and 5.5, then it may be time for you to start contemplating different options in the short and medium term.  If you unfortunately rated your job satisfaction on average as below 3.5, then for your own and your family’s psychological health, you should commence an immediate search for a new job or even new career.

By: Scott Bellows

Thomas curled his lips in anger.  Sweat started dripping off his forehead.  Thomas used to just smile and conceal his unhappiness.  However, his displeasure at his work place increasingly became harder to hide.  In Thomas’ mind, he failed to understand why Jacinta kept getting promoted instead of him.  “Surely she receives promotions because of her gender”, Thomas thinks to himself, or “maybe she enjoys patronage because her relative may run the whole company”.

  How many of you see what appear as injustices at your workplace?  How many of you dream about a world where men and women obtain promotions purely on the basis of the quality and quantity of their work?  Those of us in Kenya know better than most of the world the realities behind human psychology in the workplace.  Meritorious work counts, but only comprises one piece of a large complex puzzle that determines your success in your organisation.

  Last week in the Business Daily we discussed how bosses may gain power over employees.  Today we focus on how employees may obtain their own power.  So in our above example, Jacinta possess multiple contingency powers unknown to Thomas.  She first made herself non-substitutable to the organisation.  The organisation became unable to imagine substituting, or replacing, her with anyone else.  There exist four methods to increase your own non-substitutability at your place of work.

  First, strive to differentiate yourself compared to other workers.  If all other workers leave the office at 5:00pm, then you should leave at 6:00pm.  If all other employees bring their lunches to work, then as an alternative you develop the habit of going out to lunch with the boss.  Instead of copying your coworkers as a way of fitting it, you should rather find ways of standing out for positive reasons.  Work in a different style.  Dress better.  Socialise more effectively.  Whatever method you choose for differentiating yourself from the others, do it consistently and gain a reputation in people’s minds for that positive differentiating behaviour.

  Second, attempt to control the tasks in your department.  Show through your actions that you possess capabilities of getting the job done every time.  Become the bridge between other departments, other supervisors, and other employees and the tasks that require completion.  When you stand out as the employee who bridges the gaps and controls tasks, even if you do not do the tasks yourself, you increase your non-substitutability in your boss’ mind.

  Third, control labour where you work.  Perhaps your organisation maintains a workers union, staff council, or staff welfare board.  Utilise the opportunity to speak on behalf of other employees.  Work diplomatically in such a role so that management does not see you as a complaining representative, but rather someone reasonable that brokers deals and gets things done in motivating other employees.  Perform well controlling labour, and expect management to soon actually promote you among their ranks into management itself.

  Fourth, control knowledge.  Start by understanding your company’s business, market, and clients.  Then learn your clients’ businesses and markets.  Look for gaps where others lack knowledge of an area.  Perhaps you work for an NGO that deals with water provision to impoverished communities.  Then maybe seek to know how all other water projects in Asia have tried different techniques and how those methods might prove useful right here in Africa.  Find an area where you become the expert so that the organisation would never make a decision in your area of expertise without your input.  Next, start to control knowledge sharing at your company.   Even offer to manage content on an internal webpage for knowledge sharing.  Reduce the chances that the organisation substitutes you with another employee by controlling the flow and sharing of institutional and sector-specific knowledge. 

  Now hopefully you master the art of non-substitutability where you work.  Then your next step should involve increasing your power as an employee.  If you work as a normal employee without any supervisory role, then your position does not come with any official power.  Nonetheless, you may still create power.  Your power may grow so large that you possess contingency power over the actual official bosses at your workplace. 

  Grow your power by first increasing your workplace behaviours that other people like.  As an example, strive to gain likability by your coworkers.  Likability and personable skills gain you referent power.  Your ability to garner referent power makes you more powerful than even managers with official power.  Next, increase your prestige.  If you work to gain prestige in certain areas of your industry, you gain tremendous power at your workplace.  Utilise your connections to gain recognition in the media, or win an award, or receive commendations by a major client.

  Next, gain power by capitalising on opportunities.  Try hard to place yourself at the right place at the right time.  If your company needs a new regional director for Western Kenya and you currently serve as a sales officer in Nairobi, volunteer for the position immediately.  Jump at the chance to solve company problems or work in growth areas of the firm.

  Then, further increase your power as a reliable professional who manages critical problems.  If change comes to your company, jump in and solve it.  When a crisis develops, volunteer to work extra hours to fix it without begging for overtime.  However, only volunteer for solutions that exist as critical to the core operations of the company.  Stay central to the organisation’s main mission and it will value you more.  Avoid jumping in to solve issues in an unimportant subsidiary.  As an example, if Barclays Bank made a larger foray into the microfinance space and experienced poor repayments in that department, avoid volunteering to help resolve microfinance repayment issues since you know that main bulk of Barclays’ profits come from loans to large clients.

  Finally, the last and the most obvious way to increase your power at your workplace: stay close to power.  If others before you gained power, get close to them and make allies.  Stay close to those with official power, like the CEO, and those with referent power, like everyone’s favourite employee.  Your proximity to power increases your own power through employees’ own subconscious psychological association between you and power.  Enhance your power further by actually reporting as high as possible in the company.  If as a project manager at EABL, you report to the Vice President of Sales, while another project manager reports to the CEO, then that other project manager contains more power than you even though your titles remain the same.  Volunteer for and push to gain positions, even if at the same title and pay level, with roles that report as high in the company as possible.

  By: Scott Bellows

Grace runs a fast-pace information technology business.  The firm experienced explosive growth during the past five years and now dominates the market it its niche space.  Founded in Nairobi in 2008, it now operates major offices in Kisumu, Mombasa, Dar es Salaam, Lusaka, Kampala, Harare, Addis Ababa, and Johannesburg.

  Further, Grace’s team now offers multiple product lines instead of the sole IT solution from 2008.  Sitting back in her office in Westlands, she recalls with fondness the early days of the company when she relied on family and friends to serve on her board of directors.  The initial board invested 2 million Kenyan Shillings to boost the business.  Now valued at 255 million Kenyan Shillings, the original family and friend investors still own 60% of the company and represent 6 seats on the 9 member board of directors.

  Grace ponders whether to expand the board in order to keep the original 6 or reduce the number of original members to 3.  Should she value experience versus new ideas?  Then which should she find more important between enthusiasm and institutional memory?  How would new members get along with original members?

  In the end, the board’s decisions do not lie with her.  The shareholders must vote.  What should she recommend? 

  A debate rages in corporate governance circles pertaining to length of tenure on boards of directors.  Precisely as Grace must decide her company’s future, academics, CEOs, directors, and shareholders all ponder, research, and share experiences on the most desired methods to achieve board performance through restrictions or lack of limits on board tenure.

  Unfortunately for Grace, the Kenyan information technology industry standard in Kenya for the average length of service for board chairpersons stands at 8 years.  Meanwhile, IT boards in Kenya remain the youngest boards with an average board of director age of 50.5 years according to Brain Trust Strategies.

  Why Care about Board Tenure?

Why should we as Kenyan businesses care to step into the foray over length of service on a board?  The simple answer boils down to performance.  Boards of directors that advocate stronger interests of shareholders actually provide governance that leads to better firm operations and strategy.  Inasmuch, boards need strong shareholder representation.  Research by Professors Gomper, Ishii, and Metrick in 2003 covered 1,500 firms and found that board of directors structures that included pro-shareholder provisions performed remarkably better through higher profits.

  So, our decision on board tenure must revolve around whether tenure helps or hinders shareholder representation. 

  Pros

There exist 3 main ways to alter the time commitments or time overlap for boards of directors.  First, a company may introduce term limits.  Term limits force boards to infuse new members that hold new ideas and energy.  Term limits further enable new skill sets onto boards through targeting new members based on skills, not organisational history with the firm. 

  Term limits also bring the possibility of focusing on gender and minority diversity on the board.  Women comprise only 11.6% of board members of firms on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE).  Separate research out of Harvard University in 2010 by Professor Siegel and colleagues shows that hiring women and minorities as employees and in governance positions in countries where such groups struggle for workplace equality, such as Kenya, actually increases firm performance.  The previously discriminated against women and minorities become grateful for the work or governance opportunity and labour harder and integrate more new ideas into the organisation.  Other research by Credit Suisse showed that large global companies with female outperformed firms with all male boards by 26%.  Term limits could enable swifter integration of women and minorities onto boards.

  Second, staggering board terms enables the forced voting at varying years for new board members.  Therefore, the board does not risk losing all board members in a single vote and lose institutional memory or consistency while requiring new voting.  As a matter of preference, large multinational NGO Kiva.org has invested 2 billion shillings into Kenya.  The organisation’s Africa Representative, David Kitusa, states that “Kiva.org values boards of directors that stagger member terms and introduce term limits.  We feel this increases board diversity.  We assign higher investment grade ratings to such firms.”

  Lastly, companies may introduce a mandatory retirement age for its board members.  The Kenyan Capital Markets Authority requires retirement at age 70.  The average age of Kenyan board members, according to Brain Trust Strategies’ survey, yields an aging 57 year average.  Meanwhile, the average age for chairpersons of companies listed on the NSE comes in at 65 years.

  Many other nations do not require mandatory retirement, but companies often include age limit policies.  Deloitte surveyed North American publicly listed firms in 2012 and found that most publicly traded firms there require retirement between the ages of 72 and 74.  Then board members over the age of 40 years comprise 90% of members of North American boards.  Younger board members may serve the interests of shareholders more than their aged counterparts who hold decades of service with ingrained loyalties.

  Cons

Those who dislike term limits stress that such policies deny boards of institutional memory and experience with the company.  CEOs also fear the loss of engagement by the board member once his or her term expires whereby the CEO may hope for future investment from them.  Additionally, constant recruitment of new members may prove tiresome or new members may threaten the CEO’s leadership and desired strategy in favour of shareholders.

  While Kenyan NGOs often utilise term limits for board members, corporations typically do not institutionalise such policies.  Similarly, Deloitte found that only 5% of North American traded companies kept term limit policies for board members.

  Meanwhile, staggering the beginning of board terms actually reduces the power of shareholders.  It denies shareholders the right to hire and fire board members each year.  Inasmuch, in the event that the board acts against the wishes of shareholders, the shareholders cannot retaliate in a short time span.  Inasmuch, staggering board terms enhances CEO power and reduces shareholder power.  Remember, shareholder power enhances firm profits more than CEO power.

  The current trend among boards endeavouring to champion shareholder rights involves “declassifying” boards.  Board declassification involves requiring all board members to stand for election by shareholders each year.  Dr. Daines and Dr. Klausner in 2001 fed into Professor Gomper and colleagues’ findings that declassification alone may enable substantially stronger board advocates for shareholder rights and lead to increased company profits over time.

  Lastly, forced retirement may cause otherwise competent board members to leave board positions and deprive the firm of good governance skills due to an arbitrary condition, age, that may not correlate to performance in all situations.

  Conclusion

Now that you know the facts, how would you advise Grace and her firm?  Should she remove some existing board members who served since inception and replace them with new members?  If so, how should she replace them: age limits, term limits, or staggered vs. annual voting?  As most issues in business, the answer often lies with the specific modalities of the respective firm and industry.  Grace should likely integrate a combination of tactics balancing the pros and cons.

By: Scott Bellows 

I, like many Kenyans, love movies.  Action, comedy, and political dramas all appeal to me.  One of my favourite movies, Crimson Tide, first appeared in theatres in 1995.  Now a film classic, Crimson Tide wrestles with the power-play induced ethical issues a leader must face in order to make successful effective decisions.  Different video shops around Nairobi still sell the movie starring Denzel Washington and Gene Hackman.  I recommend it for current and aspiring CEOs.

  The film meanders through an intricately laid out scenario whereby breakaway Russian rebels on one hand and the United States military on the other nearly destroy the world with nuclear weapons.  In response to increased Russian rebel war threats, the United States sends out coded messages around the globe to its nuclear submarines instructing captains to prepare their vessels for nuclear launch.

  The US military officials at the Pentagon later send out a second message containing further instructions with either order: launch the nuclear missiles or stand down and do not fire.  A particular submarine hidden far out in the open ocean fails to receive the entire second message.  Given the threat of nuclear war from Russia, should the submarine launch its nuclear weapons in an effort to destroy Russia’s nuclear launch sites and help protect the United States or do not launch missiles and keep the peace while hoping that Russia did not already launch their own nuclear missiles.

    The submarine’s commanding officer, played by Gene Hackman, forcefully pushes the crew to launch the weapons without waiting for confirmation from the second message.  The deputy, or executive officer, portrayed by Denzel Washington insists that confirmation must come from the second message.  A massive struggle between the two ensues with the crew forced to choose between following the man in charge or the deputy.

  What may we learn from a fictional war film?  Now sitting comfortably in your office here in Kenya and not out in the ocean, you too must find the right power balance in order to lead your staff and convince them to follow you.  There exist different power models for you to exert your authority to lead your teams.

  When you first take the job as the boss of a company, what first instincts do you possess?  Do you desire to hold a staff meeting and remind employees of your authority as CEO?  Do you meet employees and try to gain their trust, admiration, and respect?  You have five different options to utilise: expert power, referent power, legitimate power, reward power, and coercive power.

  Expert power derives from your experience and ability in the field that you lead.  Staff recognise a leader’s expertise and follow him or her based on their respect for the leader’s knowledge.  Referent power originates from staff loyalty and happiness with their boss.  If employees like their leader on a personal level and want to please him or her, then the boss maintains referent power over the employees.

  Next, you may utilise the legitimate power entrusted to you in your position by the shareholders of the company.  As the CEO of a firm, you hold power through the facilities of your office.  You may hire and fire or promote and demote.  Reward power centres on your ability to reward employees for good work in their jobs.  Rewards range from salary raises, bonuses, awards, recognition, or other benefits.

  Lastly, your desire may lay in coercive power.  As a leader, you have the choice to coerce and force employees to your way of thinking.  You may make work and life difficult for employees if they do not act as you choose.

  Stop and think.  All too often, leaders here in East Africa resort to the “big boss” method: “I say it so you must do it because I am the boss.”  Such a scenario clearly utilises legitimate power.  But if you could only implement two types of leadership power in your company, which of the five options would you choose? 

  Research shows us that expert power and referent power lead to employee commitment.  Legitimate power and reward power results in employee compliance with your goals.  Then coercive power builds employee resistance against you.

  Clearly employee commitment leads to better company performance than mere employee compliance.  Bosses should avoid employee resistance, obviously, at all costs.  So, as a leader in your company, lead through referent power and expert power that build employee commitment that yields higher firm profits.

  How do you improve your referent and expert power?  Researcher Florence Stone shows us practical steps: Believe in your team members’ ability to succeed.  Exercise patience with your employees.  Give staff time to learn.  Provide direction and structure.  Teach employees new skills in small easy to master steps.  Ask employees meaningful questions that challenge them to think in new ways.  Share information with team members, sometimes with the only purpose to build rapport.  Provide timely feedback to employees.  Show a sense of humour.  Focus on objective results.  Then never forget to acknowledge good performance.

By: Scott Bellows

Ever receive a performance appraisal at work that contains feedback such as: “shows too much emotion”, “talks too much”, “too quiet for a leader”, or “overly sensitive”?  Personalities reside in all of us.  We start off as young children noticing that we react differently to various stimuli than our brothers, sisters, and neighbours.  Then as we grow, society tells us the desirable traits first in students and later in employees that we should we strive to reach.  The Kenyan education system fosters quiet respectful students.  The Western education system, on the other hand, breeds outgoing engaging students.  Then once we reach the workplace, employers expect us to balance our feelings, our emotions, and our passions for networking to meet the company’s needs. 

  However, most of our personalities become ingrained in us by the age of six (6).  Try as it may, societal factors such as teacher and the boss input cannot change us.  So, sit back, relax, and begin to appreciate who you have become and stop trying to change yourself.  Learn the strengths and weaknesses ingrained in your personality and learn techniques to work around leadership issues that you commonly face based on your personality.  So, right now, take ten (10) minutes and complete an abbreviated Myers-Briggs personality test at:  http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

Once you complete the test, write down the four letters and the corresponding percentage (%) for each letter. The percentage shows how strongly you fit each personality type.  Now here in Kenya, there exist a variety of personality types peddled by consultants and lower-end authors of mediocre global books.  However, the mainstay of personality tests worldwide for the past 50 years remains the Myers-Briggs personality test.  It consistently shows reliable data for your own personality and expectations for how such individuals likely behave and the careers where those individuals will likely succeed.

  Regarding your four letter combination, there exist sixteen (16) different personality combinations any human may possess.  The most common personality: ISFJ, or “Protector”, garners 13.8% of the global population with about twice as many women as ISFJs than men.  The least common personality:  INFJ, or “Counselor”, with only 1.46% of the global population and nearly equally distributed between men and women.

  Let us now delineate the sixteen (16) personality types that fit within four (4) main classifications.  The four (4) personality types that fall under the “Guardian” category include: ESTJs as “Supervisors”, ISTJs as “Inspectors”, ESFJs as “Providers”, and again ISFJs as “Protectors”.  The next grouping consists of “Idealists”: ENFJs as “Teachers”, INFJs again as “Counselors”, ENFPs as “Champions”, and INFPs as “Healers”.  Moving on, “Artisans” consist of: ESTPs as “Promoters”, ISTPs as “Crafters”, ESFPs as “Performers”, and ISFPs as “Composers”.  Finally, the “Rational” grouping includes: ENTJs as “Field Marshals”, INTJs as “Masterminds”, ENTPs as “Inventors”, and INTPs as “Architects”.

  As you notice from the above, the letter combinations range from two letter choices in each position.  The first position distinguishes how you view your concept of your favorite world: do you prefer to focus on the outer world (Extraversion - E) or on your own inner world (Introversion - I)?  How do you process the information you receive every day: do you prefer to focus on the basic information you take in (Sensing – S) or do you prefer to interpret and add meaning (Intuition – N)?  The way you make decisions: when making decisions, do you prefer to first look at logic and consistency (Thinking – T) or first look at the people and special circumstances (Feeling – F)? How you prefer to structure your time and life: in dealing with the outside world, do you prefer to get things decided (Judging – J) or do you prefer to stay open to new information and options (Perceiving – P)?

  May people mistake extroverts for those who talk the most in group settings and introverts as people who cannot socially navigate interpersonal relationships.  However, introverts may prove nearly as capable as extroverts in group settings.  The difference comes in where does each type get his or her strength?  Do you find your energy from interacting with other people?  Such people may feel sad if they did not interact with anyone for two days.  Alternatively, do you find strength in being alone and doing individual activities that give you the wellbeing to then go out and interact with the world?

  Now think carefully.  What type of leaders do most global companies strongly prefer: quiet and steady or dominant and powerful?  According to one Business Daily reader who wrote in to USIU and requested to remain anonymous, who we shall deem Stephen for our purposes here, he led the Kenyan operations of a global organisation.  He described himself as quiet and steady in the workplace with quite active employees.  Such a description widely fits with an introvert portion of one’s personality.  Later, the entity sacked Stephen citing his “personality deficiency” and replaced him with a dominant and powerful type of leader.  Then, within a few short months, the Kenyan operations started to decrease in efficiency then slowly started losing money under the new leader.

  Stephen’s experience pops up over and over again across corporations and NGOs.  Many global companies strongly prefer dominant and powerful leaders.  Unfortunately, as regular readers to my weekly Business Daily page know, there exists a disconnect between what science knows and what business does.  An organisation must realise what type of teams work in the entity.  It must assess its own teams and the personalities of those teams.

  Research across multiple countries shows that dominant and powerful leaders often cause lower organisational performance.  Why?  Dominance and power leads to over-talking.  If, for example, General Electric retains a proactive sales team in Kenya, then an introvert would lead such a team far better than an extrovert.  The reason behind such a surprising reality: extroverts tend to over-talk and listen far less than required to manage a proactive team.  Conversely, introverts give more space to proactive employees, listen, and get involved when needed.  Proactive employees under an introvert maintain more opportunity to express themselves, show their creativity, develop solutions, and feel that their tasks hold meaning.

  Therefore, should we lose hope in extroverted leaders?  No.  Extroverted leaders may learn techniques to modify their natural tendencies and become great leaders.  First, create an open environment on your team where all team members may express views.  Second, express the importance of each team member and the value of each contribution.  Third, make sure all team members express all views.  Fourth, practice active listening skills.  Active listening skill techniques shall appear in this column in June 2013 in the Business Daily.

The road to owning and managing your own business often meets with potholes and bumps mixed in some measure with glories and success.  The business world commonly knows that many business startups fail.  We shall explore many of the startup failure issues and solutions in upcoming Fridays in the Business Daily.  Let us focus, for now, specifically on businesses that have received investments from outsiders, such as venture capital.  We know that twenty-five percent of new businesses that receive venture capital funds actually collapse, fail, and enter receivership.  Then, Dr. Ghosh at Harvard University found that a further 75% globally of new businesses funded by venture capitalists actually fail to deliver on their projected returns.  The statistics offer a staggering view of the risks of starting new businesses.

  Turning our attention to entrepreneurs themselves, it takes a very confident type of individual to embark into the risky world of business startups.  A new entrepreneur boldly steps out and forges the foundations of a new company.  Once profits start to flow in, the entrepreneur feels excited and often believes that only the sky can contain him or her.  So, entrepreneurs often get shocked that one of the first requirements that a new investor or, specifically, a venture capitalist, requires when investing into their business includes the requirement that the entrepreneur him/herself step down from the CEO position.  Venture capitalists in Kenya and around the world gain fame for replacing visionary startup CEOs with more operational-type CEOs.  Why would investors and venture capitalists do such a thing?  Do they know something we do not?

  Yes.  Venture capitalists know that startup CEOs often exhibit great vision and passion, but do not realise that they lack a variety of skills.  The same over-confidence and self-drive that makes a startup CEO an initial success often makes him or her blind to the realities in the business and in themselves.  Serial entrepreneur and Stanford professor Steve Blank consistently teaches that startup entrepreneurs who do not form a team fail at a dramatically higher rate.  Kenyans often become obsessed with going it alone because of fear over team members stealing their business idea.  But honestly, the critical piece in a startup revolves around the implementation of the idea, not the idea itself.  Since showing the startup CEO that his or her skills need enhancement, they often resist.  So let us examine the best solution to retain your leadership and keep growing: create a dynamic team.

  Conventional business wisdom dictates that all employees must fully possess all well rounded skills for all responsibilities that an employee could possibility fill on a team.  Remember from earlier weeks in the Business Daily, there exists a difference between what science knows and what business does.  The faster you realise that such all-round role functions do not exist in any human being, the faster you build a better team and grow your business faster.

  Dr. Belbin in the UK pioneered the concept of team roles in the 1980s.  Now modifying roles for the Kenyan context, please look through the following ten (10) team roles.  Remember that no one can perform all the roles for a team.  Think carefully about your top three (3) that you easily and joyfully provide to your team.  Then, identify the four (4) team roles that you may perform moderately well, but you tolerate the roles while neither loving nor hating them.  Finally, which three (3) team roles do you perform badly and you absolutely despise?  Make a list.

  1.       Thinker

Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems.

2.       Networker

Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts.

3.       Coordinator

Mature, confident, a good chairperson. Clarifies goals, promotes decision-making, delegates well.

4.       Pusher

Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles.

5.       Balancer

Sober, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately.

6.       Team Guy/Gal

Co-operative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction.

7.       Get it Done Guy/Gal

Disciplined, reliable, conservative and efficient. Turns ideas into practical actions.

8.       Closer

Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions.

9.       Perfectionist

Polishes and perfects.

10.   Expert

Single-minded, self-starting, dedicated. Provides knowledge and skills in rare supply.

  Looking through the above team roles and deciding on what you enjoy and how you perform, you build your team to compliment your skill set and the skill sets of your existing executives.  Take your bottom three team roles for example.  Perhaps you love networking by meeting new people, but you fail to finalise deals.  That means you struggle at the “closer” role and urgently need to hire someone with skills and passion for closing deals.  On the other hand, suppose you and your CFO already excel as “perfectionists”, then bring onboard someone who is both a “pusher” and a “coordinator” to force tasks to get done in your office.  As a leader and entrepreneur, you must realise that hiring based on employees’ team roles equals the importance of hiring based on traditional skill sets like accounting, law, sales, and manager.  Do not miss opportunities for great teams.

  Every team member could have value in your organisation if you accentuate their job tasks to meet with their team role skills.  Ask all your employees to assess their own team roles.  Even someone like the famous Mr. Monk, on the hit television show formerly on Kenyan television, adds value to a team:

  If you remember the show, you know that Mr. Monk irritated many colleagues as an obsessive compulsive perfectionist.  However, he added tremendous value to his team because he possessed skills that others did not.  So take a moment now and think about the teams in your office.  Do you have too many “thinkers” but not enough “get it done guys and gals”?  Do you need to make adjustments to your teams?

  Startup entrepreneurs have an even harder task.  Companies in the early stages of growth often only retain the resources to bring onboard one or two other executives.  It makes hiring based on team roles even more crucial for success.  Investors and venture capitalists know this and wish that you did too.

  As you assess your team, the following allowable weaknesses accompany each type of team role.  As the startup entrepreneur, fill in your team based on the above strengths per role with knowledge of the downsides of each of the below weaknesses:

  1.       Thinker

Ignores incidentals. Too preoccupied to communicate effectively.

2.       Networker

Over-optimistic. Loses interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.

3.       Coordinator

Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads personal work.

4.       Pusher

Prone to provocation. Offends people’s feelings.

5.       Balancer

Lacks drive and ability to inspire others.

6.       Team Guy/Gal

Indecisive in crunch situations.

7.       Get it Done Guy/Gal

Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

8.       Closer

Inclined to worry unduly.

9.       Perfectionist

Reluctant to delegate.

10.   Expert

Contributes on only a narrow front. Dwells on technicalities.

Kenya experiences a wide diversity of cultural thinking that generates from thousands of years of historical economic activity.  Likewise in the world, there exists four main ways of thinking: the African way, the European way, the South Asian way, and the East Asian way. 

  Why does the world have these four main styles of thought?  How did each of these four great methods of thinking begin and grow?  Everything boils down to geography.  As influential psychologist Dr. Richard Nisbett discovered, geography determines how a culture develops its thought process.  He examined in great detail the vast thinking differences between Westerners and East Asians. 

  Greek philosophy, culture, and ideas dominated the ancient Middle East and Europe.  Ever read the Old Testament of the Bible?  It seems remarkably similar to traditional Sub-Saharan Africa.  However, once the New Testament came about, the tone and culture changed considerably.  Parts of Europe and huge swaths of the Middle East came under the influence of Greek thinking.  Ask your pastor about the process of Hellenization in between Old and New Testament times.  Greece developed remarkable science, mathematics, democracy, literature, drama, and philosophy for its day.  Greek culture influenced everything with its obsession of the pursuit and discovery of the truth. 

  Look at Greece’s geography.  Greece possesses over one-thousand (1,000) islands.  When a small nation contains mostly rocky islands, what economic activity would most ancient Greeks partake in to feed their families?  You guessed it: fishing.  Ancient Greece developed as a fishing culture.  A fishing culture exists in a unique state.  A neighbour does not really require his or her neighbour’s assistance when fishing.  If neighbours have an argument, the fishermen may still go out and conduct their economic activity regardless of their state of anger or disagreement with their neighbours.  So, Greek culture developed a sense of telling the truth: the pursuit of truth in science, philosophy, and mathematics.  The pursuit of truth only became possible due to the geography of the area that enabled fishing as the dominant economic activity. 

  Since Greek culture grew to dominate parts of the Middle East and Europe and then later because of European colonialisation, it moved to North and South America, Australia, and New Zealand, these Western cultures grew to appreciate the truth above all else.  A Westerner may yell and scream over an issue, but it does not mean that he or she dislikes you personally.  Such behaviour stands in stark contrasts to East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa and Westerners should receive training in order to work here.

  Now, let us look at East Asia.  Chinese culture dominated the cultural development throughout East and Southeast Asia.  What main economic activity sustained ancient China?  Agriculture.  Chinese geography entails vast fertile plains throughout the east of the nation.  So, the ancient Chinese grew millions of acres of crops.  Unlike ancient Greece with fishermen, Chinese farmers on the other hand did indeed require their neighbour’s assistance, especially during planting and harvesting.  Inasmuch, Chinese culture grew to greatly respect harmony and balance.  If you have a problem with your neighbour, for example, do not tell him or her, but hide it and keep moving forward with life and be happy within yourself.  The economic history of China gave root to two dominating ways of life: Confucianism‎ and Taoism.  Everything you do throughout your life remains connected to everything else in harmony.  Ancient Chinese kings and philosophers emphasized the need for balance and not upsetting the order of things.  After all, agriculturalists need each other. 

  You will always treat your neighbour with honour and respect even if you do not like him or her because one day you may need their assistance.  An East Asian will likely never raise his or her voice sharply in opposition but rather gently express polite views and emphasize the broader future business relationship.  You must judge the health of the business relationship in terms of new orders or services placed instead of the words uttered by your counterparts.

  Turning our attention to Sub-Saharan Africa, we possess a variety of ancient economic activities that still form the basis of much of our livelihoods.  In Kenya specifically, we mainly hold three types of traditional activities: agriculturalists, pastoralists, and fishermen/women.  This author at USIU samples African societies and investigates its original economic drivers of its tribes and whether correlations exist between economic activities and expected methods of thinking and observable behaviour.

  Which tribes in Kenya gain fame from pleasantness and friendliness during business transactions by hiding their true feelings in order to enhance the business relationship and make the other party feel comfortable?  Surveys show that Kenyans feel these traits belong most typically to the Embu, Kikuyu, and Meru societies.  As agriculturalists, these communities who, for over a thousand years since at least the Bantu migration from West Africa, have learned carefully that they need their neighbours for agricultural success.  So in Kenya, just like around the world, cultures influenced by agricultural economic history value more polite interactions in business and subduing one’s own feelings in order to make the other person happy since one does not know when they may need that person’s assistance with harvest, for example.

  Pastoralists hold a different way of thinking.  Carefully consider, do pastoralists need their neighbours to the same extent as agriculturalists for their economic activity?  No.  If neighbours disagree, pastoralists may relocate their cattle to another location.  Agriculturalists have no choice and cannot realistically relocate.  Surveys show that Kenyans believe the Maasai and Samburu express themselves more directly in business transactions than the Embu, Kikuyu, and Meru.  Historically for thousands of years, pastoralists have learned to stick together in their tight knit clans watching the cattle, but not worry about the welfare of neighbouring clans to the same extent as agriculturalists.

  Finally in Kenya, which tribe do you believe surveyed the highest as the most direct and to the point and never afraid to share their opinions?  You guessed it.  As originally a fishing society from the Nile tributaries to the north, to later spread all the way to the shores of Lake Victoria, the Luo possess a cultural thinking dominated by sharing the truth even if the truth will destroy relationships.  Therefore, if a Luo disagrees in business, politics, or even football, an acceptable form of expression for culture historically allows direct and often emotional outbursts to show one’s true feelings.  The directness also leads to great freedom in creativity and innovation.

  When we at USIU showed companies the wide range of cultural thinking in Kenya and the historical geographically-driven economic reasons why different tribes behave differently, employees report a greater understanding of each other and less friction in the future between ethnicities in the workplace.  View much more on cultural thinking around the globe and working with different tribes right here in Kenya at the USIU website:  www.usiu.ac.ke/blog/businessdaily .

  Last but certainly not least, let us focus on South Asia.  What drives much economic activity in South Asia?  Survival.  Indian culture dominates South Asian thinking.  Daily life in South Asia often revolves around the ins and outs of navigating a densely populated environment.  South Asia generates beautiful literature, drama, and medical research, but citizens remain plagued by high populations sharing limited resources.  So one observes Indian nuclear families, extended families, and close friend groups forming extraordinarily admirably tight bonds that work to support, protect, and boost each other in an intensely populated environment.  Then as a unit, the groups work to push forward and upward to secure a better more stable life for itself in and among the masses.  In the workplace in India on the other hand, one witnesses stunning outright hostility against fellow coworkers in a battle for survival.  Where in Sub-Saharan Africa does one witness similar cultural thinking due to intense population pressures?  Urban Nigeria. 

Agonizing hours upon hours waiting for results.  One excuse given following another.  We Kenyans first expected IEBC results from the 4th March general election within a few hours and then to trickle in consistently until a winner became apparent.  But suddenly, stop….results ceased to flow in.  IEBC announced that it required another day, and then two, then no promise seemed to come true.  We learned that the IEBC system crashed and could not come back online.  Safaricom announced that its own network support had not faltered and the blame lay elsewhere.  We learned that the electronic voting register had not functioned in many instances.  Kenyans pondered on the core issues – what next?  Then IEBC mandated that all constituency representatives had to travel to Nairobi. No updates came forth with where each constituency representatives had reached on their journey to Nairobi.  Citizens asked “why does someone need so many days to reach Nairobi from anywhere in the Republic”?  International election observers claimed that the IEBC prevented them from observing the final vote tallying per constituency.  Results finally came in while a whole nation waited on edge.  Millions stayed home from work and school, including us here at United States International University (USIU).  Then, unfortunately, the final IEBC announcement ran hours late. 

  Following years of careful planning with Government of Kenya officials, donor governments, aid agencies, election observers, corporate service providers, and citizens’ rights groups, IEBC struggled to deliver timely and thoroughly transparent election results.  Now, in IEBC’s defense, planning, executing, and tabulating results from a national election with millions of voters and multiple candidates presents a unique challenge anywhere in the world.  Many things did indeed go right.  Voting queues remained orderly and efficient and the IEBC‘s own composition comprised representatives from a wide array of the Kenyan political spectrum.  Finally, the Supreme Court did indeed unanimously validate the election results.  Still, though, many Kenyans from all political walks of life developed mistrust towards the IEBC.  Even deeper, IEBC’s own employees lost considerable trust in the organisation as well as its leaders.

  In the Kenyan or even global context, IEBC does not stand alone as the sole organisation to suffer from the development of severe mistrust by its own employees.  Many organizations lose employee trust through various organisational crises.  Last week we discussed in the Business Daily how managers may utilise the powerful tool of trust to enhance employee performance and improve corporate profits.  Remember that everything a manager does in interacting with his or her staff must revolve around showcasing and reinforcing three main concepts: goodwill, ability, and integrity.  A manager must demonstrate these characters to employees regularly or face corporate decline.

  As the head of a large entity, like Isaack Hassan at the IEBC, how would you commence rebuilding the trust your employees hold in you as their leader and in the institution as a whole?  Rebuilding trust proves vital to organisational success or the entity starts to falter, lose profits, entertain scandals, and begin downward spirals.  Following a violation of trust, companies must take immediate steps to repair the damage and move forward.

  The type of action you should take as a leader depends on the sort of trust violation that occurred.  Did you violate the employees’ perception of your goodwill towards them, your ability to do your job, or your integrity?  Research at top universities globally and right here at USIU by this author that investigated multiple companies around the world shows that the best remedy to fix employee trust revolves around two key actions: apologize for whatever happened combined with admission of guilt and punishment or deny that anything happened.  You may read the specific fascinating sources of research from the USIU website at: www.usiu.ac.ke/blog/businessdaily .

  Take a moment to think about what you would do.  What action would you take?  Imagine that you lead a large company listed on the Nairobi Securities Exchange.  You violated your employees’ trust.  Then, you notice your corporate earnings start to decline.  Let us presume that the employees lost their faith in your goodwill intentions towards them because you never provided salary raises during your three years as CEO but all your competitors raised salaries considerably each year.  Do you apologize in order to rebuild trust or do you deny that salary raises typically occur or that your firm’s salaries remain lower than competitors?  Research shows that an apology and punishing yourself in some manner actually repairs trust and gets the company moving in the right direction again more than a denial when it comes to fixing goodwill trust violations.

  On the other hand, perhaps you violated employees’ belief in your ability to do your job because the company failed to attract new investors as had earlier been expected.  Do you apologize for your failure or do you deny that the firm ever sought new investors?  Once again, research shows that admitting responsibility, apologizing, and punishing yourself repairs trust more than a denial with regards to ability-based trust violations.

  Lastly, look at integrity violations.  You did not keep a promise to employees or perhaps auditors caught you inappropriately misdirecting funds.  Employees then lose trust, start looking for other jobs, work fewer hours, call in sick more often, quality drops, and revenues start to decline.  You know you must fix the trust gap.  Faced with the choice of an apology or a denial, which do you take?  While your pastor, imam, or your own conscience might urge you to admit your mistake and apologize, unfortunately research actually shows that for integrity based errors that ruin employee trust, your denial works to more quickly and strongly rebuild trust and therefore improve corporate performance. 

  Further, some trust violations occur on such a massive scale that becomes an organisational crisis.  The IEBC’s mishaps hurled them into an organisational crisis.  How can the IEBC rebuild trust?  Research across many industries and companies conducted by researchers at Durham University in the UK and the University of Queensland in Australia show that a company must undergo specific steps to fix trust so as to improve organisational performance following a crisis of any of these eight (8) proportions:

  Accounting frauds

Deceit

Incompetence

Fatal yet avoidable accidents

Exploitation of vulnerable people

Massive compulsory job losses

Bankruptcies

Catastrophic collapses in organisational finances

  Please pay attention IEBC as well as all CEOs, public relations consultants, and crisis managers from Kampala to Nairobi to Dar es Salaam and beyond.  When an entity undergoes one of the above crises, it must quickly institute the following four (4) stages in order to rebuild employee trust and turnaround performance:

  First stage: the firm must verbally and publicly acknowledge that an incident occurred and express regret and sorrow for it.  Then an announcement about a full investigation that should take place must transpire.  Next the organisation needs to commit resources to prevent the reoccurrence of such an event in the future.  The company then steps forward and takes intervention action against known causes for the crisis.

  Second stage: an accurate organisation-wide multilevel thorough diagnostic investigation should take place in a timely and deeply transparent manner.

  Third stage: the firm should then verbally apologize if the investigation shows its guilt and make reparations, or payments and actions, to right the wrong as appropriate.  The company action should incorporate the results from the diagnostic investigation conducted in stage two with full implementation and prioritize solution mechanisms according to the type of failure that led to the crises.

  Fourth stage: finally, the company must now conduct an evaluation of the success and appropriateness of the first three stages.  The evaluation should take place quickly and transparently and cover the whole organisation on multiple levels.

George Mwinamo fought long and hard.  He searched up and down.  He sent out dozens of CVs hoping for the perfect job.  Finally, George attains the coveted position of his dreams.  Relieved, he prepares for his first day of work at his new job.  His children hug him and his spouse kisses him as he walks out the door.  “Make us proud” they say.  George confidently leaves home and ponders what house improvements he intends to undertake with his new salary. 

  Excited, George proceeds through Embakasi on his way to his new office.  Following a grueling commute up Mombasa Road, he finally reaches Upper Hill.  He parks and gets out of the car.  Staring at the office building that houses his new position, George starts to feel butterflies fluttering in his stomach.  He senses his anxious energy as he simultaneously still holds on to his earlier excitement.  Braving his mix of emotions, George opens the door and walks inside.

  Suddenly a woman walks up to George and introduces herself.  “Hello, I am Ms. Kabutha.  Pleasure to meet you.”  George recognizes her name and comes to the quick realization that his new boss stands before him.  Then it strikes him and he begins to ponder if he trusts his new boss.  What impressions does he formulate from his first meeting? 

  “Employee trust in senior managers dramatically increases an organisation’s performance.”

   How many of us experienced similar emotions at various stages in our careers?

  Now please observe the below thirteen individuals from around Africa and the world.  Carefully study each person and decide which individual you desire as your boss:

  Why did you choose your preferred manager?  Would George Mwinamo likely agree with your assessment of the perfect boss from among the choices?

  Fast forward ten years.  Over time George hopefully achieves many lofty career goals and, as a result, now reads the Business Daily to gain insights on how to manage his company.  So let us unlock one of the best kept secrets that increase both your firm’s profits and performance without costing you anything.  The answer may surprise even the most seasoned Kenyan executive among us:  Trust.  Contained within the confines of the five letter word unlocks untapped power that leaders desperately need in order to achieve success.

  Numerous research studies carried out across multiple countries in businesses both big and small show employee trust in management as a key integral part of a firm’s success.  The bottom line: employee trust in senior managers dramatically increases an organisation’s performance.  Research by this author at the United States International University of Africa in conjunction with researchers at Durham University in the UK involves interviewing hundreds of loan officers at financial institutions across Sub-Saharan Africa.  Top bosses who build trust among employees yield multiple company benefits including higher profits.  Employees who trust the senior leaders in their companies work longer hours, take fewer sick days, pay greater attention to detail, and produce higher quality and greater quantity of work products.

   “A disconnect exists between what science knows and what business does.”

As one looks from Kenya Commercial Bank to Safaricom to CfC Stanbic to Kenya Power and Lighting Company, Kenya boasts a mix of companies whose leaders either built tremendous trust among their employees and reaped the rewards or leaders who ignored employee trust and suffered the consequences.  Fascinatingly, a disconnect exists between what science knows and what businesses do.

  So a logical business executive should now jump up and down in his or her chair demanding to know how to gain, build, and maintain employee trust.  Leaders must follow a process in order to build their employee’s trust in their leadership.  Various western nations retain high trust cultures.  Americans, for example, inherently trust bosses very quickly.  Then Americans break trust when a boss displays unacceptable characteristics.  East Africans, on the other hand, build trust very slowly.  We exist here in a low trust regional culture.  Kenyans wait to trust a boss until the boss demonstrates that they deserve the employee’s trust.  So in Kenya, a boss earns trust.

  Whether in Ghana, France, Japan, Brazil, or right here in Kenya, all employees go through three stages to build trust in their bosses:  belief, decision, and action.  The faster a leader moves his or her employees from believing in their boss to making a decision in their minds to trust the boss then to actually taking action on those beliefs, the faster the leader’s company may earn higher profits.

 How to move employees faster between the three stages?  Employees psychologically look for three main attributes in their leaders.  First, staff desire a leader who possess the ability to run the company successfully, achieve key targets, and keep the firm safe.  Second, workers require a top boss who holds benevolent feelings and intentions towards them, also known as goodwill.  Finally, employees demand top management have unquestionable integrity to follow through with promises and uphold ethical principles.

  Ability

Goodwill

Integrity

  Academic and practical research both show that the above three traits incorporate almost all that the employee needs to build trust in senior leadership and improve performance: ability, goodwill, and integrity.  Any other characters hardly matter psychologically compared to the core three.  Now please look back at your preferred boss from among the thirteen pictured individuals discussed earlier.  Remember your reason for choosing him or her?  Most likely, your psychological reasons for selecting or not selecting certain people revolve around how you feel their facial expressions, style of dress, and posture fit with your need for a boss with: ability, goodwill, and integrity.

  Depending on your industry, persons 1, 3, and 11’s informal style may not fit with your perception of someone who possesses the ability to lead the company.  Meanwhile, persons 5, 6, and 10 clearly do not seem to hold goodwill towards prospective employees.  Perhaps you believe persons 8 and 12 lack work experience enough to ably manage while you may feel person 9 and 10’s advanced years either helps or hurts their ability.  Finally, maybe you find that persons 2, 4, 7, and 13 demonstrate ability, goodwill, and integrity due to their professional demeanor and friendly dispositions.  Using these thirteen individuals as examples, how do you think your employees perceive you?  Do your employees find you fully capable in each of the three key trust characteristics?