Page 1

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 ď‚Ž

In his inspiring article, Craig proposes a four-quadrant to study the performance of projects through people.

ď‚Ž

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 ď‚Ž

Craig Project Performance Quadrant


A Modified Way of Drawing the Quadrants ď‚Ž

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 ď‚Ž

The weight of each cluster is shown in the figure below

Clusters weights 35.00%

33.33%

30.00%

30.00%

25.00%

23.33%

20.00% 15.00%

13.33%

10.00%

5.00% 0.00% Cluster 1 weight (%)

Cluster 2 weight (%)

Cluster 3 weight (%)

Cluster 4 weight (%)


The Characteristics of the Four Clusters-2 ď‚Ž Clusters profiles

The definition of each cluster is shown in the figure below Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

80.00%

60.00%

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership


The Characteristics of the Four Clusters-3 ď‚Ž

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.

Clusters profiles

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

80.00%

60.00%

Solidarity Zone

Sociability Zone

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

Sociability Zone

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership

Solidarity Zone


The Characteristics of the Four Clusters-4 ď‚Ž

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.

Clusters profiles 80.00%

60.00%

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Sociability Zone

Cluster 4

Solidarity Zone

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

Sociability Zone

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership

Solidarity Zone


The Characteristics of the Four Clusters-5 ď‚Ž

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.

Clusters profiles

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

80.00%

60.00%

Solidarity Zone

Sociability Zone

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

Sociability Zone

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership

Solidarity Zone


The Characteristics of the Four Clusters-6 ď‚Ž

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.

Clusters profiles 80.00%

60.00%

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Sociability Zone

Cluster 4

Solidarity Zone

40.00%

20.00%

0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00%

-40.00%

-60.00%

Sociability Zone

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership

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 ď‚Ž

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 Clusters weights

Clusters profiles

45.00% 40.00%

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

80.00% 40.00% 60.00%

35.00%

33.33% 40.00%

30.00% 26.67% 25.00%

20.00%

20.00% 0.00% Trust Magnitude

15.00% -20.00%

10.00% 5.00%

-40.00%

0.00% Cluster 1 weight (%)

Cluster 2 weight (%)

Cluster 3 weight (%)

-60.00%

Communication Goal Understanding Intensity

Goal Ownership


Fibonacci Analysis 5-Clusters Cluster 1 Clusters profiles Cluster 3

Clusters weights

Cluster 2 Cluster 4

Cluster 5

35.00%

ď‚Ž

Three clusters 33.33%

30.00%

80.00%

60.00%

25.00%

40.00%

23.33% 20.00%

20.00% 16.67% 15.00% 13.33%

13.33%

0.00% Trust Magnitude Communication Goal Goal Ownership Intensity Understanding

10.00% -20.00% 5.00%

-40.00% 0.00% Cluster 1 weight (%)

Cluster 2 weight (%)

Cluster 3 weight (%)

Cluster 4 weight (%)

Cluster 5 weight (%)

-60.00%


Fibonacci Analysis 8-Clusters 8- Clusters 18.00% 16.00% 14.00% 12.00%

10.00% 8.00% 6.00% 4.00% 2.00% 0.00% Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6 Cluster 7 Cluster 8 weight (%) weight (%) weight (%) weight (%) weight (%) weight (%) weight (%) weight (%)


Fibonacci Analysis 8-Clusters Clusters profiles

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Cluster 3

Cluster 4

Cluster 5

Cluster 6

Cluster 7

Cluster 8

80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% Trust Magnitude

-20.00% -40.00% -60.00%

-80.00%

Communication Intensity

Goal Understanding

Goal Ownership


Fibonacci Wave ď‚Ž Does

Fibonacci wave operate in management systems so that 3 + 5 clusters generate an 8wave structure even in performance systems? See next summary slide


Fibonacci Wave- 2

Managers' Performance- A Fibonacci Cluster Approach  

The performance of managers based on two dimensions: solidarity and sociability is discussed. The grouping of performance into 3, 5 and 8 cl...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you