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