Some Interesting insights using the

Framework Validation Model

Often the “Framework Validation Model”, gives some very interesting insights on how the organization
works and what causes some of the problems. These insights are generic in nature and applies to most
organizations, hence they are highlighted here. These insights are based on situations when an
organization approached me to solve a problem, usually one related to marketing. The Model classifies
the possible causes into four categories – People, Operations, Marketing and Finance. What is
interesting is that majority of the insights shows up as people related issues. The reasons seem natural,
as these issues take time to mature into a situation that require intervention. Also people related issues
is most often hidden as the outcome is a non-people related, such as stagnant production or
constrained money supply. The people related issue is always behind the outcome.

Anyway, here are some interesting insights that are pretty much universal. Do let me know if you agree
with them.

I have refrained from giving well known examples in this article for reasons obvious.

When you recruit a successful person, you get only fifty percent of his
capabilities.
In many a case, I was told that they recruited a person who came with an excellent track record
and he is not achieving the goals set out even after so many quarters. Was the recruitment
wrong? When I dig deep into the assumptions, the realization is that the person in question is
just not able to deliver in the current system, the current working environment is not helping
him as he is used to operating in a different way. That invariably is the key. The success of a
person not only depends upon two things. A) His own capability but also B) The environment in
which he operates.

When he is recruited, the second aspect is invariably overlooked. In fact, more often his past
companies are seen as a testimonial of the person’s pedigree. In the new company, the person
no longer gets the environment that made him successful, and so he is now operating at half his
ability.

This phenomenon is true at nearly all levels in the organization, except maybe at the lowest
managerial positions. This applies to all levels where the person is expected to take decisions.

I always suggest to HR to analyze the operating environment of the company from where a
successful candidate is being recruited and compare how different it is to theirs. The greater
the gap, it would give a clue how effective the candidate is likely to be.

Even better is to build an internal system to promote from within the company.
The less Power you show, the more power you have.
This was an interesting find while discussing the problem with the people. More often than not,
those problems becomes difficult to solve when the Manager concerned has the habit of
demonstrating his power by constantly giving orders. As a result a larger percent of his
directions are ignored by down the line. On the other hand, where the Manager allows the
subordinates to solve the problem using the suggestions, and waits for feedback on the
progress, the implementation is faster and robust.

The reasons are obvious. The second type of the manager has the team in mind, while the first
one has himself in mind.

Every subordinate knows that the manager has powers. Judicious use of the powers makes the
Manager powerful because, when he actually gives an order, it is complied with. This is what
many a Manager miss out in their management.

A Manager needs to find the balance between intervention and buy-in process, especially when
implementing changes. At this stage, not directing is seen as being indecisive, and being over
decisive tends to communicate that the implementation is “my problem and not yours”. In the
second case implementation is difficult.

The model, during its usage phase, when the core problem is being isolated using it, also gives
indications on the best implementation method, based on the values seen among individual
managers. Maturity comes when the solution addresses these values.

Joint Ventures are useful for a limited time

This is one mistake, most Indian companies commit. They think a JV is for ‘eternity’. All such
ventures are created at a time when both parties need each other. None of them evaluate or
plan out a scenario when the JV will become a burden. Neither is willing to set out why they
want the JV, nor do they set out a road map to formally do an appraisal of the JV.

Many of the situations I have discovered is that the one of the partners has over time, a change
in their business objectives that is not necessarily participated by the other partner. The
problem crops up in the operational side of the business because of the mismatch of the
priorities. Usually the problem happens when one partner only has profit as the goal, while the
other may have other priorities.

The typical time period of a JV remaining successful is about five years. After that niggling
problems start to show up.

A Brand cannot be made by communications alone

This is a classic mistake made by most companies. Most believe that a good communication
strategy will be the answer to building the brand. In the process they miss out on the cadence of
the seven attributes required to create it. Typical misses are

1. Products communicated are not available at the stores

2. The frontline sales people at the outlet are not sufficiently trained.
 3. The packaging does not match up to the communication.
4. The distribution is uneven although the communication is wide spread
5. The website is not updated.

Whenever the synchronization fails, the brand suffers from consumer preference, and that leads to
sales dissonance. It is often better to withdraw and emerge in a new avatar rather than correct the
defects. It all depends upon how long the brand has been allowed to live with the defects.

If Executives are only order takers, growth is curtailed.

Many a times I find that companies or Divisions stop growing because people are not allowed to
take decisions or take initiative in the work. The entire atmosphere has been converted into a
set of helpers for one person, who, after a point cannot handle the growth. Thus growth slows,
but the atmosphere does not change even when the cause is obvious. Usually such an
environment lacks systems as every activity is a special case and decisions taken appear
contradictory for similar situations.

This happens more with entrepreneurs, but not necessarily so. The inner workings invariably
indicates to some insecurity and the inability to handle a loss by the protagonist of the problem.

As a consultant/advisor, this is probably the most difficult situation to be called in, where the
source of the problem is asking for a solution from the consultant. Under such a circumstance,
the best advice I can give is to ask the person to set up systems so that decision making is per
force delegated.

Focusing on profitability alone is detrimental for the organization

Most employees do not directly benefit from the profits a company make. So most employees
do not understand why they are being pushed to cut costs to increase profits, especially when
the setup is already profitable. This becomes even more marked if the profit demands exceed
the increments historically given.

Employees understand the importance of profits. It ensures continuity and stability of income.
This is at a very basic level, but it is important to recognize this. The higher level of the need for
the profit can happen when the basics are first met. Thus when they are removed from the
reasons for requirement of improving the profits, there is always a pushback.

More often than not, such demands have a negative impact on the people, who respond with
resistance to make any changes in the way they are working. This gap, if allowed to fester over
a few years, leads to hardening of positions. Consequently the company starts losing out.

The main issue always is that employees don’t understand the reasons for increase of profits.
The immediate senior managers do not seek the answers (they simply remain silent when the
demand is made) and so they are unable to communicate down the line.

Under such a situation, the remedy is improving transparency in the company, increasing policy
discussions and having fair debates and such positive communications. The atmosphere of a
family has to be created to build positivity. And importantly, dissent has to be accepted and
understood and incorporated into the plan. Dissenters are not to be removed from the system.
A Contract is invariably a statement of weaknesses
Surprising isn’t it? If you look at any contract, you will find remedies on failures are dotted all
over the document. Arbitration, Non-Disclosure and similar ‘negative’ sentiments tend to
occupy a larger part in the contract papers. The contract also tends to spell out the minimum
that has to be delivered for it to remain active. All these play in the delivery (or receipt) of the
products (or services)

Over time the contract loses perspective as to why it was signed in the first place and the
company’s focus morphs into how to address the minimum requirement and not improve from
where it all started.

On more than one occasion this kills the loyalty factor between the companies and the spirit of
partnership tends to go into the background.

Most of the companies I interfaced have only one problem; they are stressed (negatively) that
their source of revenue is under threat, or from the other side, the source of continuity of
delivery is not guaranteed in an agreeable manner.

My solution is simple. A contract is a must, but internally the positives that led to the contract
cannot be allowed to be lost and the company needs to plan on how to improve upon the
conditions of delivery. Start thinking how you can make improve the other side. Put yourself in
the other person’s shoes.

To improve worker productivity you will need to be fair

Several times I was mandated to find ways to improve the productivity of workers. As per the
management, they were paid ‘better’ than the minimum wages, but there was no improvement
in their productivity over the last several years. With costs going up, the workers needed to
improve the productivity. That sounded fair.

For the workers, it was a different perspective. They were aware they are being paid what the
Govt. mandated. Their leaves and facilities were also as per what the Govt. mandated. What
was the company doing extra to encourage them to improve the productivity? Nothing. Most
were to say was that the management wants them to work harder, put in more effort so that
the boss can get a new Merc – no way.

That is the core of the problem. How many ‘bosses’ have ever visited the houses of these
workers to empathize with the state they live in, none. This is where the workers start to see
that things are not fair, and that is true.

To tackle the core of the issue is how to be and come across as fair to the workers and everyone
else. Very few really don’t focus on this. Most don’t realize that the workers do not regret if the
‘boss’ lives well. But it rankles them if ‘only’ the boss live well.

Living in the conditions in which they do, they enter the factory premises already in a defeated
state. It is difficult to expect them to apply themselves to improve the way they work.

My usual suggestion is to interact with them and feel for them. Build plans to actively improve
the workers’ living conditions. The workers will respond.
The power of The Framework Validation Model
The Model comes across as a powerful tool to get to the core of the problem. It also helps in keeping
the people rooted to reality. By looking at the various aspects of a problem and how these parameters
are playing out in the real world, the Model gives a very good insights on how to work on the
bottlenecks that is holding back the Organization. Often, the model gives some very interesting insights
on how the reality is playing out within the organizations, as the examples have shown.

If you wish to learn more about your organization, and how it is operating, and what you want to
improve let me know. I can help using the model as the basis to identify what needs to be addressed.