When speaking with someone formally or informally in English, the “you” is used and there is no other alternative. The only difference is how the person can be addressed, for example, "Mr. Smith" or "Dr. Smith" or “Jack”.
German language differentiates between the formal (duzen) and informal (siezen) communication. Traditionally, the formal way was reserved for professional and business settings. Nowadays however, colleagues increasingly tend to be on a first-name basis even as communication with the customers remains formal at all times. Businesses often go about it without any policy while human resource departments swing back and forth between formal and informal communication. Hence even with a single company, an employee can experience the following throughout the employee life cycle:
* Formal (intending to exhibit professionalism) and informal (trying to attract youngsters) job ads
* Formal candidate communication
* Informal communication from the moment of contract signing to voluntary departure
* Formal communication in warning and dismissal letters
So, deliberately or not, the choice of communication mode depends on the message. As consistent communication fosters development of trust and creates a level of loyalty to the employer, companies should align the way to address their people, i.e. have guts to address informally any candidate (a stranger at first) despite how senior they are in their careers or any employee to be dismissed. It is just too ridiculous to call an employee by name when they are good employees, but go over to communicating with them formally once problems occur.
Failure to instill a consistent communication has a detrimental impact on the business as a whole, and makes very difficult to retain and nurture employees.
Showing posts with label culture management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label culture management. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
"Family" as the Core of Corporate Culture
Family owned or operated businesses (private or public) and corporations with non-family members like to refer to themselves as a "family“ and this being the main building block for the corporate culture. You will hear and read, "we are like a big family" in their corporate literature, employer branding campaign, and from employee statements.
Whereas social and religious conservatives often use the term "family values" to promote a conservative ideology, businesses refer to "family" to demonstrate moving away from a command and control management approach.
In most instances however, organizations are selective about which elements of the "family values" they overtake and promote. More often than not, families are fueled by feelings rather than performance, forgiveness rather than accountability, and conformity rather than thinking outside-of-the-box. The problem for businesses is that sustainable organizations thrive on performance, accountability, and creative thinking.
Importantly as well, families tend to be hierarchical, particularly based on seniority, and instill self-control and moral obligations while demanding respect, discipline, and attentiveness. While the former is unavoidable, the latter is an ideal to strive for in the majority of organizations. Only the strongest cultures can however inspire and engage their employees.
Hence, the corporate concept of "family" primarily refers to how people communicate and interact internally. Associated beliefs include being loyal and trustworthy, caring for each other, and spending time together (including after work). In a way, being a "family" is a promise for a more supportive and less formal/cut-throat environment. In such organizations, employees know more about co-workers than they need to in order to perform well. They become pals.
Secondly, the "family" values in corporate context are particularly visible during two extreme stages of an employee's lifecycle; attraction (apparent in the employer brand promise of a compelling workplace) and separation (demonstrated primarily through alumni networks, e.g. BBH’s blacklist).
One final point, redundancy can become a major issue and limitation for the "family" concept at corporations. Though the concept of “family” differ across cultures, families around the globe have one thing in common, it is a bond that cannot be broken. When the family is struggling, family members are expected to hold things together and to help each other out. Excluding family members is taboo and hardly ever the question. Lay offs are common practice at many different “corporate families”.
Whereas social and religious conservatives often use the term "family values" to promote a conservative ideology, businesses refer to "family" to demonstrate moving away from a command and control management approach.
In most instances however, organizations are selective about which elements of the "family values" they overtake and promote. More often than not, families are fueled by feelings rather than performance, forgiveness rather than accountability, and conformity rather than thinking outside-of-the-box. The problem for businesses is that sustainable organizations thrive on performance, accountability, and creative thinking.
Importantly as well, families tend to be hierarchical, particularly based on seniority, and instill self-control and moral obligations while demanding respect, discipline, and attentiveness. While the former is unavoidable, the latter is an ideal to strive for in the majority of organizations. Only the strongest cultures can however inspire and engage their employees.
Hence, the corporate concept of "family" primarily refers to how people communicate and interact internally. Associated beliefs include being loyal and trustworthy, caring for each other, and spending time together (including after work). In a way, being a "family" is a promise for a more supportive and less formal/cut-throat environment. In such organizations, employees know more about co-workers than they need to in order to perform well. They become pals.
Secondly, the "family" values in corporate context are particularly visible during two extreme stages of an employee's lifecycle; attraction (apparent in the employer brand promise of a compelling workplace) and separation (demonstrated primarily through alumni networks, e.g. BBH’s blacklist).
One final point, redundancy can become a major issue and limitation for the "family" concept at corporations. Though the concept of “family” differ across cultures, families around the globe have one thing in common, it is a bond that cannot be broken. When the family is struggling, family members are expected to hold things together and to help each other out. Excluding family members is taboo and hardly ever the question. Lay offs are common practice at many different “corporate families”.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
The Weakest Link of a Customer Experience Team
For several years now, in-house customer experience teams have been mushrooming in the corporate world. They are responsible for ensuring positive customer experiences with the company or its services and products. There is also no shortage of consulting companies that can provide such services.
The work of any customer experience team requires a holistic view on issues customers care about. Multidisciplinary in nature, the work of customer experience teams centers around soliciting customer feedback, codifying customer journeys, and adjusting processes, systems, and technology. In addition, understanding and redefining organizational culture and talent requirements is also vital to the teams’ efforts.
A great example of a customer experience team is the one set-up by American Airlines. Pretty much all of the team’s initiatives are talent focused. Consider:
• Controlling ground delays and better informing customers when unexpected delays occur;
• Smoothly and more efficiently processing customers when boarding aircraft;
• Improving interactions with customers (including for example a new staff performance requirement to greet first-class passengers by name); and
• Efficiently handling baggage and quickly resolving issues with misplaced or misdirected bags.
The emergence of customer experience teams is an interesting trend. Customer experience teams are overtaking HR departments in generating and acting upon customer literacy as popularized in the book by Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank, “The HR Value Proposition” (2005). As a result, the strategic contributions related to talent are now increasingly made outside of the HR department. Another trend is blending strategic HR and talent management with the authority of Chief Operations Officer.
Consequently, HR is increasingly losing (yet another chance?) edge to impact the people agenda whereas their administrative efforts only seem to increase day-by-day.
For HR to add value to the business:
• HR needs to be proactive in helping line managers build the organization's core capability;
• HR must contribute to strategic conversations; and
• HR must take a hold off and lead costumer experience teams (presently dominated by professionals with backgrounds in Operations, Marketing, and IT).
The work of any customer experience team requires a holistic view on issues customers care about. Multidisciplinary in nature, the work of customer experience teams centers around soliciting customer feedback, codifying customer journeys, and adjusting processes, systems, and technology. In addition, understanding and redefining organizational culture and talent requirements is also vital to the teams’ efforts.
A great example of a customer experience team is the one set-up by American Airlines. Pretty much all of the team’s initiatives are talent focused. Consider:
• Controlling ground delays and better informing customers when unexpected delays occur;
• Smoothly and more efficiently processing customers when boarding aircraft;
• Improving interactions with customers (including for example a new staff performance requirement to greet first-class passengers by name); and
• Efficiently handling baggage and quickly resolving issues with misplaced or misdirected bags.
The emergence of customer experience teams is an interesting trend. Customer experience teams are overtaking HR departments in generating and acting upon customer literacy as popularized in the book by Dave Ulrich and Wayne Brockbank, “The HR Value Proposition” (2005). As a result, the strategic contributions related to talent are now increasingly made outside of the HR department. Another trend is blending strategic HR and talent management with the authority of Chief Operations Officer.
Consequently, HR is increasingly losing (yet another chance?) edge to impact the people agenda whereas their administrative efforts only seem to increase day-by-day.
For HR to add value to the business:
• HR needs to be proactive in helping line managers build the organization's core capability;
• HR must contribute to strategic conversations; and
• HR must take a hold off and lead costumer experience teams (presently dominated by professionals with backgrounds in Operations, Marketing, and IT).
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Cultural Fit, What Rubbish!
All companies probably believe that they must ensure "cultural fit" when hiring new people. However, too many players do not have strong cultures to speak off and are confused about the “best” talents that they require to successfully and meaningfully go through this exercise. Specifically, more often than not, companies:
1. Describe their cultures in similar ways; collaborative, entrepreneurial, and family-like. They also like to refer to themselves as complex, ambiguous, and challenging environments. Ad agencies in particular tend to identify their cultures with “chaos” which they embrace rather than try to tame by enforcing specific rules and structures.
2. Articulate the same values. A recent study by Ki and Kim (2009) showed that “respect to clients”, “service”, “strategic”, and “results” were the most frequently emphasized values among ethical statements provided by 605 public relations agencies in the United States. On the other hand, “balance”, “fairness”, “honor”, “social responsibility”, and “independence” were the least frequently mentioned values in their ethical codes. Surprisingly as well, none of the sampled agencies included any sanctions regarding enforcement of their particular code of ethics.
3. Remain misaligned when it comes to talent practices. It is not uncommon to find that employee policies and operational practices do not actually support their cultural statement (e.g. we are open-minded). At the extreme, employees that are in fact closest to the desired culture may not experience and receive sufficient recognition, advancement opportunities, and high job satisfaction levels.
4. Demonstrate "me-too" thinking when preparing talent policies, rewards, and benefits just like they go on the same mission relevant to their industry. Almost uniformly, ad agencies aspire to “generate big ideas” (award-winning ideas or outstanding advertising campaigns) and provide a full range of communications services for their clients.
5. Look for similar skill sets, knowledge, experience, and just about everything else when looking for talent; self-starter with a `can-do` attitude, ability to contribute to and lead diverse teams, ability to present logical and persuasive arguments, passionate, and driven, etc.
6. Settle down for generic and inclusive corporate cultures. Many employees cannot explicitly discuss and distinguish between the cultures of the companies that they have worked for. Worst, many successful careers can span a number of companies over several years which suggests that either employees are simply good chameleons and flexible and adaptive enough to blend in or that there is nothing unique and extraordinary about their different workplaces.
Hence, checking for cultural fit is of substance and should only take place if the company understands what their actual and desired organizational culture is, has low staff turnover, and is growing at a steady pace so as to ensure successful acculturation processes by new hires.
1. Describe their cultures in similar ways; collaborative, entrepreneurial, and family-like. They also like to refer to themselves as complex, ambiguous, and challenging environments. Ad agencies in particular tend to identify their cultures with “chaos” which they embrace rather than try to tame by enforcing specific rules and structures.
2. Articulate the same values. A recent study by Ki and Kim (2009) showed that “respect to clients”, “service”, “strategic”, and “results” were the most frequently emphasized values among ethical statements provided by 605 public relations agencies in the United States. On the other hand, “balance”, “fairness”, “honor”, “social responsibility”, and “independence” were the least frequently mentioned values in their ethical codes. Surprisingly as well, none of the sampled agencies included any sanctions regarding enforcement of their particular code of ethics.
3. Remain misaligned when it comes to talent practices. It is not uncommon to find that employee policies and operational practices do not actually support their cultural statement (e.g. we are open-minded). At the extreme, employees that are in fact closest to the desired culture may not experience and receive sufficient recognition, advancement opportunities, and high job satisfaction levels.
4. Demonstrate "me-too" thinking when preparing talent policies, rewards, and benefits just like they go on the same mission relevant to their industry. Almost uniformly, ad agencies aspire to “generate big ideas” (award-winning ideas or outstanding advertising campaigns) and provide a full range of communications services for their clients.
5. Look for similar skill sets, knowledge, experience, and just about everything else when looking for talent; self-starter with a `can-do` attitude, ability to contribute to and lead diverse teams, ability to present logical and persuasive arguments, passionate, and driven, etc.
6. Settle down for generic and inclusive corporate cultures. Many employees cannot explicitly discuss and distinguish between the cultures of the companies that they have worked for. Worst, many successful careers can span a number of companies over several years which suggests that either employees are simply good chameleons and flexible and adaptive enough to blend in or that there is nothing unique and extraordinary about their different workplaces.
Hence, checking for cultural fit is of substance and should only take place if the company understands what their actual and desired organizational culture is, has low staff turnover, and is growing at a steady pace so as to ensure successful acculturation processes by new hires.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Outsourcing and Culture
From a strategic HR standpoint, outsourcing should be considered when different company functions exhibit different cultures and assert conflicting cultural expectations. The same holds true when handling different business units that require different business strategy and thereby a distinct HR strategy*.
Nevertheless, business leaders can still agree that cultural differences are acceptable or manageable across an organization. As an example, The Four Seasons organizational culture strongly advocates and supports a business strategy of customer intimacy to deliver world-class experiences for guests; whatever it takes! But, the organization’s billing and procurement function adheres to adding value through efficiency and cost-reduction.
When companies deliberate outsourcing decisions, they should seek out HR contribution. HR needs to analyze the subcultures in an organization in addition to the more traditional outsourcing assessment which concentrates on strategic importance, cost, and quality** for sourcing capabilities.
* Greene, Robert J. (1995). Culturally Compatible HR Strategies. HR Magazine. Vol. 40, June 1, pp. 115-122.
** Gottfredson, Mark; Puryear, Rudy, & Phillips, Stephen (2005). ”Strategic Sourcing: From Periphery to the Core”. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 83, No. 2, March. pp.132-9.
“One organization created a new company to market a product it developed because the reward systems required sales force effectiveness which was culturally incompatible with the values and beliefs of the rest of the organization. In another organization, the information system function was outsourced because the required culture of supporting continuous and dramatic innovation did not fit the rather pedestrian needs of the rest of the organization.”
Nevertheless, business leaders can still agree that cultural differences are acceptable or manageable across an organization. As an example, The Four Seasons organizational culture strongly advocates and supports a business strategy of customer intimacy to deliver world-class experiences for guests; whatever it takes! But, the organization’s billing and procurement function adheres to adding value through efficiency and cost-reduction.
When companies deliberate outsourcing decisions, they should seek out HR contribution. HR needs to analyze the subcultures in an organization in addition to the more traditional outsourcing assessment which concentrates on strategic importance, cost, and quality** for sourcing capabilities.
* Greene, Robert J. (1995). Culturally Compatible HR Strategies. HR Magazine. Vol. 40, June 1, pp. 115-122.
** Gottfredson, Mark; Puryear, Rudy, & Phillips, Stephen (2005). ”Strategic Sourcing: From Periphery to the Core”. Harvard Business Review. Vol. 83, No. 2, March. pp.132-9.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
From Cultures by Accident to Cultures by Design
When it comes to marketing, companies are prompt to adopt the rule of “thinking globally and acting locally”; but, in talent management, they tend to promote values and working styles of the company’s home country.
Nevertheless, despite ongoing efforts to encourage uniform productivity, process standards, management style, performance expectations, etc., a significant degree of misalignment occurs between organizational cultures in China and global agendas. Consequently, hybrid cultures emerge from cultures carried over by expatriates, cultural dynamics of local Chinese, and the divergent third-cultures of returnees and overseas Chinese. These cultures are very much “by accident” and not “by design”.
Specifically, reasons for the development of cultures by accident include:
• People management practices can remain defunct because other methods exist for management to increase shareholder value.
• A “come and go attitude” of expatriates. Expatriates’ job embeddedness is relatively low since their connections to the community and the local organization are weak.
• High attrition rates among senior managers and employees. As the majority of employees seem to be quite new to the organization, there is no one to pass along company values and socialize new hires into the established culture. Consequently, every individual applies their own set of values when working with internal and external stakeholders.
• An inability of HR to engage in the organization from a strategy perspective and design a system to develop a desired culture. The role of strategic partner is overshadowed by the role of administrative expert.
• Scarcity of talent precludes recruiters from assessing candidates’ values and whether a cultural fit exists.
Cultures in China will become by design and play an increasing role when the following changes occur:
• Companies will run out of options for bottom-line improvements. Cost effectiveness and quality standards become uniform and will no longer differentiate the company substantially from their competitors.
• The selection of expatriate candidates becomes more rigorous. The candidates will have the “right” skills, cultural attitudes, and a long-term intention to live there.
• Companies develop strategy to effectively retain leaders and ensure their high commitment levels.
• HR professionals learn tools to uncover organizational self-perception and develop skills in culture management and change management.
• With the growing number of qualified candidates, knowledge and skill sets quickly become redundant.
Nevertheless, despite ongoing efforts to encourage uniform productivity, process standards, management style, performance expectations, etc., a significant degree of misalignment occurs between organizational cultures in China and global agendas. Consequently, hybrid cultures emerge from cultures carried over by expatriates, cultural dynamics of local Chinese, and the divergent third-cultures of returnees and overseas Chinese. These cultures are very much “by accident” and not “by design”.
Specifically, reasons for the development of cultures by accident include:
• People management practices can remain defunct because other methods exist for management to increase shareholder value.
• A “come and go attitude” of expatriates. Expatriates’ job embeddedness is relatively low since their connections to the community and the local organization are weak.
• High attrition rates among senior managers and employees. As the majority of employees seem to be quite new to the organization, there is no one to pass along company values and socialize new hires into the established culture. Consequently, every individual applies their own set of values when working with internal and external stakeholders.
• An inability of HR to engage in the organization from a strategy perspective and design a system to develop a desired culture. The role of strategic partner is overshadowed by the role of administrative expert.
• Scarcity of talent precludes recruiters from assessing candidates’ values and whether a cultural fit exists.
Cultures in China will become by design and play an increasing role when the following changes occur:
• Companies will run out of options for bottom-line improvements. Cost effectiveness and quality standards become uniform and will no longer differentiate the company substantially from their competitors.
• The selection of expatriate candidates becomes more rigorous. The candidates will have the “right” skills, cultural attitudes, and a long-term intention to live there.
• Companies develop strategy to effectively retain leaders and ensure their high commitment levels.
• HR professionals learn tools to uncover organizational self-perception and develop skills in culture management and change management.
• With the growing number of qualified candidates, knowledge and skill sets quickly become redundant.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Service Orientation
In China, businesses still do not quite get the change necessary to bring about high quality customer experiences. Employees’ behavior remains inadequate despite the rising customer expectations. Weak organizational cultures are responsible for this poor understanding of customer care amongst employees.
To overcome employees’ poor service orientation, leaders should define the desired culture along with specifications of how people should behave. While the former will dictate how customers perceive the company’s culture, the latter will drive employees’ behavior.
As an example, visitors to a Disney theme park experience the friendly Disney culture. This means that Disney employees smile, make eye contact, answer questions cheerfully and accurately, offer to help anyone who looks lost, or try to bring laughter to tired or irritable children.
To overcome employees’ poor service orientation, leaders should define the desired culture along with specifications of how people should behave. While the former will dictate how customers perceive the company’s culture, the latter will drive employees’ behavior.
As an example, visitors to a Disney theme park experience the friendly Disney culture. This means that Disney employees smile, make eye contact, answer questions cheerfully and accurately, offer to help anyone who looks lost, or try to bring laughter to tired or irritable children.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Complexity of Customer Service
What makes for great service at a restaurant? Which type of service would you prefer and ascribe to under the following scenario?
Scenario: Hotel Restaurant in Bali
You and your friend sit down at a restaurant and then the waiter serves both of you. He comes to your table several times in order to take an order, deliver the drinks and dishes, and present the bill. During this entry time, you are engaged in a heavy conversation with your friend. So, should the waiter do his job:
1. Without really calling for too much attention from you and your friend or
2. Gain your attention every time by interrupting your conversation with a friendly “excuse me Sir/Madam” followed by the name of the item ordered as he places it in front of you.
Do you:
1. Fully appreciate the politeness and continuous attentiveness or
2. Think the waiter is a bit annoying or
3. Feel that his sincerity is not genuine because of this constant and robotic-like politeness.
Balinese staff’s frequent interaction with either an “excuse me” or “hello” accompanied by a smile and eye contact may be part of the local culture or behaviors that were taught and reinforced through a behavioral training to offer a high level of customer service. As for the latter, L&D managers were quite successful at promoting a pre-defined level of hospitality.
An important point to realize is that when substantial resources are exerted for teaching, improving, and “reinforcing” customer service, the L&D team should strive to understand the company’s customers and their expectations first. Then, the most important question remains; what kind of service is warranted, appreciated, needed, and wanted by the customer group? Customer service is only excellent in the eyes of the beholders.
Scenario: Hotel Restaurant in Bali
You and your friend sit down at a restaurant and then the waiter serves both of you. He comes to your table several times in order to take an order, deliver the drinks and dishes, and present the bill. During this entry time, you are engaged in a heavy conversation with your friend. So, should the waiter do his job:
1. Without really calling for too much attention from you and your friend or
2. Gain your attention every time by interrupting your conversation with a friendly “excuse me Sir/Madam” followed by the name of the item ordered as he places it in front of you.
Do you:
1. Fully appreciate the politeness and continuous attentiveness or
2. Think the waiter is a bit annoying or
3. Feel that his sincerity is not genuine because of this constant and robotic-like politeness.
Balinese staff’s frequent interaction with either an “excuse me” or “hello” accompanied by a smile and eye contact may be part of the local culture or behaviors that were taught and reinforced through a behavioral training to offer a high level of customer service. As for the latter, L&D managers were quite successful at promoting a pre-defined level of hospitality.
An important point to realize is that when substantial resources are exerted for teaching, improving, and “reinforcing” customer service, the L&D team should strive to understand the company’s customers and their expectations first. Then, the most important question remains; what kind of service is warranted, appreciated, needed, and wanted by the customer group? Customer service is only excellent in the eyes of the beholders.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Presenteeism
One thing that can kill an employee’s enthusiasm toward a new position is the need for presenteeism.
Presenteeism corresponds to absenteeism and refers to employees’ extra presence at work despite workload.
Drawbacks from the culture of presenteeism include encouragement for face-time instead of performance and results. In addition, presenteeism does not acknowledge and entrust employees to adopt the “new” way of working: anytime from anywhere. Furthermore, presenteeism:
• Supports style over substance,
• Hinders productivity and effectiveness,
• Diminishes work-life balance,
• Encourages mobbing and bullying,
• May breed insecurity, fear, and even intimidation among employees,
• May deter empowerment among employees, and
• Reinforces hierarchy and differences between management and employees.
Presenteeism corresponds to absenteeism and refers to employees’ extra presence at work despite workload.
Drawbacks from the culture of presenteeism include encouragement for face-time instead of performance and results. In addition, presenteeism does not acknowledge and entrust employees to adopt the “new” way of working: anytime from anywhere. Furthermore, presenteeism:
• Supports style over substance,
• Hinders productivity and effectiveness,
• Diminishes work-life balance,
• Encourages mobbing and bullying,
• May breed insecurity, fear, and even intimidation among employees,
• May deter empowerment among employees, and
• Reinforces hierarchy and differences between management and employees.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Organizational Self-Awareness
An increasing body of evidence supports the linkage between an organization's culture and its business performance. However, managerial and non-managerial staffs in Shanghai rarely talk about their company’s culture at ease.
During the past several weeks, I conducted very sporadic and unsystematic research in China to gauge employees’ and especially recruiters’ ability to describe their company’s organizational culture. The majority of professionals that I spoke with had very little to say when asked; third-party recruiters knew the least.
Comments were usually limited to: young staff, international team, big and established company, dynamic environment, processes to foster innovation, specific culture, unique culture, very distinctive culture, etc. Well, let’s stop before we get even more vague and tautological.
So, how can employees provide more substantive responses when referring to their company’s culture? One way of doing so involves increasing organizational self-awareness through:
• Learning dimensions of organizational culture,
• Understanding how the company scores against these dimensions, and
• Communicating the above to employees regularly (message reinforcement).
Raising organizational awareness can increase recruiters’ ability to promote the company to talents, managers’ ability to engage employees, and employees’ understanding of their own roles.
During the past several weeks, I conducted very sporadic and unsystematic research in China to gauge employees’ and especially recruiters’ ability to describe their company’s organizational culture. The majority of professionals that I spoke with had very little to say when asked; third-party recruiters knew the least.
Comments were usually limited to: young staff, international team, big and established company, dynamic environment, processes to foster innovation, specific culture, unique culture, very distinctive culture, etc. Well, let’s stop before we get even more vague and tautological.
So, how can employees provide more substantive responses when referring to their company’s culture? One way of doing so involves increasing organizational self-awareness through:
• Learning dimensions of organizational culture,
• Understanding how the company scores against these dimensions, and
• Communicating the above to employees regularly (message reinforcement).
Raising organizational awareness can increase recruiters’ ability to promote the company to talents, managers’ ability to engage employees, and employees’ understanding of their own roles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)