Of trophies and battle-scars

This post was triggered by the conversations that I have had with Human Resources (HR) leaders who had played a leading role in 'workforce restructuring'/'workforce right-sizing' efforts in their respective companies. What struck me the most was the wide variation in the manner in which those restructuring efforts impacted these leaders. This was most evident in the way those leaders remembered those experiences, in the way talked about their role in those restructuring efforts and in the marks (residual emotions) it seems to have left on them as individuals. 

On one end of the spectrum were leaders who were 'deeply scarred' by those experiences. It was quite painful for them even to speak about it. On the other end were leaders who proudly displayed those experiences as 'trophies'.  Most of the HR leaders fall somewhere in between these two extremes. 

After the restructuring was done, there were leaders who organized lavish 'victory celebrations' for the restructuring team and there were leaders who found a way to avoid such celebrations. Some of them immediately updated their CVs/LinkedIn profiles to highlight this expertise (or even positioned themselves as 'restructuring experts') while the other leaders didn't do anything of that sort. 

The interesting thing was that the above variations were not really a matter of how successful those restructuring efforts were or how significant/effective were the roles of the leaders in those restructuring efforts! 

One of the factors that makes this issue complex is the dual role played by HR leaders - as they are both the facilitators and the survivors of restructuring!

Survivors of restructuring/downsizing exercises often suffer from the so called ‘workplace survivor syndrome’ with symptoms like anxiety, depression, decrease in performance, poor morale and increased propensity to leave. At the heart of the survivor syndrome lies two emotions- guilt (“I didn't deserve to survive when my friends didn't”) and fear (“Next time, it could be my turn”). Being employees (and human beings) themselves, the HR leaders are not immune to these emotions/reactions!

In the case of the HR leaders, since they were also facilitators of restructuring, the feeling of guilt can get accentuated. This usually happens in those cases where the HR leaders take their 'employee champion' role as seriously as their 'business partner role' and for some reason they feel that they haven't done all they should have done in the given context. 

Usually, the HR leaders are not the final decision-makers on whether to initiate restructuring/whether restructuring is the best option to enhance organization effectiveness in a given context. Being part of the leadership team they are expected to contribute to/influence the decision-making process and to implement the decision once the decision has made. Yes, how early they get involved in the decision-making process and the degree of influence they have on the same will have a bearing on the level of conviction and ownership they feel. 

Also, the HR leaders often play a very important part in deciding how exactly the restructuring should be carried out, how to balance the organization and employee interests/perspectives, how to ensure fairness and how to minimize possible adverse impact on the employer brand, employee engagement and productivity. Yes, they do understand that sometimes 'surgery' is required. Even in those situations, they feel the responsibility to use a 'surgeon's blade' (not a 'butcher's knife') and to provide sufficient post-operative care!

Depending on how true the HR leaders have been to their own convictions during these actions, the level of guilt or satisfaction can vary significantly. Yes, it also depends on the personality of the HR leaders involved - some of them tend to assume too much responsibility and some of them tend to assume too little responsibility (or even psychologically distance themselves from the actions, sometimes using humor for doing so). 

Some of the HR leaders look at restructuring as 'just another task to be done' (something that 'comes with the terrain') and some of the HR leaders look at look at restructuring as something that can potentially create a conflict with their personal values or their belief systems (one HR leader told me that 'he accumulated a lot of bad karma' through his involvement in a particular restructuring exercise!) or with their motivations for a career in HR. From a larger perspective, it can be said that the very topic of 'business-orientation of HR' is indeed a paradoxical one.

Many of the HR leaders felt that communicating the job loss to the impacted employees individually was the most difficult part. Here also, the degree of conviction the HR leaders had about the need for the restructuring, the fairness of the process followed and the adequacy of the transition support provided to the impacted employees, drove the psychological impact on the HR leaders. Another important factor here (for the psychological impact on HR leaders) was whether these difficult conversations with the impacted employees were entirely 'outsourced' to HR or it was jointly owned and carried out by the line managers and the HR leaders. Yes, the 'axe-man' or 'executioner' personas are difficult to integrate for most of the people!  

It is also interesting to look at the sense-making process in the context of restructuring. Often, the restructuring process is interpreted/positioned as an important enabler for organization transformation and it is referred to by highly positive-sounding terms like 'organization renewal', 'workforce refresh' and 'top-grading'. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with these terms (the organization reality is socially constructed to large extent and these terms can serve as 'generative metaphors' in that social construction of reality) so long as they mirror the true intent. Also, from the point of view of the psychological impact on the HR leaders who are facilitating the change, this kind of positive positioning of the change can be very beneficial, if they are convinced about the positioning.  Yes, whether or not these actions/changes make a net positive difference to the organization is often difficult to determine in the short-term. It can be very much psychologically damaging for the HR leaders to feel that they are in some sort of a 'Sisyphus-like' situation where the years of work they have done in the organization to build employee engagement and the employer brand is getting ruined because of the restructuring!  

So, where does this leave us? Whether their involvement in facilitating a restructuring/downsizing effort becomes more of a 'trophy' or more of a 'battle-scar' for the HR leaders involved depends on a wide range of factors that go beyond the 'success' of the restructuring effort (seen in the context of its stated objectives). Yes, these two (trophies and battle-scars) need not necessarily be mutually exclusive. It can also be said that while our discussion here focused on the HR leaders, most of it applies to the Business Leaders also (i.e. the psychological impact of leading restructuring efforts in the case of business leaders).

'Battle-scars' need not necessarily be a bad thing. In a way, they make us 'battle-hardened' and more ready for future battles! By the way, it has been said that in some of the ancient societies 'counting the number of battle-scars' was used as the method for selecting leaders!!

Any comments/ideas?

The tale of two SMEs

The stream of thoughts that resulted in this post was triggered by the interactions that I have had with a number of Subject Matter Experts(SMEs) across companies some time ago, when we were trying to put together a set of capability building solutions in a particular domain. 

All these SMEs were highly valued and respected in their respective organizations. Yet, I found them to be different in their orientation and their approach. Two of those SMEs represented the two ends of a spectrum (hence the title of this post!). The other SMEs were in between these two 'poles' in terms of their orientation. 

One of the SMEs had a deep understanding of the theories and principles underlying the domain, in addition to the knowledge of the models, best practices and tools. He had done a PhD in that domain and had worked in other reputed companies before he joined this organization. While he also had good understanding of the business, he tended to look at the business problems primarily through the lens of his expertise in the domain.

The other SME had a very good understanding of how things work in that domain in that particular organization. This was gained through working very closely with a wide range of people in that organization (including senior business leaders) for many years. While he was knowledgeable about the models and tools in the domain, it was mostly learned on the job. He had spent most of career in that particular organization and  had grown rapidly in his career in the organization. While he was aware of the underlying theories and principles, he tended to consider them as a bit 'theoretical'!   

Now, both of them were considered to be high performers in their organizations (i.e. both of them were effective in their own way) and hence it was apparent that there were many ways to be an SME. In a way, these two SMEs represented what Robert Pirsig refers to as the the 'classical understanding' (looking at things in terms of their underlying form) and 'romantic understanding' (looking at things in terms of their immediate appearance). Of course, both of these ways of understanding are valuable. 

We must also remember that 'value' is defined by the customer (the business leaders in this case). The fact that both these SMEs were highly valued by the business leaders in their respective organizations was also a reflection of the organization culture (or at least their definitions of 'what good looks like' in the case of SMEs) to a large extent. Yes, it is very much possible that the first SME might not be considered to be so valuable in an organization that worships speed of response and prefers 'trial and error' method of working. Similarly, it is very much possible that the second SME might not be as effective if he moves to another organization (till he develops deep contextual understanding and great working relationships). 

Yes, from the point of view of developing capability building solutions that can work across organizations, the first SME was more helpful - as he could easily take a step back and look at look at the challenges/problems in the domain through a more abstract lens and hence could come up with useful generalizations that can hold good across situations. But, in terms of helping new employees in that domain to be successful in his particular organization, the second SME was very effective (especially in terms of providing success tips and dos and don'ts). There was also another interesting difference. In terms of identifying key areas for capability building, the first SME tended to focus more on functional/technical skills whereas the second SME tended to focus more on behavioral skills. 

Typically, an SME (or a 'deep-specialist') is defined as a person with deep understanding of a particular domain(area/subject) who can help others to develop expertise in that domain and to solve complex problems in that domain. Usually, the SMEs have developed their expertise over a long period of time though a combination of advanced studies and professional experience. Many of the SMEs contribute to advancing the knowledge in the domain through publishing articles/books.  For being effective as an SME, being able to share their knowledge with others, being able to work/collaborate with others and being able to coach/mentor others are very important, in addition to possessing deep expertise in that domain. 

Now, if we look at our two SMEs, both of them match many of the aspects of being an SME mentioned above, with the first SME coming a bit more closer to the 'text book definition' of an SME. However, as we have seen above, both of the SMEs have been very effective (and considered to be valuable) in their respective organizations. 

Yes, the ideal SME should have a perfect mix of these two orientations (hence achieving the most effective 'integration of theory and practice' and combining the 'top down and bottom up' perspectives). But, we (and the SMEs!) live in the real world and such perfection should be looked at as a 'vision' and not necessarily as a 'target'. It is very difficult to find such a species of 'perfectly balanced SMEs'.

In real life, some combinations tend to be 'unstable'. Maybe, they call for different orientations that find difficult 'peacefully coexist' at high levels of intensity. We find such impossible/unstable combinations in role-specific competency frameworks also! The other option is to develop some sort of 'split-personality' and switch back and forth between the two orientations!

There are indeed many ways of being successful in business organizations. Yes, an awareness and appreciation of the 'other style' can make the SMEs more effective!

Any comments/ideas? 

The paradox of 'free time'

'Free time' is something that all of us are very keen to have. So, what is paradoxical about it? 

A paradox occurs when there are multiple perspectives about something, each of them are true, but they seem to contradict one another. Let's look at some of those perspectives on 'free time'

• We should actively try to find 'free time'
• There is nothing really like 'free time'; activities or even 'work expands to fill the time (as per the famous Parkinson's law)
• 'Free time' is essential for creativity and for recharging mentally
• 'Free time' is just a waste of time
• 'Free time' is 'me' time
• 'Free time' doesn't have to be 'me' time - it is better to spend it with people you cherish being with
• Free time is enjoyable. It gives also us something to look forward to after work. 
• Different people react to 'free time' differently. 'Free time' makes many people uncomfortable - they get very jittery . Yes, there is indeed something like the 'fear of freedom'. 
• 'Free time' gives us the much needed flexibility - especially when unexpected things come up
• We can get possessive about our 'free time'. We might feel resentful if there is an unexpected demand on our 'free time'. 

How do we resolve this? Since 'free time' is difficult to define, let's look at some of the possible synonyms for 'free time'. Synonyms for free time include spare time, leisure time, time off, rest time, idle time, one's own time, 'unstructured time',  recreation, leisure, downtime, recess, interlude, intermission, let up and break. It is interesting to note that many of these synonyms convey different (or even conflicting) meanings - somewhat similar to the different perspectives on 'free time' that we saw earlier.  

Scheduling 'free time' in our calendar can have many 'profound side effects'. In a way, scheduling 'free time' it is an act of independence and it allows us to feel more in control of our lives (it sets us free!). Also, it is much easier to say no to unwanted requests on our time when we have something else scheduled.  Scheduling 'free time'  allows us to be more intentional in living our life and to put the various activities we do in perspective. Feeling busy all the time is not conducive to mental health. 

Yes, 'nature abhors vacuum' and it is very difficult to keep 'free time' free. What is indeed possible is to proactively fill some part our 'free time' with activities that we enjoy doing so that other activities or work can't expand into that. Yes, 'sitting alone quietly' or even 'thinking six impossible things before breakfast' qualifies as activities. 

Of course, we can invest our 'free time' to create a 'pocket of excellence' in some aspect of our life. Experiencing excellence (as per our own definition of excellence) in at least one aspect of our life can significantly enhance our 'self-image' and even the manner in which we respond to life in general. It can be argued that what we remember are the key moments in our lives and that having more such remarkable moments during a given period of time (e.g. by experiencing excellence) can make us perceive that period of time to be 'fuller' and even 'longer'. So, invested wisely, 'free time' can 'create' more time for us, apart from making our lives richer! 

Any comments/ideas?