Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 12 – Magical Transformation of Talent

In this post, let's continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. We have been 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’, 'Herophobia', 'Type N and Type O organizations', ‘The plus one problem’ , ‘Exporting your problems’ and ‘The IR mindset’ for the previous posts in this series).

“If there are times when you feel that you are not being valued by the organization, don’t leave. Quietly do your work. You will come back into fashion!”, said the experienced business leader to the new joiner during an informal conversation. 

Comments like this are quite common. They also true to a large extent. Yes, there are some employees in any organization whose fortunes are relatively steady (remains the same, steadily improve, steadily worsen etc.) But, most of the employees with long tenures have faced some degree of waxing and waning of their fortunes in the organization.

So, let's look a bit more deeply at the question “What are the factors that make the fortunes of an employee wax and wane in an organization?”

Now, 'fortunes of an employee in an organization' can mean different things (like promotions, salary increases, bonuses, being chosen for important roles/projects etc.). To simplify our discussion, let's take the 'talent classification' of the employee (placement of the employee on the 'performance-potential matrix') as the indicator of an employee's fortune in the organization, as this talent classification acts as a key driver for the decisions on promotions/increments/bonuses/roles etc. So, a drastic change in the fortunes of the employee ('magical transformation of talent') can be indicated by more than one step change in the performance and/or potential ratings (say on a 4 point rating scale) of the employee.

Let's look at seven factors that can lead to this kind of a drastic change in employee fortunes. If you were to ask me why exactly seven factors, I can only say that this list of factors is only illustrative (and not exhaustive) and that the number 7 is considered to be a 'perfect number' in many cultures (and some even attach mystical qualities to it)!

1. Role change : If an employee is moved to a role that doesn't play to his/her strengths the performance can reduce significantly, especially in the short-term. One especially unfortunate case (that is more likely in the case of top talent) is to be given a 'stretch role' with an impossible degree of stretch. This, if not managed promptly, can lead not only to a drop in performance but also to loss of confidence in the employee (and to the employee losing self-confidence). See 'Of stretch roles and designed to fail roles' for details. There could also be a more subtle variation of 'role change'  where the role (that the employee has been handling so far) itself changes - in terms of expectations from the role and the skill-set requirements - and if the employee is unable to respond well to these changes, his/her performance can be adversely affected.   
2. Promotion : It is possible that the last promotion moved the employee to 'his level of incompetence'. This is especially true for the 'sublimated' employees who haven't invested enough in building their skills while climbing the organization ladder. See 'Career development and sublimation' for details. 
3. Manager-related changes: This is essentially because of the 'manager discretion'  involved in performance and potential assessments. A well-designed performance management system that also includes calibration involving the other stakeholders in addition to the manager, can help in reducing this subjectivity in manager judgement. As we have seen in 'Paradox of potential assessment' , potential assessments are inherently more subjective and hence more prone to the variations introduced by manager changes. Also, in spite of all the systems, processes and tools that we have implemented to make people management more 'objective' , the 'Chemistry' between two human beings  (the manager and the employee in this case) continues to be a factor in all these decisions (and it is something that will be impacted when there is a manager change). Of course, one's 'equation' with the current manager can also change  and that can add another layer of variability. Another important 'manager-driven' phenomenon is that of 'great by rotation'. This typically happens in those organizations that insist on a fixed distribution of performance and/or potential ratings and a positively differentiated rating is required for promotions. In such cases, managers might be tempted to inflate the performance/potential of different employees each year so as to make them eligible for promotions. So, employees become great by rotation! Using a well-run calibration process for talent decisions (instead of taking a purely Mathematical Approach of relying on rigid distributions and rules) can avoid these kind of situations. 
4. Leadership changes at CEO/CXO levels: Leaders hired with a transformation agenda might look at tenured employees as part of the problem that they need to solve, and, this can lead to a dramatic change in the way the tenured employees are looked at. This is more common in 'Type N Organizations'. See 'Type N and Type O Organizations' for details. 
5. Employee-specific factors : Employees are human beings and their level of effort/involvement/engagement and hence their level of contribution to the organization can vary based on the factors in their personal life. Yes, a supportive talent management system that focuses on 'managing the whole person' can definitely help. See 'Mass career customization' for a related discussion. 
6. Larger organizational factors: Employees' fortunes depends on the fortune of the organization. While the fortune of the organization affects all the employees, the impact on employees might not be uniform. Some roles and skill-sets might become more critical. If there is a restructuring, some roles might get eliminated. This also brings us to another important aspect. These days. it is very much possible that an employee might not necessarily recover/bounce back from a phase of waning fortunes! Yes, change resilience and change agility definitely helps!
7. Luck!: Being ,at the right place at the right time' has always been a key contributor to employee's fortunes. Though sometimes scenario planning and change agility can help us to be 'at the right place at the right time', it is often a matter of pure chance! Depending on one's belief system/'sense-making process', supernatural explanations are also possible. This brings to mind a famous poem in Malayalam that (while referring to the divine) says something like "It is you who makes someone rich and famous in a matter of days; and it is you who makes a king who is living in a place, a rag-picker"!  

So where do these leave us? Waxing an waning of fortunes of employees (including large fluctuations in fortunes that can qualify as 'Magical Transformation of Talent') are very much possible. It can be because of organization and/or individual related factors; and sometimes, even because of plain luck. An awareness of these factors can help the employees to increase their readiness and to manage their careers better, even if many of the career moves they make turn out to be based on emergent opportunities and risks (and not planned in advance). This is even more important these days keeping in mind the disruptive nature of the changes that many organizations are going through! 

I do wonder whether 'top talent  becomes successful in organizations' or 'we are just calling successful employees top talent'! If it is the latter, then the waxing and waning of employee fortunes can definitely impact the talent classification!

Any comments/ideas? 

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 11 – The 'IR mindset'

In this post, let's continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. We have been 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’, 'Herophobia', 'Type N and Type O organizations', ‘The plus one problem’ and ‘Exporting your problems’ for the previous posts in this series).

“You need to be careful when you interact with him. He has an IR mindset!” I was given this cryptic piece of advice by a friend many years ago. This led to an interesting discussion on what he meant by the term  ‘IR (Industrial Relations) mindset’. After that, I have heard similar ideas being talked about in many other organization contexts.  This prompted me to think more about the common themes emerging from those discussions, and this post is the result!

Let me begin by saying that this 'IR mindset' need not necessarily have anything to do with the way ‘Industrial Relations’ is being managed in most of the organizations. The similarities (if any) are with a ‘caricature’ of IR as opposed to the actual practice of IR. See 'Integrating Industrial Relations and Organization Development' for more details. 

A 'mindset' is a fixed mental attitude or disposition, that predetermines a person's responses to/ interpretations of situations. So, the ‘IR mindset’ that we are talking about here is more of a ‘personality orientation’ and a 'world view' that leads to a peculiar way of looking at and influencing the world/interacting with others. In a way, 'IR mindset' (like any other mindset), influences the 'sense-making process' (see 'Architects of meaning') of the individuals who have the mindset. 

So, how do we recognize the 'IR mindset'? The following are 12 defining features (‘signature themes’) of  the ‘IR mindset’ that I have come across:

1. Focusing on dominating as opposed to collaborating (Follows the 'attack is the best form of defense' policy, even when no defense or attack is required!)
2. Making a threat with no real intention to carry it out
3. An obsession with tactics to gain minor advantages/to prove a point,  even at the risk of jeopardizing relationships/long-term credibility
4. Taking an indirect approach where a  more direct approach would have been equally effective
5. Viewing work (and people management) as a ‘Chess game’ or even as a ‘Billiards game’
6. Using information as a source of power/withholding information
7. Focusing on ‘ends’ as opposed to ‘means’ /‘results’ as opposed to ‘processes’/‘hunting as opposed to farming’
8. Seeing each interaction as a ‘negotiation’ (or as 'build up to a negotiation'), attempting to 'soften up' the other party (e.g. by criticizing the other party on an unrelated matter) so as to gain a psychological advantage in the negotiation
9. Tendency to make 'Theory X' assumptions as opposed to 'Theory Y' assumptions
10. Using feedback as a ‘message’ and not as ‘information’ (i.e. the primary focus is on creating the right impact on the individual as opposed to conveying accurate information)
11. Planting 'poison trees' (negative thoughts that grow and take charge of the mind) in the minds of impressionable people to confuse them and to incite them against others; divide and rule!
12. Leveraging the 'drama triangle' - get the other person into the 'victim' position and then act as the 'rescuer' to influence the person

It is not necessary that all the features of the 'IR mindset'  are always wrong/inappropriate. It becomes problematic mainly when it becomes an indiscriminate/habitual response. Usually, the trouble starts when the thin line between ‘management’ and ‘manipulation’ is crossed!

During the initial phases of the interaction, people with 'IR mindset' often manage to 'get their way' or gain advantage over the others. However, over a period of time, others figure out what is happening and take necessary precautions to protect their interests. They might also lose their trust in and respect for the people with 'IR mindset'. It is interesting to note that people with 'IR mindset' often have a tendency to underestimate the intelligence of others. It can lead to situations where they persist with the 'IR approach' even after it has lost its effectiveness in a relationship.


Now, let us do some speculation. Are there are a set of conditions that might increase the possibility of someone developing the 'IR mindset' (apart from any inherent personality related factors)? Let's take a look at a couple of hypotheses:


(1) Certain types of ‘early career experiences’ : Like we have seen in ‘Influence of early career experiences’, experiences at the beginning of one’s career (e.g. on the first job) can have a profound impact on a person’s thinking/approach/worldview as they can shape the person definition of ‘what good looks like’ (i.e. what is an appropriate response). An example  in our case could be that of working with  bosses (or ‘significant others’) who have the IR mindset  at an impressionable stage in one's career.
  
(2) Being forced to grow up too fast : This (being forced to grow up too fast) can happen in life (e.g. being sent to a hostel at a very young age) or in the workplace (e.g. being thrust into a role way beyond he person’s current capabilities – please see ‘Career Development and Sublimation’ for more details)

Now, two questions for you:

• Have you seen this ‘IR mindset’ in action? 
• Do you have any thoughts on other factors that might  lead to the development of the ‘IR mindset’?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 10 – Exporting your problems

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’, 'Herophobia', 'Type N and Type O organizations' and ‘The plus one problem’ for the previous posts in this series).

'Exporting the problems' is one of the most common ‘crimes’ in the domain of Talent Management. This refers to attempts by people managers to move the 'low-performing' and/or 'difficult to manage' members in their team to other teams in the organization. Since no people manager would want to accept a low performer into his/her team, this ‘crime’ often involves some degree of ‘deception’. This could include tactics like not giving an accurate picture of the performance of the employee (e.g. if the performance ratings are yet to be assigned) or even artificially inflating the performance rating of a poor-performing employee so that he/she comes into the ‘good performance’ category for the next one year.

An effective way to prevent this ‘crime’ (apart from calibrating performance ratings to ensure accuracy and/or having the process of the new manager thoroughly evaluating the employee before accepting the transfer) is to stipulate that unless the performance of an employee is good, he/she won’t be eligible for any role changes. This would encourage the managers to focus on helping the employee to improve his/her performance before recommending any transfer to other teams, and if the performance improvement efforts fail, to initiate the exit process for that employee. An exception to this rule can be made in the case of employees who were very good performers in their previous roles in the organization. In those cases, the current low-performance is likely to be a ‘person-role’ fit issue and they can be moved to roles similar to their previous role if possible.

An extreme form of ‘exporting the problems’ involves recommending an employee for a promotion with the condition that he/she should be moved to other teams. The rationale given by the manager could include things like the next level jobs in the current team being too complex, the concerns existing team members would have if their peer becomes their manager etc. Here also, the solution could be to specify that unless the manager is willing to move the employee into a next level role within the his/her team (if and when such an opportunity comes up) the manager can’t recommend a promotion for that employee.
   

There is another interesting (but very unfortunate) possible fallout these attempts by managers to 'export their problems'. Over a period of time, managers in the organization lose trust in the recommendations of other managers when it comes to talent moves. This makes it difficult for managers to export low-performers. Since many of the managers might not want to let go of their best performers (some sort of ‘talent hugging’ behavior) and since they can’t export the low performers any more, they tend to recommend the average performers in their team as an when new opportunities come up. This can create a situation where the best talent loses out on career opportunities and the average talent gets those opportunities. This can lead to the average talent progressing faster from career development point of view (as compared to the best talent), and this in turn can lead to the exit of the best talent from the organization. So, mediocrity triumphs!  

An effective talent management system that ensures accurate visibility of the performance of employees to the key stakeholders beyond the immediate manager is the first step in preventing the kind of problems mentioned above. Of course, clearly articulating the talent philosophy, building people manager capability and having the right performance measures for people managers would be of immense help. Ideally, the talent moves should be based on detailed talent management calibration discussions (involving the other key stakeholders also, in addition to the manager) that matches the employee aspirations, strengths, performance and potential with the emerging requirements of the organization (and also provides structured feedback to the employees)! 

It is a bit funny to hear people managers speaking about their willingness (or lack of it) to 'release' talent from their team. The term 'release' is more appropriate in situations like  releasing someone from a prison or from a lunatic asylum. Yes, managers need to get the work done and they need good quality talent to accomplish that. So the people management system should ensure timely availability of high quality talent (leveraging strategic workforce planning and outcomes of talent management calibration discussions) to replace the high-performers who are moving to other teams. However, speaking about 'releasing talent' might be an indication that people managers have 'inappropriate mental models' about talent and talent mobility! 

Any comments/ideas? 

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 9 - The plus one problem

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’, 'Herophobia' and 'Type N and Type O organizations' for the previous posts in this series).

"I am as competent as my boss. The only difference between the two of us is that he speaks slightly better English!", said the sales team leader during a Focus Group Discussion(FGD) based on the employee engagement survey results. I have heard statements like this quite frequently across organizations. This made me think more deeply about the 'plus one problem'!

So, what exactly is this 'plus one problem'? It is very simple. Each reporting layer in an organization tends to think that the level immediately above it is useless, or, at least highly overpaid!

There could be many reasons that lead to the 'plus one problem'. Let's look at five of the most  common ones!

1. The  unique value addition from each reporting layer is not clearly specified: For example, sales volume target might appear in the Key Result Areas (KRAs) of a Front-line Sales person, that of a Sales Team Leader and that of a Sales Manager. If the unique value addition from each level (e.g. the Sales Manager sets the sales strategy and decides on resource allocation, the Sales Team Leader creates the optimum route plan and provides coaching/problem solving support to the Front-line Sales people etc.) is not specified, it can appear that the bosses are just adding up the targets of their direct reports and taking (stealing!) the credit!
2. Too many reporting layers : This can exacerbate the problem mentioned in (1) above. It is also possible that some roles in the structure don't make logical sense (See 'Do regional and global roles always make sense?' for a detailed discussion). In a broad-banded structure the 'plus one problem' is less likely to happen. 
3. Behavior of the bosses : If the bosses take their 'right to lead' for granted and don't ask themselves the question 'What exactly is the value that I am adding to each of the team members?' and take sincere action based on that, the 'plus one problem' is highly likely to happen. Of course, if the bosses are not fully competent or if they have reached their level of incompetence (see 'Career Development and sublimation') it definitely adds to the problem.  
4. Lack of developmental feedback: Development feedback (e.g. what do I need to develop/improve to develop readiness for the next level jobs) is rare as compared to performance feedback(e.g. how well am I doing in my current job). Sometimes, this happens because managers are reluctant to get into such a discussion (on what are the skill gaps the employee has as compared to the requirements for the next level jobs) - especially in the case of high-performers - because they don't want to distract/annoy the employees. While this buys short-term peace, the employee feels cheated in the long term (as he/she is not getting promoted despite great performance and apparently no skill gaps). Sometimes, this happens because the organization doesn't have a career framework (that specifies what exactly is required to be ready for each of the roles in the organization and how to work towards that) and/or because the organization hasn't invested enough in the career development of the employees. 
5. Superiority Illusion : Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates his own abilities and contribution, in relation to the abilities and contributions of other people. See 'Performance ratings and the above-average effect' for a detailed discussion on this cognitive bias and how to deal with it. Lack of accurate development feedback mentioned in (4) above is often a very significant contributing factor to the unhindered existence of the superiority illusion that leads to the 'plus one problem'.

If the above actors are addressed, the 'plus one problem' can be mitigated to a large extent. Deep psychological factors (like the 'superiority illusion' mentioned above) don't completely disappear and hence a total victory over the 'plus one problem' is unlikely! By the way, there could another interesting principle operating here. As per 'tournament theory', the boss is paid much more because it would make everyone else aspire to be the boss and hence they will work harder even without additional payment (and hence overpaying the boss economically efficient)!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 8 - ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations!

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ and 'Herophobia' for the previous posts in this series).

Based on my experience as an employee and as a management consultant, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Some organizations are optimized for newly hired employees (‘Type N’ organizations) whereas some organizations are optimized for tenured/'old' employees(‘Type O’ organizations). Of course, there are organizations that are equally good (or equally bad!) for all the employees! However, ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations are quite common!

One easy way to determine the type of the organization is to see how employee engagement scores vary with tenure. Yes, the dividing line between ‘new’ and ‘old’ varies across organizations  I have seen organizations where you become an ‘old employee’ as soon as you complete one year and I have seen organizations where you will be considered to be a ‘new employee’ till you complete about five years. While the median tenure of employees in the organization has some impact on this ‘new-old dividing line’, it is usually a matter of organization psychology and is not directly derived statistically!

In ‘Type N’ organizations, 'not being burdened by the past' is a great advantage. So, the new hires, especially new leaders, have the advantage. These tend to be organizations that believe that new employees are hired to solve particular problems or to seize particular opportunities that the existing employees have failed to do. In these organizations, ‘tenure’ seems to have psychological association with ‘inability to drive change’. They might even consider many of the existing employees to be part of the problem! Hence, new hire has an advantage, so long as he/she is considered ‘new’. The difficulty is that the ‘new’ employee can move to the ‘old’ category quite quickly (and even get fired fairly quickly). If this happens mainly because of an underlying/unstated assumption that ‘new is good’, this ‘new-old-out-new’ cycle can repeat!  

'Type O' organizations tend to believe that one needs to understand the organization context deeply before one can really contribute, especially at senior levels. So, tenure is valued. These also tend to be organizations where it takes quite a bit of time for a newcomer to figure out how the organization really works. In these organizations, often the effective style of influencing tends to be ‘indirect’ (almost like billiards- you hit something so that it goes and hits the target as compared to hitting the target directly)! This doesn’t mean that ‘Type O’ organizations don’t value performance. It is more matter of a newcomer taking time to figure out how to perform better. Things get progressively easier as you spend more time in the organization. In a way, it is like batting on a difficult wicket. It takes time to ‘get your eye in’ but things become much easier after that. It becomes so wasteful to 'throw your wicket away' (leave the organization) after having done all the hard work to 'get your eye in'.  

Now, let’s look at an interesting question :  “Can the organization type change?” The answer is ‘Yes’. This happens mostly when there is a leadership change at the CEO level and sometimes at CXO level. A new leader, hired with a transformation agenda, can view most of the tenured employees as ‘part of the problem to be solved’ and hence might replace them with external hires. If a critical mass of ‘new people’ are brought in (and ‘old people are vilified), the organization can move from Type O to Type N. Now, two scenarios can happen. The first one is that newly hired people and the CEO/CXO stays on for a long time and the organization starts drifting towards Type O. The second scenario is that the new CEO/CXO keeps on replacing may of the people (including many of the newly hired people) as soon as they become ‘old’ (e.g. after 1-2 years) and hence the organization continues to be Type N.

In 'Type O' organizations, the leadership (especially at CEO/CXO levels) tend to remain remarkably stable  and that increases the probability that the organization continues to be 'Type O'. It is when a 'Type O' organization under-performs for a long time that a 'Type N' CEO is brought in, and the possible shift to being a 'Type N' begins. If the new 'Type N' CEO doesn’t have sufficient powers, he/she can easily get lost in the system or the system might even reject him/her. This ‘reaction’ of the system can be one of the reasons why the new CEO might be tempted to make a lot of people changes. Of course, there are indeed wise 'Type N' CEOs who are very selective and fact-based about the people changes!

So what does this mean? It definitely makes sense to figure out if you are joining a 'Type N' or 'Type O' organization. It is part of the psychological alignment required on what good looks like! Obviously, it makes sense to join a Type O organizations only if you are willing to sweat it out for a long period – significantly beyond the 'new-old dividing line' in the organization. Since they are optimized for new people, it is easier to join type N and to come up to speed faster. But the danger is that of the transition from ‘new’ to ‘old’. So, one must join for the right reasons (beyond the organization being 'Type N'). Remaining a bit of an outsider can definitely help,  especially in driving change.  Of course, being a bit of an outsider while being a full member of the organisation is a delicate balancing act!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 7 – Herophobia

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ and ‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ for the previous posts in this series).

Why are we so wary of the term 'hero' in business organizations? This is a question that has intrigued me quite a bit. We actively look for heroes in other walks of life. Even when it comes to a novel or a movie, a hero is almost always present. Considering all this, why is it so fashionable to make statements like “we don’t have any heroes in our organization” when it comes to business organizations?

To avoid any possible confusion, let’s clarify the basic terminology for our discussion. We are using the term ‘hero’ in a gender-neutral sense here. So 'hero' doesn't have to be male (or the 'alpha male'!)  The sense in which we are using the term ‘hero’ here is quite similar to what Joseph Campbell does in his book ‘The hero with a thousand faces’. So a hero is someone who goes beyond the current boundaries, conquers difficulties, brings back something that is of immense value to the group and also undergoes a personal transformation in the while doing all this. 

The benefit of the hero to the group is in terms of expanding the horizons of the group and also in terms of motivating other members of the group to realize the heroic potential in them. Once the hero is back, he/she goes back to his/her old ‘job’ but approaches it in a new (better/higher) manner. Of course, the journey can start again on a different dimension (and hence becoming a hero is a continuous process and not some sort of one-time achievement or ‘certification’!).

So the hero is different from a celebrity or a superstar! Also, heroes and leaders have different roles in a group (though they are not mutually exclusive). While the hero provides outstanding positive examples by going beyond the current standards in the group, it is not their role to ‘rescue the group or the group members from trouble’.

I guess most of the herophobia is because of the concern that if a group celebrates heroes it might become dependent on the heroes, that it might impede teamwork or that the others in the group might feel inferior. In a way, it is also because of the residue of the reaction to the (now discredited) ‘great man theory of leadership’. Based on our discussion so far it can be seen that these fears are unfounded. 

Apart from the above factors that lead to herophobia at the organization level, there could also be factors operating at the individual level. That we want to be heroes is evident from the fact that most of us like to live out the hero's journey vicariously through identifying with the heroes in novels and movies. Hence, it is not that we don't like being heroes. Probably, what leads to herophobia at the individual level is some sort of 'learned helplessness' based on the belief that we can't be heroes (and that only a 'special few' can be heroes). So if we want to be something, and we can't do it and we see a some others (heroes) do it, it can trigger a host of negative emotions ranging from frustration, envy and fear. As these are uncomfortable  emotions, we might not consciously recognize or own them! As we will see shortly, this learned helplessness is based on a wrong assumption (about who can be a hero) and hence unwarranted.

Being a hero is not a 'character trait' that is present only in a few people. It is essentially a process of exploration and personal transformation that all of us can undertake. The hero’s journey gives hope to the other members of the team (that is work can be much more meaningful and impactful) and inspires them to kindle the spark of heroic potential in them. We must remember that the hero has a ‘thousand faces’ (or an 'infinite' number of faces) and hence (inspired by the heroes) every group members can be a hero. Heroes are very much part of the group and they are in no way an impediment to team work!

Now, let's come back to the "We don’t have any place for heroes in our organization; we have place only for teams that swim or sink together” kind of statements that we came across at the beginning of this post. They are based on a misunderstanding of the role of the hero in a group. Using the same metaphor, we can say that ''heroes not only swim with us but also help us to redefine how fast, how far and in which direction we can swim and thereby help us to realize our own heroic potential"!

So where does this leave us? It is clearly beneficial to the group to celebrate the journey and achievements of the heroes (without making them ‘celebrities’ or ‘privileged few’) in a way that it encourages the others in the group to realize heroic potential. They should be highlighted as examples that all of us can learn from, help us redefine what is possible and thereby give us hope and courage to unleash our true human potential. One doesn’t qualify as a hero unless one brings back something of significant value to the group and hence the hero’s journey is not some sort of ‘ego trip’. Also the personal transformation itself is the greatest reward for the hero. The power of the hero derives from the inner-strength he/she developed from the journey and not from the group putting the hero on a pedestal. Hence, the heroes don't need to monopolize the limelight or the rewards.

These days, when finding meaning and realizing one’s potential becomes increasingly important for employees at work, herophobia can limit the options available to the organizations. It might be worth considering modelling some of the long-term people development programs on the hero’s journey (see ‘Accelerated learning and rites of passage’ for a somewhat similar discussion on an anthropological approach to facilitate role transitions).

Another related application of the hero's journey is in coaching, especially to help an employee to discover his/her calling and to chart out the journey to fulfill the calling. It helps to derive more meaning from coaching and to provide better orientation and more hope for the journey of self-discovery and personal transformation. In this way, coaching becomes a conversation with the hero latent in all of us! By the way, coaching can also help in unlearning the 'learned helplessness' that we discussed earlier (the one that is based on a wrong assumption about who can be a hero and hence leading to herophobia).

Yet another application is in culture building and cultural induction of new hires. Telling stories about the deeds of heroes that exemplify the values of the organization is a  great way to communicate and reinforce the values of the organization!

It is interesting to note that the concept of 'hero' became 'unfashionable' in business organizations mainly in the last two decades. To some extent it was triggered by the highly visible/publicized  failures of some of the 'celebrity leaders' who were wrongly equated with 'heroes'. This in turn triggered the apprehensions related to the possible adverse impact on the organizations and teams that we looked at earlier. All this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of hero and who can be a hero. So, at its core, this post has been an attempt to 're-democratize' the concept of a hero so that it becomes accessible to all of us and we can leverage it to realize our heroic potential!.

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 6 – Two plus two personality profiling

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment' and ‘Training the Victim’ for the previous posts in this series).

Personality profiling is an evergreen business. Human beings find other human beings difficult to understand. And, those who bother to think about it, find themselves to be even more difficult to understand!  So, if there is a 'scientific-looking tool' that can enable us to map (fix!) ourselves and others into some sort of  'neat categories' with 'precise-looking' characteristics and consequences, it reduces our (existential) anxiety and gives us a feeling of being in control. 

Now, there are all kinds of personality profiling tools. Almost everyone would claim that their tool is the best (and an unadulterated blessing to mankind) and that the other tools are so seriously flawed that they can corrupt young (and old) minds and even souls! Though the validity and  usefulness of these tools are doubtful, personality profiling tools can provide amusement and a pleasant diversion from the unpleasant realities of work! Since, I have always aspired to be some sort of a 'Corporate Court Jester' (see 'OD Managers and Court Jesters' for details), how can I resist the temptation to jump into the business of personality profiling - at least for comic relief?!

My preference is for tools that are more like 'straws in the wind' - simple ones that can give an indication regarding the direction of the wind (personality). One option to make this kind of tools work is to leverage the following phenomenon: when we give people an ambiguous question, people will project their own meanings into it and hence their answers would reveal quite a bit about their personality. Actually, this is similar to what happens in a human process lab where an unstructured situation is deliberately created so that participants will project their 'here and now' reality into it (say, in their attempts to structure the situation) which in turn can serve as a mirror for the underlying feelings and thoughts. All this led to the creation of the 'two plus two' personality profiling tool.

So, what is this '2 + 2' personality profiling tool? 

• 2+2 profiling aims to highlight some aspects of the occupational personality of the individuals concerned based on how they will answer the question ‘What is two plus two?’

• 2+2 profile is more of a ‘caricature’ and it is not intended to a ‘portrait’ of the individual

• 2+2 profiling is intended to be a joke (with a grain of truth)

• 2+2 profiling won’t work on people who have a mathematical approach to life (See ‘A mathematical approach to HR’ for details).

Since this is a 'caricature' of the personality(and not a portrait), directly asking the question "What is two plus two' won't work. If we want to get an interesting answer, we have to ask people to answer the question "What is two plus two?'  in such a way that it reflects some prominent aspect of their occupational personality. However, considering the fact that we are better at making caricatures of others as compared to making caricatures of ourselves (and that many of us are likely to have an overly positive image of ourselves), it might be even better to ask  people to indicate how different members of their team are likely to answer this question in a way that it reflects the most prominent aspects of occupational personality of those team members.

Now, let us look at some of the possible answers. Of course, many more are possible!

• Why do want to know? Why are you asking me? Who told you that I know the answer? What will you do with this information?

• Before we can answer this question, we need to have a detailed discussion on 'What is addition?'

• The answer can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 22 depending on the organization culture!

• Both the 2s are my family friends. Let me tell you long stories about my last 4 meetings with them. By the way, since both of them are family friends, it won’t be proper for me to add them!

• What do you want the answer to be? You can choose the answer you like and I can help you to convince others that it is the right answer

Is there anything at all that you can infer from the answers about the people involved?

Can you think of any modifications to the tool that can make it more effective in bringing out the personality characteristics?  

What about possible applications for the tool? For example, can we do some sort of a team building activity using this tool? This could involve asking the team members to write down different answers to the above question so as to highlight key personality characteristics of themselves and of each of the other team members. Then each person can look at the various answers that others have written to highlight his/her personality characteristics and try to infer what could be the underlying personality characteristics. May be, they will learn something useful about themselves or at least about perceptions others have about them!.

Any ideas/suggestions?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 5 – Training the victim

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here 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’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements'  and 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment' for the previous posts in this series).

Training the victim' is one of the most common 'crimes' committed in the domain of HR/Learning and Development. Often, this 'crime' follows a standard plot. There is a steady deterioration in the performance of a unit. Customers are unhappy. There is a lot of firefighting happening. The unit head is shouting at the senior employees. But nothing seems to be working. The unit head feels that since the situation hasn't improved despite all his efforts, the employees must be incompetent and/or don't have the right attitude (e.g. 'solutions mindset'). So he calls the HR Business Partner demands that the employees should be trained urgently. This leads to things like attitude training, skill-based training and training the managers in the unit on people management (under fancy names like 'engaging and energizing teams'). The employees dutifully attend the training programs, though they feel that they are being blamed (or even 'punished') for no fault of theirs. Even after the training programs have been rolled out, there is no significant improvement in the performance of the unit. 

These kind of situations occur mainly because of wrong diagnosis/wrong need identification. The main problem in these contexts might not necessarily be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policy, business process or leadership level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the organization/unit head to address the issues/make changes at these levels. So there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue and to attempt a training solution. Since the real issue remains unaddressed (despite the 'training solution'), there can't much improvement in the situation. 

I am not saying that there won't be issues at the individual capability level. Of course, this possibility should also be explored and if there is evidence for the existence of such a need, an appropriate learning solution could be attempted. My point is just that a proper diagnosis needs to be carried out before a solution is attempted (instead of jumping into the most convenient solution) and that when it comes to taking the responsibility for the deterioration in the performance of the unit in such situations, sometimes, the individual employees are 'more sinned against than sinned'.

Often, the way the HR function is structured in the organization increases the possibility of a wrong diagnosis. This happens mostly in those organizations where the Learning function separate from the Organization Development and HR Business Partner functions. In these contexts, when a business leader directly contacts the Learning specialist supporting the unit with a 'capability problem' (or even with the request for a particular training program), it is highly possible that the Learning specialist just carries out the request without spending much effort to check if the problem has been diagnosed correctly and if a training solution is appropriate. Sometimes, this happens because the Learning specialist does not have sufficient understanding of the entire business/people context in the unit or because the training specialist does not have the requisite diagnostic/consulting skills. In these cases, 'training need identification' becomes no more than 'order taking'. Also, if the training specialist is measured mainly on the number of training programs/number of person-days of training, then there might not be much incentive for the training specialist to 'refuse an order' or even to 'question an order'!

Hence, a close partnership between the Learning function and the Organization Development/HR Business Partner functions will help in making the diagnosis/need identification more accurate by bringing in the requisite diagnosis/consulting skills, enhanced understanding of the context and greater credibility/influence with the business leaders (see OD Managers as Court Jesters). This would also make the 'solution' more appropriate and enhance the effectiveness of implementation by being able to manage the change better. Of course, defining the mandate for the Learning function in a more holistic manner and using the correct performance parameters to assess/reward Learning specialists would also be required.

Any comments/ideas?

Note: It is interesting to note that from a psychological point of view, 'training the victim' can be considered to be a variation (or a mild version) of the broader theme of 'blaming the victim'. This involves holding the victims responsible (at least in part) for what happened to them when something bad happens. This enables others (e.g. the unit head in this case) to absolve themselves of any blame/responsibility and also to reduce cognitive dissonance which would have resulted if they had to admit that the 'system' (strategy/structure/policy/process, in this case) that they were responsible in creating/managing might be at fault. This, in turn, helps them to avoid the need for taking the more difficult/painful remedial steps that are required to address the real issue/cause of the problem. 

Sometimes, this can also lead to tragic-comic situations. A few years ago, I heard about a situation where there was a proposal to conduct 'followership training' for the entire staff in a unit. Apparently, the unit head was a very poor leader and he was making the life of his staff miserable, leading to problems in employee engagement and retention (that, in turn, were creating issues for the HR team). Since it was felt that the unit head won't be open to any sort of feedback and/or training, it was being suggested that the staff in the unit be trained in followership (as the leader won't be/can't be trained on leadership)! This might qualify as a classic case of 'trying to solve the wrong problem' !

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 4 – Computer-controlled Manager empowerment

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’,  'In the valley of attrition'  and 'Sublimation of vision statements' for the previous posts in this series).

People managers provide the last-mile connectivity for people processes and policies. Empowering people managers is a great way to 'customize' standard HR processes and policies to meet the needs of a particular context. Computer-controlled Manager empowerment (CcMe) has evolved as a response to the need (especially in large organizations) for empowering  managers to take people-related decisions while ensuring conformance to organization level guidelines and budgets. 

This CcMe takes many forms. One typical form is  that of a budget cascade, say for annual increments or bonus. Here the manager is free to distribute among his team members the budget that has been cascaded to him in whichever way he wants so long as he doesn't exceed the budget (else the computer won't save his recommendation). In some cases, a default allocation to each employee pre-populated (e.g. based on performance rating and other relevant factors) and the manger can choose whether or not to redistribute.

All this works reasonably well if the manager has a large team and hence he has the room to redistribute. In the case of small teams, this can lead to the managerial discretion becoming more of an illusion! Yes, in some implementations (where the absolute budget constraint is not at the level of the manager) manager can align his boss and exceed the budget. However, this 'pushes the problem up' and the absolute budget constraint has to come in at some level or the other. 

In some organizations, apart from the budget constraint, there are also some guidelines given (e.g. a preferred range for salary increments) and if the manager violates any of those guidelines, while the computer would save his recommendation, an alert/flag would be visible to everyone in the reporting chain of the manager. The message to the manager is, you can deviate from the guidelines but the deviation would be highlighted and you should be able to justify if you are asked to do so (an additional relevance of 'CcMe'!). So, the manager empowerment is subject to monitoring through the information system. This way of working can extend (beyond budget cascades) to other cases of managerial discretion also (e.g. in the case of managerial discretion in the case of HR policies like travel policy, leave policy, promotion policy etc).

Of course, this is not a perfect solution. A manager who is willing to take risks can get away with a lot of dubious decisions - especially if the people who could do the monitoring are not so keen to look at the data and/or to question the manager. Also, people who run reports at the large group/corporate level (who might look at the data in the reports in isolation - without adequate understanding the context around a particular set of data) could trigger a lot of false alarms. This could end up wasting a lot of time and irritating the managers ! 

Now, let's come back to budget cascades (for bonus, salary increments etc.). It is interesting to note that the computer-control can't avoid psychological factors from affecting the decisions. Of course, there are things that could be done to make it psychologically easier for the manager to apply discretion. Let's look an example. 

Many managers find it psychologically difficult to 'take money away' from one person in the team so that it can be given to another person in the team. It sounds like 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'! This is especially so if the performance ratings have already been factored into the default recommendation or if the increment % (as compared to previous years/industry) or bonus % (as compared to target bonus) is low. 

One psychological trick is to populate a lower percentage/amount, as compared to that dictated by the budget and guidelines, as the default recommendation for each employee  (e.g.  2 % lower) so that manager would see some extra/un-allocated budget over and above the amount used for the default recommendations. This allows the manager to apply his discretion/allocate this 'extra' amount to the more deserving people in his team without  feeling guilty about taking money away from anyone! 

So, a combination of 'computer-control' and psychology might be better than 'computer-control' alone so long as the managers are human!

Any comments/ideas?