managers' performance- a fibonacci cluster approach
DESCRIPTION
The performance of managers based on two dimensions: solidarity and sociability is discussed. The grouping of performance into 3, 5 and 8 clusters is done as these numbers are sequential Fibonacci numbers.TRANSCRIPT
Managers’ Performance- A
Fibonacci Clusters
Approach
Ali Anani, PhD
Introduction
The article of Craig Brown entitled “The Commune, The Mission And The
Social” and the stimulating comments
of Bas de Baar inspired the idea of this presentations. I dedicate this presentation to their creative insights.
The Masterpiece
Article of Craig Brown
In his inspiring article, Craig
proposes a four-quadrant to study the
performance of projects through
people.
The two dimensions used for
constructing the quadrant are
sociability and solidarity
Project Performance
Quadrant
Sociability is whether people like
working together – in particular,
whether they are communicating and
co-operating freely.
Solidarity at its extremes is ONE goal
or NO goal. The solidarity axis is the
mission focus.
Project Performance
Quadrant- 2
Craig Project Performance Quadrant
A Modified Way of
Drawing the Quadrants
Craig’s work and my previous
publications on docstoc inspired me
with the idea of developing four
performance clusters and use these
clusters as the building block for the
performance quadrants. This
approach gives a quantitative
approach to the four quadrants
forming the grand quadrant. This
way the four quadrants do not have to
be equally weighted.
The Performance of
Managers
In an extension of Craig’s work, the performance of managers is again (at least, in part) is judged by their solidarity and sociability
It was decided in this work to define Sociability as a function of trust and communication intensity.
Trust equation is proportional to reliability, credibility and intimacy and inversely proportional to selfishness
The Performance of
Managers- 2
The Trust Equation is
Trust = (Reliability*Credibility*Intimacy )/Selfishness
The more a manager acts and fulfills
what he promises, the more trustful he
will become.
The less a manager talks about himself
and the less he uses I, the more trustful
he will become
Increased intimacy increases trust and
enhances communication accordingly
The Performance of
Managers- 3
The two solidarity attributes chosen
for this study are: goal understanding
and goal ownership. The importance
of vision in making future work
graspable and owned by employees
was discussed by the author
previously. See the presentation
entitled “The Cost of Poor Vision on
Companies” and “Balancing the
Balanced Scorecard”
The Performance of
Managers- 4
The data provided for the managers
are modified so as not to reveal the
identity of any person
The data are given for thirty
managers
The analysis of data was done using
the same procedure reported by the
author previously. See “Employee
Performance Clustering”
Summary of Data and
Their Clusters
The figure shows the
data and their division
into four clusters. Each
row represents one
manager. The total
sample is 30 managers
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters
The weight of each cluster is shown in the figure below
33.33%
13.33%
30.00%
23.33%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Cluster 1 weight
(%)
Cluster 2 weight
(%)
Cluster 3 weight
(%)
Cluster 4 weight
(%)
Clusters weights
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-2
The definition of each cluster is shown in the figure below
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-3 Cluster 1 is characterized by being the lowest in all dimensions
(trust magnitude, communication intensity, goal understanding and
goal ownership). This is equivalent to the Fragmented Quadrant by
Craig.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Solidarity
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Solidarity
Zone
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-4
Cluster 2 is characterized by being rether low in the sociability dimensions
(trust magnitude and communication intensity) and positively high on the
solidarity dimensions (goal understanding and goal ownership), but to a
lesser degree than cluster 1. This is closest to the Networked Quadrant by
Craig.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Solidarity
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Solidarity
Zone
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-5 Cluster 3 is characterized by being slightly low on sociability (trust
magnitude and communication intensity) but rather high on
solidarity (goal understanding and goal ownership). This is
equivalent to the Mercenary Quadrant by Craig.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Solidarity
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Solidarity
Zone
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-6 Cluster 4 is characterized by being slightly high on sociability
(trust magnitude and communication intensity) and solidarity (goal
understanding and goal ownership). This is equivalent to the
Communal Quadrant by Craig.
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Solidarity
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Sociability
Zone
Solidarity
Zone
The Characteristics of
the Four Clusters-6
The four clusters (equivalent to the four
quadrants of Craig) do not have equal weights, In
this study cluster 1 has 33.3% weight, followed by
cluster 3 ( 30%), cluster 4 (23.3%) and last cluster
2 (23.3%)
Cluster 1 (The Fragmented Quadrant) and
cluster 2 (The Mercenary Quadrant) represent
about 66% of the total weight.
Cluster 4 (The Communal Quadrant) represent
only 23.3% of the weight. Is Pareto operating
again in which about 20% of the managers are
communal? Hard work is awaiting us!
Fibonacci Analysis
It was decided to run
simulations with 3, 5 and 8
clusters. These are Fibonacci
Numbers and it would be
interesting to run them.
Summary results are given in
the following slides
Fibonacci Analysis
3-Clusters
40.00%
33.33%
26.67%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Cluster 1 weight (%) Cluster 2 weight (%) Cluster 3 weight (%)
Clusters weights
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity
Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3
Fibonacci Analysis
5-Clusters
Three clusters
16.67%
13.33%
23.33%
13.33%
33.33%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Cluster 1 weight (%)
Cluster 2 weight (%)
Cluster 3 weight (%)
Cluster 4 weight (%)
Cluster 5 weight (%)
Clusters weights
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity
Goal Understanding
Goal Ownership
Clusters profilesCluster 1 Cluster 2Cluster 3 Cluster 4Cluster 5
Fibonacci Analysis
8-Clusters
0.00%
2.00%
4.00%
6.00%
8.00%
10.00%
12.00%
14.00%
16.00%
18.00%
Cluster 1
weight (%)
Cluster 2
weight (%)
Cluster 3
weight (%)
Cluster 4
weight (%)
Cluster 5
weight (%)
Cluster 6
weight (%)
Cluster 7
weight (%)
Cluster 8
weight (%)
8- Clusters
Fibonacci Analysis
8-Clusters
-80.00%
-60.00%
-40.00%
-20.00%
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
Trust Magnitude Communication Intensity Goal Understanding Goal Ownership
Clusters profiles Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4
Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8
Fibonacci Wave
Does Fibonacci wave
operate in management
systems so that 3 + 5
clusters generate an 8-
wave structure even in
performance systems? See
next summary slide
Fibonacci Wave- 2