I do not have any experience on this. I have the tendency to agree with that. I do not know if this holds in the syndicalism.

@Debi, "Management Dilemma: The Rule of 98/2" is always dilemma! Here is one oppinion-given in blogg! I have not experienced such issues!

http://surpassyourdreamsblogger.blogs.com/blog/2010/11/management-dilemma-the-rule-of-982.html

Thanks @Costa and @Ljubomir, thanks for your responses to set the ball rolling. The attached blog is interesting, though it relates a somewhat different situation. There the issue i: Should we suspect 98 per cent people through rules and surveillance because some people, who are 2 per cent in this case, are shirkers. The blogger rightly suggests that our focus should be on correcting these two rather than troubling all including the other 98. In fact, most rules that are made by organizations are for preventing few to commit improprieties, but in effect they trouble every one including the best ones who in this case was 98 per cent.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting write up. Thanks.

HI Prof Debi, I think your management guru is quite right. His 2 % are the key people or leaders, who hold sway on the other 98 %. If you can bring the 2 % to your view, they will bring in the rest. Efficient, just work on 2 to get 100 %.

On Prof Ljubomir's link, the 2 % are the other extreme that are unreliable, and the 98 % are the normal and good workers. So respect the 98 %.

Just shows that you will have a full spectrum of worker performance in any organization...

This rings quite true to me, and actually it looks closely related to the Pareto (80:20) principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle) with the numbers changed to 98:2 to strengthen the point.

@Artur et al. Yes, I agree, in ICC (innovative creative circles), we only talk of Pareto's 80:20. Sometimes or quite often, 20 % are the hard workers in an organization. It's a more realistic figure when we talk of doing the work, but the question is about the Leaders, probably charismatic people, 2 % of such people...

I think the functioning of the world is not based on simple human-defined rules

Every person can be a 'leader' (e.g. a parent towards a child) or a 'follower' (a child towards a parent) for someone else. The so-called charismatic top leaders will become simple followers when they are placed in a new (unknown) environment, e.g. dealing with a new language and a new culture. I think the world is so dynamic that these simplified 2/98 rules simply cannot be applied. In how much environments R. Charan worked to establish this rule? Less than 0.00000000.......1% of the working environments on Earth.... ?

By the way, how much 'hard work' is visible to the human eye? How often are the leaders in contact with the others in a company? How often is judgement concerning hard work based on impressions lasting a couple of seconds per day.....? Is hard work related to efficiency in work?

Critical thinking required here?

Dear Artur and Miranda: Thanks, yes, your threads have helped making the position clearer. As you rightly opine, indeed it is a kind of Pareto principle.

But the question is how far this will continue to be so? Are things likely to be so when the Gen Y takes over in the coming times, which may like to look at things more critically, and not just as mute followers. Will then just keeping the 2 persons happy suffice or would one have to engage a larger body of people on the other side of the table. A true democracy would mean that the rest 98 can not be taken for granted through managing just the 2.

Dear Debi

I have no clue about it, and not read anything about it. But I would like to concur with it. Majority of the people are in general good. But by nature they would be followers rather than leaders. We need somebody to lead them in the correct direction. So the management need to identify them and nurture them. They in turn will be able to help to shape the rest of the organization. The best example is Steve Jobs at Apple. When John Scully was present at the helm he could not provide that kind of vision and we know what Apple was during the days. When Jobs came and steered the company in the right path.

Here is some material about Ram Charan blogs

http://www.ram-charan.com/leadership-outlook/

@Prof Debi, you are right. The management has to consider all the staff, not just a segment. I think that Gen Y will have high expectations in terms of material benefits from work. They will be more expressive, seeking more time for themselves. Perhaps the charismatic confident leaders among them will be a lot MORE than 2 %, CONFIDENCE is their virtue. (But not all Gen Y are lazy or pampered. A lot depends on their upbringing and the discipline exerted by their parents.)

Dear Marcel: Looking at your threads it is quite clear that the world of human beings is quite complex, anything related to them needs a more critical outlook. So true. It also buttresses the fact, it is important to ask appropriate questions rather than just be concerned with answering them.

I think Ram Charan was basing his formulation about managing the opinion makers on the basis of his vast corporate experience. He is quite regarded in the corporate world, and people take what he says fairly seriously. of course, management is an inexact science, where apple does not always falls on the ground, but sometimes whirls upward in the sky. Often, opinions on such issues are impressionistic.

Dear Nageswar: Thanks for your interesting intervention. Indeed, the blog you have attached is quite informative and helpful..

Dear Debi, Sounds convincing concept. In reality, just a few of top management people in a modern organization rule administration or guiding policy no matter how many people that they have in their organization. The rest will be line practitioners or implementers.They facilitate management system via two-way communication.

Dear Debi

Surely this works and the key is that these leaders are very well chosen.

The role of leaders within a group of employees, is much more focused on worrying about the welfare and satisfaction of your team than just delegating activities and track the results. People who take the lead in the sectors are directed to incorporate the ideas and opinions of other employees, aiming at a better integration and development of the sector. Thus, the followers feel an active part of the company and are encouraged to promote the company's success. Besides imparting responsibility and importance to other employees, leaders act in the social and family aspects of each coworker, making friend and professional relationship

Identification of few key persons, who are distinguishable through their skill and leadership qualities is essential for development and growth of any organization. This is true for any form of organization.Few persons can provide charismatic leadership with communication skill which enables them to connect well with the followers thus making it easy to sell their plans and programs for the organization's future. In this regard, I would like to cite the example of just concluded general election in my country, India, which found the emergence of Mr. Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister-elect of the country ,as an undisputed leader who could connect well with the followers through his charismatic leadership and communication skill. He has emerged as a leader who has created a political history by out witting all his opponents through his leadership skill and could convert himself as most acceptable and successful political brand in the history of independent India. He was earlier identified by his political organization as a leader who could lead the organization to victory in a very uncertain situation.

I agree with both of you, dear Jaharkanti and dear Kamal. Transformational leadership is the key to discovering solutions to our massive problems.

But the irony is that very few people are found to be falling in this category. So much wastage of resources is taking place in organizations every day because of authoritarian, insensitive, control-freak and incompetent leaders. States need to discover, and also facilitate, how a large number of such leaders are identified and developed

Transformational leadrship views leadership as a skill accessible to everyone. How realistic is this?

I would like to raise two practical problems. The first is what criteria are used to select the two employees whose potential leadership will influence the behavior of others. The other problem concerns the degree of acceptance of the leadership of the two potential model used.

Dear Lerardi

That is judgmental, and we can not develop a foll-proof device for this. This will depend on the experience of the managers concerned when they work with people. The opinion makers are very much visible when you hear people make some points and their opinions are reacted to by the rest of employees.

. Also, the number two is not to be taken here as literally or something sacrosanct; it means a small number. May be even 4 or 5.

If you look at any system that involves human beings the complexities multiply, but out of the large number there are certain patterns of grouping that takes place. To borrow an old adage "birds of a feather flock together", people seek out the person who most closely openly exemplifies what they think, how they would like to be, or as having what they want. The people bring looked at and followed are the 2%.

In order to simplify the overall system, it would make sense to look toward this 2% as being "representative" of those that are following them. This creates patterns and groupings that ebb and flow as the system and people within it changes.

In the interest of sheer energy spent, it would make sense to hone in on the "representative" few and actively interact with them as messengers (both to and from) their groups.

This is how the concept of management really started - one person representing a group of other individuals and claiming responsibility for their results.

The problem arises when people confuse management and leadership. They are not the same thing, although ideally they should both reside within the same individual.

Regarding Mohamed Benmerikhi and the question of whether it is practical to expect everyone to become leaders (which was an excellent question I think):

From my understanding, the original concept in transformational leadership is about moving people toward development of the skills involved in leadership rather than expecting an immediate end product of leader. I don't think it is meant as a production line where people go in and come out leaders. A leader is the culmination of full development, but we all progress at our own rates. Not everyone is going to lead an organization, or even a group; but we are capable of moving toward a wider sphere of responsibility, influence, and production in our direct area of action.

Any thoughts?

Well, given the complexeties of management, I would agree that concentrating on some people within the organization is a good thing. Better do really listen to them than doing a lot of pseudo listening to all of the people.

But, two things are important to stress:

1) Pick the right people to concentrate on: They really must be trusted by significant portions of the company. You accoint your buddies to that position.

2) Be aware that these people will not always agree to you. Otherwise they probably would have no trust.

But I do think one of the flaws of that theory is that it will be understood badly. This theory is not an excuse for not listening to your employees - it is just about channelig the information.

Definitely, the manager must respect dissent of these few leaders. That would be a part of managing these two people. If s/he tries to outsmart them, it will just not work, and will be counter-productive. If these leaders should be given the requisite dignity and hearing, they can do the dual work of agreeing to the discussed/suggested solutions as well as communicating them to the employees in the correct manner.

I know the shortcomings of that system, but I must say that the German system of "Mitbestimmung" (worker participation in the leadership of a company) kind of reflects some of that theory. Here, employees vote for their speakers, and then the top managers will have to deal with them representing the workforce.

As I said, there are some shortcomings, but it's certainly better than no interaction at all.

I agree with you and found that by conducting an empirical research. Actually I did with colleague a research, which should be published soon, in which the study aimed to develop a theoretical framework toward transformational leadership and organizational behavior through conducting a comprehensive review of theories, literature, and empirical studies. We developed a research model proposing the impact of transformational leadership variables (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) on the effectiveness of employees’ behavior. In addition, we developed a survey questionnaire that was distributed to a sample in the public and private Jordanian hospitals in order to answer the research questions and test its hypotheses.

No.

Although practically agreed with the general idea, but the long run issue could be irreplaceability (without major effects) of those 2 percent or people. By and large, yes there are indeed influence makers within all organisation which need to be managed more closely and carefully. influence/interest/power factor should be carefully scrutinized.

I agree that inspiring and convincing one small group will be very appropriate if they can further inspire their followers. Of course human mind is complex and beyond any confirmed behavior but for majority of groups this should work out.

On the contrary, just one bad employee may make life difficult for the Manager particularly if that employee happens to be the Deputy Manager!

My research indicates that a manager TO BE SUCCESSFUL must attempt to develop leadership alliances with those people who she both respects for talent and trusts and who respect and trusts her.

I have a mountain of data to supportring my theory of LEADER-MEMBER EXCHANGE it even works with millennials( See lmxlotus.com for details.).

Love yor work.

If management is strong and determined, it can take the main role in convincing and affecting all employees.

Surely there is the need to determine the basis for the statement? Sometimes management gurus appear to make statements that are just adopted and received by others without reference to any specific piece of research. This may be because they are charismatic and have a wide range of experience but do not always have a robust research basis.

It doesn't fit with my 20+ years as a manager. It's much too general.

Finding the two percent is one half of the equation . You must achieve network centrality to achieve the greatest result