Flow Theory and FLIGBY simulation

Our last session was with Vécsey Zsadány, CEO of Aleas Simulations as well as guest experts/trainers who introduced us to the FLIGBY Management Simulation based on Prof. Mihály Csikszentmihály's Flow Theory. Flow refers to a state of continuous, satisfying activity and cooperation wherein optimal performance is possible. The game puts the player into the perspective of the manager of a Californian winery and confronts him or her with decision-making situations incorporating both human and economic factors. Several choices are offered each with different effects on the degree of flow, the development of the business as well as the story. The personalities and attitudes of the staff members play a central role.

As the developers admit, the simulation is somewhat culturally biased. Nonetheless does it seem to be an interesting supportive tool to practice thinking that focuses on the flow of things - a crucial factor in business decision-making which often holds potential for vast improvement.

Further information on the simulation can be found on the developer’s website.

Discussion

Probably I did not understand properly the meaning of the consulting program - can somebody suggest me the possible answers for the next questions:
- in some cases for a  particular problem there are several possible ways out. In case the cases do no correspond or contradict each other what the program will do? In the end the program will give you several cases that will mess your mind?
- in many search engines (like CEU library) anyone can type in several tags and easily find results both academic and based on some practice. I believe the program leverages on internal knowledge and serves as a central point for exchange of knowledge and experience - so i do not see any big differences with search engines.
- In the video with Minzberg about MBA (very strong video), Henry points that there is little way anyone can learn something on cases that are written by someone as it has little direct relevance. With the program the situation is little bit better but not substantially in my view, especially when dialing with multinational or fast-growing company. Do you think that past cases can be a good ground for future development or it narrows the scope and hinders "out of the box" view?    

What is motivation? Well it is the same general question as what is happiness and other similar questions meaning that there is no clear universal answer. Inspite motivation is so personal and so variable from one person to another that it is hard to define motivators and hygene factors.
Generally, people in developing world cater for every job they have because it provides them with some stability and financial security. Such people do not carry much about boringness, lack of promotion and recognition. On the opposite side, people from developed world are struggling to find a better balance between work and career opportunities on one side, and home and leasure on the other.
From my perspectives there are only two general motivation factors - money and balance between work and family. If a person wants money he will seek more responsibilities, challenges and promotional oppurtunities. Money will also add up to his reoutation and social status. On the other side such people have to sacrifice their personal lifes. I believe that most of CEO on Wall street are the perfect examples - they work long hours, they make a lot of money but in the end in my opinion they are not happy in family life.
People who choose balanced life can be satisfied by normal salary and gradual promotion. I have a friend of mine who rejected the promotion to manager position just because he had so much activities outside the work. For him salary increase was not an issue as compared to normal life.
Well my point is that the theory of hygenic factors and motivators are good at universal levels but when it comes to personal level the situation can be very different - when some motivating factors become hygenic nd vise verca. 

Motivation

So what is motivation? It is defined as a driving force; a psychological one that compels or reinforces an action toward a desired goal.

So what motivates one in the work place? It was a very interesting to see the forces or the elements that usually motivate people, it was even more interesting to know that money is not on top of them.

I'll share a little story here. I once applied for an insurance company. During the interview I was asked about what motivates me, and being me I answered honestly, recognition, promotion, and of course financial rewards. She jumped at me saying: WRONG. Your only motivation in any job should be MONEY. We had a little discussion, her being a senior manager and me being a fresh graduate I thought she was actually right, but at the end of the day, I still rejected the offer because I didn't want to work for someone like her.

Another story I read was about a high achieving Indian employee, she was rewarded with a personalized gold watch. She was not happy with the reward and when asked later she said that she comes from a very poor neighborhood and having such a watch is a liability, as she was always too scared the watch might get stolen. (I heard the story a long time ago so this is the conclusion of the story ;))

So what motivates you, and how do you know what motivates your subordinates? That's the ultimate question. My boss once gave a bonus to a colleague in the form of a holiday package instead of cash. It's because this colleague never had the chance to fly outside of jordan as she was staying there illegally, and as soon as she got her residency permit going on holiday was the on,y thing she was talking about. My boss knew if the bonus was of a monetary form she will just spend it and not go on holidays, so she rewarded her with a holiday. That kept my colleague from joining another company even when the pay was higher.

When you know what your employees want and reward them with it, you not only "buy" their loyalty, but you also ensure their high level of motivation at work.

The last session with Elvira Kalmar was quite interesting - thanks her for that. But my question to my group work was - if final destination is not standing but moving all the time? Then there is a need to shift after each stage and there are no quarantees that you will achieve what you wanted.
The other thought is that targeting at the future solutions is good, but also current problem must be solved - because you cannot go further with heavy burden on your shoulder. So where is the balance between solution oriented approach and problem oriented approach?  

Session on KPMG Academy Research with Tamás Cservenyák

The session with Tamás Cservenyák was entitled “Do Managers Use the Best Practices of Leadership? - Key findings of the 2012 research project by KPMG Academy”. At the beginning of the session, we all took the survey KPMG’s research was based on and the results fell largely in line with the research: task related aspects of leadership were perceivedly conveyed by more of our respective last superiors than actual leadership oriented aspects. After discussing possible explanations for this such as perspective and personal bias, the course of the session revealed that implementation of such matters was indeed an issue but that this seems to be rather an issue of feasibility than lack of willingness of the ‘leaders’. The conclusion of the session was that the misconception of a ‘one-size-fits-all approach’ to leadership in general and especially in a hierarchical setting hinders the acquisition of individual leadership skills and that personalized coaching by an ‘outsider’ would be a more fruitful approach.

Invictus the poem ... by William Ernest Henley.

It is needless to say how moved I was by this poem, I looked it up right after class, shared it with my friends back home, posted it on instagram and tweeted it. 

The reason is that it has such a powerful meaning. Who among us did not face dark moments, and in those moments thought the dark tunnel will have no light at the end? Who among us didn't feel the suffocation around their soul during these moments? And then not only you read this poem, but you get to know that a man like Mandela (regardless of your political or personal opinion of him) who served 27 years locked behind bars did not allow the darkness to suffocate his unconquerable soul but managed to come out of this dark place and do good to his nation.

*Invictus, meaning "unconquerable" or "undefeated" in Latin, is a poem by William Ernest Henley. The poem was written while Henley was in the hospital being treated for tuberculosis of the bone, also known as Pott's disease. He had had the disease since he was very young, and his foot had been amputated shortly before he wrote the poem. This poem is about courage in the face of death, and holding on to one's own dignity despite the indignities life places before us.