Collaboration in an organization can be defined as a relationship between the employees who are mutually dependent to each other. Collaboration among employees involves respect and trust. Employees must respect not only each other but must also respect each other’s perspectives, works, and ideas in order to work together effectively.
In an organization the employees often do not prefer to work individually or alone, they prefer teamwork, departments, committees, and other different types of workgroups. Leadership is not required in collaboration. According to Bill Clinton, “Success and failure depends on how well the staff and cabinet debate honestly and openly and then unite once you’ve made a decision. “
Bill Clinton used to encourage his cabinet and staff to debate rather than signing any contract with the boss blindly. Any organizational culture for instance a non profit organization, a small business, a large enterprise, or the federal government must support constructive discussions and arguments in order to successfully support collaboration. These arguments must be apart from role, region or level. Collaboration helps in making effective decisions, solving problems and confusions, and improving the quality of services and products. If we take the example of Toyota, the decisions made by the Toyota Company are often longer but their implementation is very quick because the potential problems had already been discussed by the stakeholder’s in the debates and confrontations held by the company.
Decisions in which collaboration is not practiced may be quicker, but such decisions are very inefficient and often fall into problems when implementation is taking place. Such decisions also consume more resources of any organization. If the collaboration is not practiced effectively then the workers or people who are involved in it often condemn the decisions, because their perceptions and ideas are not involved in those decisions.
According to Harvard Business Review 03/05, “Companies try all kinds of ways to improve collaboration between different parts of the organization: cross-unit incentive systems, organizational restructuring, team work training. Although these initiatives produce occasional success stories, most have only a limited impact on dismantling organizational silos and fostering collaboration.”
The word talent is very common. We often use this term several times for instance when we watch any good performer in any show we simply respond about him that “he is very talented”. Although we use this word several times but the concept behind this word is more or less hard to define. In order to understand the concept of talent Webster put forward a definition which says that: “Any natural ability or power is talent”.
In any organization, the talented employees or workforce are very essential for its success. The senior management of any organization desperately wants to employ, attract, and retain the talented employees in their firm. The organizations now are using talent management to positively control the talented employees and to succeed in this extremely competitive marketplace.
The concept of talent management is to improve the processes for developing, retaining, attracting, and utilizing the skillful people to attain the business needs and to increase the productivity of workplace. In talent management different strategies are implemented to achieve the above mentioned needs. For talent management the belief in talent and its impacts are very important. The organizations must embed the talent mindset in order to be effective in a competitive marketplace. The organizations appreciate and respect the contribution of individuals who knows about the importance of talent. Basically talent is that element to any organization through which it can move where ever it wants to.
According to Kevin M. Murphy, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert W. Vishny, “A country’s most talented people typically organize production by others, so they can spread their ability advantage over a larger scale. When they start firms, they innovate and foster growth, but when they become rent seekers, they only redistribute wealth and reduce growth. Occupational choices depend on returns to ability and to scale in each sector, on market size, and on compensation contracts. In most countries, rent seeking rewards talent more than entrepreneurship does, leading to stagnation. Our evidence shows that countries with a higher proportion of engineering college majors grow faster; whereas countries with a higher proportion of law concentrators grow more slowly.”
Shared mindset can be defined as the degree of unity in an organization. When all of the employees from bottom to top of an organization, and customers and suppliers who are outside the organization have common answers to the questions, the shared mindset or unity is practiced. Shared mindset ensures that employees mainly focus attention on the correct issues for the corporation. Within an organization employees absorb a mentality of quality in their day to day work when the shared mindset focuses on quality.
It is believed that quality only comes when each employee of the organization is committed to his or her work. Neither quality inspectors are responsible for the occurrence of quality nor is quality audit department responsible. Employees automatically perform such operations that improve and progress quality and due to this reason a huge amount of the organization is saved by the shared mindset. Research shows that shared mindset evolves from two different ways, information sustains and shapes the mindsets as well as experience and preceding behaviors also evolves the mindsets.
Commitment and mindset are after-the-fact phenomena. Organizational outcomes also establish the shared mindset, by creating such an atmosphere that every individual feel exactly the same about the organization to understand and achieve goals or outcomes. According to David Ulrich, Dale G Lake, “A basic premise of the shared mindset is to explain why people do what they do as a function of how the human brain processes, stores, and retrieves information.”
Accountability can be defined as taking responsibility or commitment to perform any task. It may be implied by any law or agreement. Accountability in an organization can be defined as an employee’s eagerness or willingness to take the responsibility of any of his or her goals. It also involves the determination of an employee to effectively attain his or her goals even if he or she has to go the extra mile for it. Accountability highly depends on the relationship between employee and direct supervisor. If the relationship between an employee and his or her direct supervisor is not good then the element of accountability in that employee will not be present. It is the supervisor’s task to maintain a good relationship with the employees. Like any other relationship, the relationship between employee and direct supervisor also brings up many prospects, assumptions, and expectations. It is also the supervisor’s duty to check whether the expectations of employees are realistic or not, and their realistic expectations are fulfilled or not.
Many organizations are using the below mentioned elements which are supposed to be very helpful for them to create accountability:
- Leadership: Q: Is firm leadership effective or not?
- Mission: Q: The clear strategic direction is present or not?
- Key goals: Q: Are clear goals, targets and measures in place?
- Alignment: Q: Policies are aligned with strategies or not?
- Employee engagement: Q: employees are engaged or not?
- Execution mentality: Q: “Execution mentality” in the firm is present or not?
- Monitor cycle: Q: An effective cycle of monitoring is present or not?
The combination of these elements is very helpful to promote accountability in an organization. Performance management and accountability in any organization influence and control the people’s behavior who works within that organization. If the accountability element is present in any organization then the employees of that firm are always ready to innovate and adapt themselves according to the situation. If we take the accountability through educational perspective then:
According to Henry M. Levin, “Accountability is bandied about today by educators and non educators alike. Any examination of the use of the word suggests that there is a variety of meanings implicit in it. Unfortunately, the rapidly burgeoning literature on accountability rarely addresses the underlying concepts which link these diverse uses. Some authors assert that the provision of information on the performance of schools constitutes accountability. Others see accountability as a matter of redesigning the structures by which the education is governed. In some cases accountability is defined as a specific approach to education such as performance contracting or educational vouchers, while in others accountability is referred to as a part of all educational systems.”
The term innovation simply means to do something in a new way. It occurs mainly because of the changes in perceptions, thinking, processes, products or organizations. It can also be defined as people and organizations acting to change themselves and their environment. It involves leading ways of thinking, beginning new standards, changing daily routine work, setting up new things and conducts. If we look through the organization’s perspective then innovation can be linked to growth and performance. This growth and performance can be achieved through improving quality, productivity, market share, competitive positioning, efficiency etc.
The need of innovation may arise from the dissatisfaction with the old or current technology, and when new opportunities are available. Innovation usually involves a high risk factor. Innovations bring new values for the organization but on the other hand it may have a destructive or negative impact on the organization as well. Because the new developments caused by the innovation change or clear away the old organizational practices and forms. And most of the time those organizations who innovated effectively destroys those organizations who failed to innovate in an effective manner. The innovation process is very expensive.
According to Charles Edquist in Systems of innovation, page 1, “It is almost universally accepted that technological change and other kinds of innovations are the most important sources of productivity growth and increased material welfare and that this has been so for centuries. They are also a major cause of the destruction of old jobs as well as the creation of new employment.”
Three of the kinds of innovations are given below:
- Product Innovation: In product innovation new products or services are put on sale by the organization.
- Process Innovation: In process innovation the method of producing any given product is changed across a supply chain or within the firm.
- Behavioral Innovation: In behavioral innovation the daily routine of organization is replaced with new routines.
The innovation often turns out to be the mixture of all these kinds. If a new product is introduced then it eventually requires new productive competencies and organizational changes.
Innovation promotes the introduction of recognized products or services in new markets or in different industries. Marketing, organization, finance can be the major sources of innovation.