Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 3 – Sublimation of Vision Statements

In this post, let’s continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management  (See ‘The attrition principle’ and 'In the valley of attrition' for the previous post in this series).

Let's begin by defining these terms - Vision statement and Sublimation.

Vision statement : A vision statement provides a snapshot of the preferred future of the organization. Usually, a timeline is attached to the vision statement (e.g. By 2025, we would be the largest company in our industry by revenue)

Sublimation : Sublimation is the name for the phenomenon when a substance changes directly from the solid state to the gaseous state without going through the liquid state (so we are using the 'Chemistry' meaning of 'sublimation' - as opposed that in 'Psychology')

So how do these two apparently unrelated concepts come together?  Vision statements have this interesting tendency to move directly (sublimate!) from 'future' to the 'past' without bothering to go through the 'present'!

In practical terms, what happens is something like this. In 2015, a company sets up a 2020 Vision. Around 2018 or 2019 the same company replaces the 2020 vision with a 2025 Vision.  Once this 2025 vision is in place, the 2020 vision is discarded and company is no longer bothered about seeing if the company achieves the 2020 vision. So, the the 2020 vision directly moves (sublimates!) from the 'future' to the 'past' without bothering to go through 'present' reality!  Hence, 'future becomes a great place to hide' the lack of progress on working towards the Vision!

While this sounds like 'cheating', it might not be that harmful to the organization. Vision, as opposed to a goal, is meant to be aspirational. It can even be argued that calling a long term aspiration as 'vision', and thereby putting it on a pedestal (and following it too rigidly), can in in fact be harmful to the organization in a rapidly changing environment as it might hinder the organization from seizing emerging (unanticipated) opportunities. 

Hence, in a way, it makes sense to keep the vision perpetually (and safely!) in the future. As we have seen in 'Mission without Vision', it might make sense to have only a mission and not a vision. Ultimately, what the employees want is a sense of direction and purpose and not vision or mission statements! 

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 2 – In the valley of attrition

In this post, let’s come back to a series that we had started a long time ago : Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, we will explore concepts in HR that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management  (See ‘The attrition principle’ for the first post in this series). 

What exactly is this valley of attrition? An employee is said to be in the valley of attrition when the mind has left the organization, but the body is waiting for an offer letter to arrive!

While this concept might seem unorthodox or even a bit esoteric, this phenomenon is quite common in organizations. In employee engagement surveys, typically there is a question on the ‘intention to leave’ (e.g. “Are you seriously considering leaving the organization?”)*. Now, if we compare the % of employees who answer in the affirmative to the question on ‘intention to leave’ with the actual ‘attrition rate’ we are likely to find a very significant gap (e.g. 55% of the employees express the ‘intention to leave’ but the actual attrition is only 15%  in a particular organization).

The gap (between the intention to leave % and the actual attrition %) indicates the % of employees who are ‘stuck’ or ‘trapped’ in the organization – they want to leave but can’t find a job. This could be because they got so busy with their jobs that they didn’t pay adequate attention to their employability (e.g. they didn’t develop market-relevant skills).  This could be because they haven’t developed job-hunting skills or because they are not sure if they can make a successful transition to another organization. This could also be because, while they want leave, they don’t want to let go of some of the ‘comforts’  they have got used to in the current organization (and hence they are in the 'comfortably miserable' state). By the way, the first reason  mentioned above, might give a hint for developing a ‘sinister’ employee retention strategy – making the employees less employable (or even unemployable) outside the current organization!

While there could be multiple reasons why people are trapped in their current jobs, it has important implications for employee happiness, employee engagement and the consequent business outcomes. 

Feeling trapped is definitely not a pleasant state to be in! If you have never been in 'the valley of attrition' (and hence can't connect to this), imagine yourself having to wait for a long time in the departure lounge of an airport with your flight indefinitely delayed!

The trapped employees are unlikely be to be in the ‘engaged’ category (i.e. putting in discretionary effort). They are likely to be in the ‘not-engaged’ or ‘actively-disengaged’ categories. These can lead to low performance and/or passive resistance! So while the trapped employees are not 'attrition risks' they pose even greater dangers to the organization from performance and morale points of view! If some of these trapped employees have 'identity that is wrapped in their job', this could even lead to workplace violence!

Any comments/ideas?

*Note :  It is a peculiarity of human nature that we are often more clear about what we don't want (I don't want to continue in this organization) as compared to what we really want (I want to join this particular organization)! The 'intention to leave' is somewhat similar to the 'flight' response in the 'fight or flight' basic repose to danger (or pain). This danger or pain can be psychological as well as well as physical. When we are running away from danger or pain, the main focus is to somehow get out of the current (dangerous/painful) situation and not really to get to a predefined better place. This can lead to sub-optimal career (job change) decisions especially in cases of 'intention to leave' triggered by specific events (e.g. being overlooked for a promotion, disrespectful remark by the boss etc.). In the case of intention to leave created by more enduring factors (like lack of person-organization or person-job fit; see 'On what good looks like'), the job changes are likely to be more thought-through/deliberate.   

When the new doesn't outperform the old...

"Our approach has been to bring in new leaders who can take the company to the next level of excellence", said the Business Leader. "Are we sure that those new leaders have performed better than the existing leaders?", asked the Organization Development (OD) Manager*.

Infusing new talent across levels, especially at leadership levels, has been a favorite response of many organizations, when faced with performance or organization effectiveness challenges. There is definitely some merit to this. If the existing leaders have failed to meet the organization goals, they might be part of the problem. Sometimes, the existing leaders don't have the requisite skills or experience to drive business transformation, especially when the business is moving into new domains.

It is also true that a business leader can't micro-manage a large organization and hence has to depend on the leaders down the line. Again, there is no point in hiring highly capable leaders and giving them micro-instructions on what exactly they should do. However, as we have seen in 'Paradox of hiring good people and letting them decide', this strategy is not as simple to implement as it appears to be!

Yes, it is highly tempting to just 'throw new people at problems or opportunities'. Replacing existing leaders with new leaders sends strong messages both inside and outside the organization. It can create the perception that the organization is taking 'decisive action' and that the future is likely to be much better than the present.

So what is the problem with this approach? To begin with, it often happens that problems at the organization strategy, structure or policies level get misdiagnosed as individual capability issues of leaders down the line. If that is the case, unless the new leaders have the empowerment to change/influence those upstream issues (at organization strategy/structure/policy levels), they have no chance of being successful. If the failure of new leaders also gets (conveniently)  diagnosed as 'hiring mistake', this cycle of 'hiring - firing - hiring' new leaders would go on! Of course, if the new leaders also follow the same philosophy and bring in new people to their teams, this can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants). All this can create an illusion of progress.

The organizations that have a propensity to make leadership changes at the slightest provocation might also be prone to a 'swim-or-sink' attitude ('now that you have been hired as a leader, it is up to you to make it work') once the new leaders join the organization -with not enough emphasis given to new leader assimilation and to putting in place the supporting structures for new leaders (e.g. time investment by senior leaders and mentors). This can get further complicated if the new leader doesn't get the required resources he/she needs. Of course, leaders are expected to 'do more with less'. But 'creating something out of nothing' is more like magic and not management. Similarly, the degree of stretch in the role might not be realistic. It is important to differentiate between 'stretch roles and designed to fail roles'! 

Now, it would be unfair to say that all the failures in leadership transitions are the fault of the organizations. There are many things the newly hired leaders can do to make an effective transition.  Let's look at just four of them and also explore what can be done jointly by the newly hired leader and the organization to maximize the possibility of  a successful transition.

Validate 'what good looks like': Individual leaders have personalities, values and work preferences. Organizations have their own preferred ways of doing things, behavioral norms and underlying assumptions ('culture'). A large degree of alignment between the leader's and the organization's underlying definitions of 'what good looks like' would make life easier for both the parties and enhance the chances of a successful leadership transition (See 'On what good looks like' for more details). There are two specific actions that can help here. The first is ensuring a more in-depth and open discussion on the 'culture-fit' kind of dimensions during the hiring process. The second is (when a hiring decision has been made based on a large degree of fit; after all there no 'perfect-fit') providing detailed feedback and coaching to the newly hired leader on those aspects/behaviors where there is insufficient fit. Not leveraging the wealth of data  generated during the selection process  for feedback and development/coaching is a costly miss that many organizations make.

Consider a bit of 'exorcism' :When a leader works in an organization for a while, patterns of interaction develop around that leader. When that leader leaves the organization, a vacuum gets created and the patterns that were centered around that leader (or the 'ghost of that leader'; as Robert Pirsig says, ghosts are essentially such patterns) looks for someone to attach itself to and the new leader becomes the prime target. So if the new leader is not careful, he/she gets sucked into those patterns and becomes part of the previous way of functioning before he/she realizes it. Now, especially if the leader has been hired with a mandate to drive change, this can seriously impair his/her ability to drive that change. Of course, all old patterns are not problematic and some of them might be even helpful. Continuing those helpful patterns can help the leader to provide the team some sense of continuity (and the assurance that the new leader doesn't disrespect the past), which is a big plus from the change management perspective. So, all that is required is to recognize the patterns and discontinue ('exorcise the ghost of') the dysfunctional patterns.

Being politically aware without 'playing politics' : Driving change (which is often the reason why new leaders are brought in) is essentially a 'political' activity as it alters the current distribution of power. Even the very act of introducing a new leader into an organization, can change the power balance! Many leadership transitions fail because the new leaders could not recognize or manage the power dynamics. So, as we have seen in 'A political paradox of OD' , the requirement is to be sensitive to the political dynamics of the organization and to manage it without  'playing politics'. Yes, this is a tightrope walk (and sounds a bit mystical like 'doing without doing') that requires a very high level of self-awareness and critical self-monitoring. In a way, this is part of being 'enlightened' . Remember,  enlightenment is about 'seeing things as they really are' (in the organization). Even for leaders who have been hired with a transformation mandate, 'it makes sense to understand something before trying to change it'! 

Alignment, alignment, alignment : Soon after I joined one of my previous organizations (which had gone through multiple organization transformations) I asked a senior colleague what are the top three things that can make someone successful in that organization. His response was "alignment, alignment, alignment". I have seen this factor being relevant in other organizations also - especially for newly hired leaders. Having alignment with one's boss can be the starting point. My favorite question to ensure alignment on this is : "What would make you recommend the highest performance rating for me?". Enabling alignment with one's team through jointly developing the vision and way forward for the team is very powerful. Consulting widely with key stakeholders before one finalizes the vision and way forward is also very helpful (to deepen one's understanding of the organization, to clarify mutual expectations, to secure buy-in and to start building one's network). For a new leader it is very easy to make wrong (inappropriate)  assumptions based on his/her experience in other organizations. So, these alignment conversations are most helpful. The principle of  'survival of the fittest' (that governs  biological evolution) is applicable to the  'survival of newly hired leaders' also and we must remember that 'fittest' is defined in terms of 'being the best-adapted to the local environment'. Alignment is indeed a very powerful 'fitness' (fitness to the new organization) increasing activity!

So, where does this leave us? Bringing in new leaders is not some sort of a panacea for all the organizations' ills. Before bringing in new leaders, organizations should do some soul-searching on what exactly are the problems they are trying to solve and whether bringing in leaders from outside is the best option. The new leaders should bring in some capabilities or experiences that the organization doesn't have internally (and can't develop in the existing leaders within a reasonable time frame). 'Not being burdened by the past' shouldn't be the primary value that a new leader brings in. Else, the new leader would become part of the 'old' in a very short time (and becomes a candidate for replacing). Organizations should invest more in making the new leader successful. Apart from putting specific programs in place (like new leader integration, mentoring, coaching by senior leaders etc.), organizations should emphasize that the senior leaders who have hired the new leaders are accountable for making the new leaders successful.

Of course, the above discussion is applicable to all new hires and not just to new hires at senior leadership levels. It is just that possible negative impact of a failed or 'troubled' leadership transition (on the team and on the organization)  is much higher.  As we have seen in 'Polarities of leadership' , leadership involves finding the right equilibrium between polarities, that too along multiple dimensions. Newly hired leaders need more help to find the appropriate equilibrium for the new organization context. The encouraging thing is that the upside of a successful leadership transition is also very high and hence worth the additional investment!

Any thoughts/ideas?

*Note: Please see 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for another interaction between the Business Leader and the OD Manager. Kindly note that both the 'Business Leader' and the 'OD Manager'  are 'composite characters' and hence they are not 'constrained by' organization boundaries!

Of developmental advice and the nature of wisdom

This blog claims to be on ‘HR, OD and Personal Effectiveness’. However, there are only a few posts on this blog on personal effectiveness (like ‘Passion for work and anasakti’, ‘ Job and Identity‘ , ‘Personal effectiveness and wisdom’, ‘Of shibumi, areté and personal excellence‘, ‘Of career development and sublimation‘ etc.). Of late, I have been wondering why this has happened. Was it just because most of my work is more directly related to HR and OD? Or is there something deeper, like the nagging feeling that ‘words might not outperform silence’ when it comes to talking about personal effectiveness?  

So, I decided to do an exploration of the nature of 'developmental advice' (any advice that is intended to improve the effectiveness of someone at the workplace or in life in general) and the assumptions underlying most of the developmental advice. This developmental advice can be provided by anyone (e.g. managers, mentors, colleagues, team members, coaches, teachers, parents, elders etc. and sometimes, they are represented by the generic term 'teacher' in this post).

The first thing that I realized was that we need to differentiate between two types of developmental advice - one that is more 'information oriented' and one that is more 'wisdom oriented'. 

Information-oriented development advice is more like development feedback - it provides a piece of information that the person receiving the advice was not aware of. It can be internal (e.g. 'pointing out a blind-spot'  that the person was not aware of) or external (e.g. related to a developmental option that the person was not aware of) in nature. This kind of advice, so long as it is factually correct, is indeed helpful for a person to get started on a development journey though it might not have any influence on how much progress the person is able to make on the journey.

Wisdom-oriented development advice is deeper and more complex. Process of gaining wisdom often involves struggling with (and some times even unsuccessfully struggling with) the complexities in life. 

When it comes to wisdom-oriented developmental advice, the basic assumptions are 

1. that the person giving the advice has gained a higher degree of wisdom (regarding the particular aspect covered in the advice) through his/her life experience   
2. that this wisdom can be communicated and 
3. that the receiver is able to 'absorb' the wisdom and is also able to act on the wisdom

To me, the problem is mainly with assumptions 2 and 3. In general, wisdom is much more difficult to communicate as compared to information. Also, without going through the corresponding life experience, this wisdom, even though it is 'true', might not make sense to the receiver. There is a huge difference between knowing something philosophically and arriving at the same knowledge through experience! 

This brings to mind a Zen story that I came across in one of the books of Osho.  It is about the so called 'first principle of Zen'. The concept is that once you know the first principle of Zen, you become enlightened. The story is as follows:

Once, a beginner asked a Zen master, "Master, What is the first principle?". "If I were to tell you, it would become the second principle", replied the Zen master. 

Probably, it is this point (that wisdom can neither be 'stored' nor be 'communicated', in the normal sense of those words) is what limits the usefulness of most of the self-help books. Of course, self-helps books are often useful in providing hope (that there is light at the end of the tunnel) and encouragement. It is also said that the meaning that one derives from a great book often runs in parallel with or is even independent of what is written. May be, that holds true for all forms of developmental advice that we have been exploring in this post! 

It also makes me wonder if the 'wisdom-level consulting', that I was so keen to do, would really work (even if somehow I manage to 'become wise' in the future)! It is not that I haven't come across  HR consultants who are truly wise (See 'Truth and Beauty : Motivations and Elegance in HR' for an account of my interaction with one such gentleman). My concern is more about to the extent to which the clients would be able to 'absorb'  and 'apply' that wisdom. 

While wisdom can't be communicated, it can indeed be hinted at. While wisdom can't be given, it can be acquired. A wise teacher (or a wise coach or a wise manager) can 'create a field' or 'hold a space'  that maximizes the possibility that the learner is able to derive more understanding or even wisdom from the learner's own experiences (See 'Remarkable Encounters - Part 1: Teacher' for an example from my personal experience). Of course, we can't assume that the person giving the development advice is always correct or that the advice is the right one at the right right for the learner. This highlights the need for the learner to be discerning when it comes to accepting and absorbing developmental advice. This is a bit tricky as this discernment needs some kind of wisdom!

It is interesting to speculate what happens to this 'teacher-student'  relationship (that is so essential for the the above 'learning space' to materialize) when the teachers (or coaches) become (highly-paid/expensive) 'service providers' instead of being 'gurus'! Can the learners (especially when they are paying for it) hold the teachers/coaches accountable for results, and if yes, would that make the outcome (or Key Performance Indicators) move away from 'wisdom' towards 'information and skills'? Can this also lead to conflicts of interest between the teacher/coach and the learner?

While one can learn from the experiences of others, wisdom requires additional work in terms of 'personalization' before it can be absorbed and integrated. Yes, a certain degree of 'readiness' on the part of the student is required for welcoming the wisdom. If 'the teacher appears before the student is ready' the teaching (or coaching) is unlikely to work! When the learner is ready, wisdom might even appear unaided, like the proverbial butterfly that comes on its own and sits softly on one's shoulder. Now, developing this readiness is probably not just a matter of effort (and there is no algorithm for it), and, may be, some sort of 'grace' is involved in this process. Again, wisdom is more a matter of  'being wise in the moment' as compared to that of 'becoming wise for good'! 

Any comments/suggestions?

Note: It can be argued that there is another category of developmental advice called 'knowledge-oriented developmental advice' that comes somewhere in between the 'information-oriented developmental  advice'  and the  'wisdom-oriented developmental advice. This depends on how exactly do we define these three terms (e.g. information as 'processed data', knowledge as 'useful information gained through learning and experience' and wisdom as 'the discernment  to apply the appropriate knowledge to a particular situation'). Even if we bring in this additional category, it can be said that 'knowledge is useful only in those situations where it is almost superfluous'! Please see 'Driven to insights!' for more details.