To name, or not to name, that is the question...

"Do you think that I should have announced my successor?", asked the Senior HR professional. This was my third 'encounter' with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ' & 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment '  for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). "Well, it depends on what you were trying to achieve", I replied in a 'consultant-like' manner. Similar to what had happened during my previous encounters with him, this interaction also prompted me to think a bit more deeply about the underlying issues.

In this particular case, the situation was something like this: This gentleman had created a structure in which many of his direct reports were at the same level – handling roles of similar size. This ensured that all of them could hope for moving into his role and hence contributed to their engagement & retention. However, this also ensured that when this gentleman moved on to another role, none of his direct reports were ready to takeover from him & hence his role had to be filled with an external candidate. With their illusions broken (and considering the fact that the situation could repeat a few years later), many of the direct reports started looking for jobs outside the company.

Now, there are multiple levels of issues here. The most basic one is the need for succession planning. There should not be too much controversy here, as most of us are likely to agree that succession planning (especially for critical roles) is a worthwhile endeavor (Whether the Head of HR role qualifies as a ‘critical role’ is an interesting issue – but that is another story/blog post!). The second one is the need for a structured approach to develop people who are in the succession plan so that they become ready for the role within a specified time-frame. Here also there should not be much disagreement when it comes to the validity of the need, though the implementation is easier said than done, as it involves quite a bit of investment/focus to ensure that the requisite capability building takes place within the timelines.  

Things get more complicated when we think about whether or not to tell the people who are in the succession plan that they are part of the succession plan. The problem here is that doing this can create high expectations (and even some sort of ‘entitlement mentality’) among the people in the succession plan and also create disengagement (or even attrition) among people who are not in the succession plan. The latter becomes a significant problem if they are very valuable contributors in their current roles, though they did not make it to the succession plan for the next level role. However, not informing those in the succession plan might defeat the very purpose of succession planning.

The purpose of including an employee in the succession plan for a position is to enable him to develop readiness for the position within an accelerated time-frame. It would work much better if the employee is aware of the purpose for which the development is being undertaken. It definitely helps to tell an employee that he is part of a succession plan, so long as the communication is done in the right manner. This would also avoid the risk of developing an employee towards a position that he is not interested in. Again, this would prevent the unfortunate scenario in which such an employee leaves the organization because he thought that he was not being developed for the next level role! 

However, the communication has to be done in the right manner. The communication should mention that the company sees the potential in him to develop towards the particular position and that the company will provide accelerated learning opportunities to enable him to develop readiness for the same. It has to be made clear that no promise is being made that the employee will be moved to the target position within a specified period of time. It should also be mentioned that there could be multiple people in the succession plan for the position and that the actual move to the position will depend on business requirement, vacancy and his relative readiness as compared to other possible candidates for the position. Stretch and discomfort are inherent in accelerated development. If an employee is aware of and is committed to the purpose behind the development, he will be able in a better position to derive meaning from the stretch experience, to learn faster and even to enjoy the ride!

Let us come back to our Senior HR professional. There are no easy answers to his question. However, let me hazard a guess based on our discussion so far. It  would have been better if he had done the succession planning for his role and told the people in the succession plan that they were being developed for his role. Of course, this would require that the identification of people for the succession plan was done in manner that was rigorous and fair (and also seen to fair!). For example, all his direct reports (at least those who were interested in developing towards  his role) could have been put through a well-designed Assessment Centre (see 'Assessment Centres and Leaps of faith' for details). 

Now, let’s look at the matter of deciding the ideal number of people in the succession plan for a particular position. Announcing only one successor (like the senior HR professional was mentioning) would have been a very risky option. It would have made the organization dependent on only one person and/or it could have made the person in the succession plan a bit complacent. Putting too many people in the succession plan also would have been sub-optimal. It would have made the investment required for developing all these people too high and also reduced the chance for any particular individual to succeed in moving to the target role. Hence the best option would have been to identify  a few (say, 2-3) people who were relatively more ready at that point (say, based on the Assessment Centre results) to be on the succession plan and to tell them they were being developed for his role. This would also allow the others direct reports to either make peace with this situation (as a fair process has been followed to identify the people in the succession plan) or to exit the organization gracefully - at a time of their choice (without any hurry and possibly with a very good offer). Yes, this is not a perfect solution. But, it seems to be the best solution available!.

Do you agree?

Of salary negotiations and psychological contract: Part 1(dramatis personae)

“I feel cheated. If I had known this, I would not have joined this company”, said the frustrated employee. “We had given you a good hike over your previous salary. We had also explained the details of your compensation and benefits when we gave you the offer letter. Once you have signed the employment contract, it is not appropriate on your part to raise issues about it so soon. What somebody else get paid is none of your business”, replied the HR Manager.

This is a scene that gets enacted quite frequently across organizations – with unpleasant consequences for both the employer and the employee. I have often wondered what can be done about it. Based on my experience in the domain (from both sides of the fence!), I think that an exploration of the terrain from multiple perspectives is required to find a reasonable solution to this puzzle. This series of posts is an attempt in that direction. I also feel that while the ‘best solution’ is likely to be context specific, some general guidelines can be formulated.

In the first post of this series, we will begin by taking a closer look at the concept of ‘psychological contract’. We will also conceptualize salary negotiations in terms of the key stages in the ‘employee life cycle’ in which salary negotiations take place.

The psychological contract is a set of mutual expectations held by the employer and employee that might not be captured in the formal employment contract. While the psychological contract is ‘not on paper’, it is very much real and significant as it impacts how the employer-employee relationship evolves. It also influences the key decisions made by the employees like the decision on whether or not to put in discretionary effort and whether or not to leave the organization. Hence maintaining the psychological contract is critical for enabling positive employee relations. Please note that in the case of reasonably well-managed organizations (where a breach of the legal employment contract is unlikely to happen), employee exits almost always happen because of the perceived violations in the psychological contract. Repeated violations of the psychological contract can also prompt the employees to form unions to protect their interest.

Salary negotiation is not the only factor that influences the formation and evolution of the psychological contract. Psychological contract might have other dimensions like organization climate and culture, degree of empowerment, career growth, learning opportunities etc. However, salary negotiation is a very significant factor in terms of the degree of impact on the psychological contract.

For our exploration here, we will use a broad definition of the term 'salary' – to include not only the cash part of the compensation but also the benefits and perquisites. Hence our focus in this series of posts will be on those parts of the psychological contract that have something to do with expectations the employees have regarding the salary (including variable salary), benefits & perquisites and the expectations that the employer has on what the employees need to do to earn the same. They also include mutual expectations regarding how (how fast, by how much and based on what) these (salary, benefits & perquisites) will change during the employment relationship. Mutual expectations regarding if, when and how these can be (re)negotiated will also be included. We will assume that the 'employer' is represented by the managers of the employee (people in the reporting chain of the employee and also the HR managers).

Salary negotiations happen at multiple points during the tenure of an employee. However, for the purpose of our discussion here, we will conceptualize the same in terms of the salary negotiations at the following stages

1. Before the employee joins the company (when the ‘employee’ is still an outsider)

2. During the tenure of the employee (from the time the employee joins the organization till he/she submits the resignation)

3. After the employee submits the resignation (when the company is trying to keep the employee back by making a counter offer)

Of course, this is a simplified picture. For example, if stage 3 is successful, the game goes back to stage 2. After that, stage 2 & 3 can (and often do) get repeated later. Also, an employee can indicate his/her intention to quit without formally submitting the resignation.

We will explore each of the stages in detail in the subsequent posts in this series. We will also look at some interesting phenomena observed in this land like 'batch parity' and 'entitlement mentality'. In addition to this, we will look at some other dimensions of psychological contract not related to salary and their implications. For the time being, let us look at a few basic principles.

a. When it comes to forming expectations (psychological contract), what was left unsaid is often more important than what was said during the interactions between the employer and the employee. Psychological contract is unwritten, broad and implicit as compared to the employment contract which is written down, specific and explicit. Hence there is much more room for misunderstanding and misinterpretation.

b. Employees often carry assumptions from their previous employment experiences. Hence they might assume (without any input on the part of the new employer) that something will exist or will not exist in the new organization. Similarly employers (based on the behaviors of existing employees) might assume (without any input on the part of the employee) that the new employees will do or will not do something (See ‘Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment’ and ‘Passion for work and anasakti’ for more).

c. Keeping in mind (a) and (b) above, it makes a lot of sense on the part of both the employee and the employer to surface and validate as many of the possible expectations and assumptions as possible (See ‘On what good looks like’ for details). However, this might conflict with the need to strike a deal quickly (e.g. to get the employee to accept the offer or to get the employer to make a job offer). It has to be noted that any shortcuts employed here can lead to long term pain even if they provide some short term gain.

d. The self image of the employee (and the self image of the manager) can have significant impact on the creation and evolution of the psychological contract. Interactions with the colleagues and team members also impact the psychological contract.  
e. When it comes to psychological contract, ‘perception is reality’. Breach of psychological contract may occur if employees perceive that the company (or any of its agents like the managers), have failed to deliver on what they perceive was promised. It can also happen when the employer (manager) perceives that the employee hasn’t kept his/her end of the bargain. Since psychological contract was ‘not on paper’, often the parties don’t initiate a discussion immediately to check whether the perceived breach of the contract really took place. Usually the issue remains ‘underground’ for quite a while and by the time it surfaces it would have gained a lot of negative momentum.

f. Once the breach of the psychological contract occurs, it is often very difficult to repair. Hence prevention is much better than cure in this case!
g. On the positive side, psychological contract provides an excellent opportunity for the organization to engage with (and retain) the employees on multiple dimensions - transactional and relational. It can create a deep alignment between the employee and the employer and provide a sense of meaning a purpose to the employees. Hence it makes sense (for both the employers and the employees) to do whatever they can to actively shape and manage the psychological contract!


In the next post in the series, we will turn the spotlight on the interaction between the employer and the employee before the employee joins the company.

Please let me know if you have any comments/suggestions at this stage!

In search of a 'sharp' employee value proposition

These days, many companies are quite vocal about their 'employee value proposition' - the 'total employee deal' that they offer. Some of them even have formal employee value proposition statements. Yes, this is a positive development. If organizations are serious about treating their employees as anything more than 'mindless resources' and if they acknowledge that the employees exercise at least some amount of choice (in matters like joining the company, staying on, putting in discretionary effort at work etc.) it make sense to think about (and more importantly, to do something about!) creating a value proposition (or a 'total employee deal') that appeals to the the current and prospective employees.

However, we often come across two types of problems with 'creating a compelling employee value proposition' efforts. The first is that the value proposition exists mainly in word and not in deed. Hence this becomes more of a communication (or 'public relations') exercise. Now this might work for sometime (in terms of increasing employee morale and in terms of attracting new hires) - as employees often believe the employers (or at least give them 'benefit of doubt'). But after some time, when the employees don't see much action (or the alleged 'employee value' in the employee value proposition) it leads to more frustration/ disillusionment/ mistrust. Thus the employees might develop some sort of aversion (or at least reduced sensitivity) to employee value proposition statements/initiatives.

The second problem is that the 'employee value proposition' statements of many of the organizations look very similar. Now if many organizations start speaking about very similar 'employee value propositions' it leads to a lot of clutter and hence the the employees, especially the prospective employees, find it difficult to judge the relative merits/demerits of the employee value propositions offered by various organizations. This can also add to the 'reduced sensitivity' to employee value proposition statements that we were discussing earlier.

In many cases, one of the key reasons for the above two problems is the attempt on part of the organization to do too many things - trying to improve all aspects/dimensions of the employee deal - that too for all the employees. While this ('trying to be everything to everybody' kind of approach) leads to 'well-rounded employee value proposition statements' the implementation/delivery of the employee value proposition becomes too difficult/impossible. When many organizations follow this approach this also results in employee value proposition statements that look very similar (and too good to be true!).

The above discussion implies that, to be effective, organizations need to find a way to cut through this clutter and reduced employee sensitivity - while ensuring that the employee value propositions are implementable. This where 'sharp' employee value propositions come in.

The basic requirement here is to create a very clear employee value proposition that is different from (and perceived to be different from) what other companies are offering. Usually this implies focusing narrowly – concentrating only on one or two levers/dimensions of the ‘total employee deal’. So the idea is to choose one (or two) aspects of the employee value proposition (based on the business and HR context/strategy/plan) and to channelize most of the resources to enhance ‘employee deal’ in those dimensions. For example, the value proposition can be that

• ‘we are the best paymasters in the industry’ or
• ‘we provide the fastest career growth in the industry/we offer positions at a higher responsibility level as compared to what the other companies offer for a given employee profile’ or
• ‘we provide better/more stable long-term career and greater work-life balance’ or
• ‘we provide greater opportunities for job rotation and the opportunities to work in multiple geographies’ or
• ‘we provide the opportunity to work with the most advanced technology/tools and the chance to work with people who are considered to be the thought leaders in the field’ or
• ‘we provide mass-career customization/greater flexibility in designing your own career’ etc.

Now, all of the above options listed above might not be feasible in the context of a particular company. However, some of the options might be very much feasible. Of course, having/developing competent managers and building a good work culture are very important – especially from a retention point of view. But since every company talks about these it becomes difficult to make these differentiating factors – when we are talking about attracting a new candidate/when a candidate has limited primary data points regarding what particular companies are really offering.

Once the organization has chosen the lever(s) to press and has enhanced the employee value proposition on that dimension (by modifying the policies/processes/management style etc.), the next step is to publicize it – both internally and externally. This will also ensure that the organization attracts the 'correct' profile of candidates (as the ‘focused’ employee value proposition will appeal to only a particular set of candidates – candidates who have a set of workplace preferences that is similar to what the organization is highlighting). While this might reduce the size of the ‘candidate pool’, it will help the organization greatly in reducing attrition – as the organization is attracting only those people who are motivated by those aspects of employee value proposition that the organization is providing better than what the other companies are doing.

It is also possible to further customize ('sharpen'!!!) the employee value proposition to make it more attractive to particular employee segments (e.g. high performance – high potential employees, employees in certain jobs, employees with certain skills etc). This makes a lot of sense if the organization has very limited resources and if it doesn't have equal need to retain all segments of the employees.

Any comments/observations/suggestions?

Social capital, restructuring and attrition

Social capital in an organization refers to the collective value of all social networks (connections among the individuals) in that organization. These connections have 'value' for both the organization and the employees.

A significant portion of the 'work' in organizations gets done through these connections (often referred to as the 'informal organization') rather than through the 'formal structure' in the organization. These 'connections' motivate employees to do things for one another beyond what is specified in the job descriptions. Hence social capital has a positive influence on productivity. The importance of social capital in the creation of intellectual capital has also been recognised. Since these 'connections' are difficult to copy, social capital could be a source of sustainable competitive advantage for the organization.

These 'connections' (social capital) could also help in addressing 'relatedness' needs of the employees. So in addition to enabling the employees to get their work done faster/easier/better, these 'connections' contribute in meeting their their social/'connectedness' needs. Thus social capital could add to 'personal effectiveness at work' and the 'total employee deal' as perceived by the employees and hence it could have a positive influence on employee engagement and retention.

Organization restructuring is one of the popular ways of responding to a dynamic business environment. While the business case for restructuring is quite compelling in many contexts, the hidden costs of restructuring in terms of loss of social capital often gets overlooked. Restructuring breaks up the human networks/connections in organizations and dilutes the social capital in the organization. Since (as mentioned above) these connections are valuable for both the organization and the employees, there could be adverse impact on the organization (in the form of reduced productivity, reduction in the rate of intellectual capital creation, increased employee turnover/ attrition etc.) and on the employees (in terms of reduced engagement, work effectiveness, satisfaction etc.). Of course, many of these factors are interrelated and hence the adverse effects could get amplified.

As we have seen above, organization restructuring and the consequent loss of social capital could reduce the 'value' that the employees derive from organization and hence this could lead to employee turnover/attrition. The social networks bind the employees to one another and hence to the organization. It can also be said that one of the reasons that the employees don't want to leave an organization (to join another organization) is the reluctance to 'start all over again' (in terms of having to build new networks/connections). Thus if a restructuring breaks up their existing connections, employees might have less reason to stay on in an organization. Costs of attrition are well known. Apart from these costs attrition also leads to a further erosion in human capital as more social networks/connections get broken when employees leave. When 'key' employees (with a large number of strong connections) leave the impact on social capital would be more. It is also possible that employees might leave in groups if these groups have a large number of strong connections within them (especially if another organization offers an opportunity to maintain these connections).

Thus one of the key hidden cost of restructuring could be in terms of loss of social capital and its ripple effects. Loss of connections/social capital could lead to attrition which in turn leads to a further erosion of social capital. This could lead to a vicious cycle and organizations should be careful about this. When an 'impact assessment' is done for the proposed restructuring exercise, the impact on social networks/connections/social capital should also be factored in. Since these social networks also serve as communication channels, the communication strategy for restructuring requires even more emphasis (as the restructuring could have broken up some of the existing communication channels). The overall change management plan should give specific attention to retain key people (people with a large number of strong connections) so as to reduce the erosion of social capital. The plan should also focus on creating an environment that would facilitate building of new connections to replace the old ones hence to restore and enhance the social capital in the organization.

See a related post here.

Employee engagement and the story of the Sky Maiden

"Employee engagement" is one of the popular concepts in HR these days. Many organizations have launched new initiatives to improve levels of 'employee engagement'. Some of them have dedicated HR staff to 'handle' this important dimension. I fully agree that 'employee engagement' is very important. There is a lot of research that links higher levels of 'employee engagement' with positive outcomes like improved productivity and reduced attrition rates.

What concerns me is the tendency in some organizations to view 'employee engagement' initiatives mainly as a series of employee communication programmes. Here the term 'employee engagement' gets used in the sense of leaders 'engaging with' or 'speaking to' the employees. Now, this is an important part of employee engagement. The problem is that true 'employee engagement' requires much more than this. Another troubling trend is to equate 'employee engagement' with 'fun and games' activities. 'Fun and games' initiatives are also useful. They provide a temporary distraction from work (especially when they are held during office hours, which sadly is not always the case !). They also provide an opportunity to interact with other employees. But all these do not make any significant change in the basic nature of work or in the work context.

The defining feature of employee engagement is 'discretionary effort' put in by the employees. If employees have to get motivated to put in the 'discretionary effort', just speaking to them and telling them what is happening in the organization (and even just listening to them) won't be sufficient. To get discretionary effort, both the hearts and minds of the employees have to be engaged. Often this calls for interventions to improve the person-job fit, the performance management/rewards system and the organization culture. Of course, it is much easier to hold communication meetings than to ensure that employees are in those jobs that leverage and celebrate their key talents/abilities/interests! But if the objective is to have the type of 'employee engagement' that motivates employees to stay on and to put in discretionary effort, peripheral interventions (like communication meetings, 'fun & games HR' etc.) might not be sufficient.

This brings to mind the 'story of the Sky Maiden'. There are many versions of this story. It goes something like this: Once there lived a young farmer. He used to get up early in the morning every day to milk his cows. This went on for quite some time. Then he felt that something strange was happening. The cows seemed to be giving less milk than they used to. He tried many methods to improve this situation. But they did not work. Slowly he became convinced that someone was stealing the milk. So he decided to stay up all night to catch the thief. So he hid behind a bush and waited. For many hours nothing happened and he was feeling very sleepy. Suddenly he noticed something that left him spellbound. A very beautiful woman came down from the sky and started milking the cows. Initially our young farmer was too dazed to react. Then his anger took over and he managed to catch the thief before she could escape. He asked her who she was and why was she stealing the milk. She told him that she was the Sky Maiden, that she belonged to a tribe that lived in the sky, and that the milk was their only food. She pleaded with him to let her go. Our young farmer told her "I will let you go only if you promise to marry me". She said "I will marry you. But you need to give me a few days so that I can go back home and prepare for the marriage". He agreed. So the Sky Maiden left and as promised she returned after a few days. She brought a large box along with her. She said to him "I will be your wife. But you must promise me one thing. You should never open this box. If you open this box, I will have to leave you". He agreed and they got married.

Many months passed. Then one day, while his wife was not in the house, our young farmer could not contain his curiosity anymore and he opened the box. He was surprised to find that he could not see anything in the box. When the Sky Maiden came back she could sense something was wrong. She asked him "Did you open the box?". He said " I am sorry. I opened the box. But there was nothing in it". The Sky Maiden became very sad. She said "I am leaving. I can't live with you any more". He said "Why are you making such a big issue out of this. I told you that the box was empty". She said "I am not leaving you because you opened the box. I knew that you are likely to open it sooner or later. I am leaving you because you said that there was nothing in the box. Actually, the box was not empty. It was full of sky. Before I came to you I had filled the box with sky which is the most precious thing for me. Sky is the core of my real self. It is what makes me special. It is what makes me who I am. How can I stay with you if you can't even see the thing that is the essence of my Self and that makes me special?"

Now there are many important points here. No deep relationship can thrive unless it recognises and celebrates the factors that define the essential nature of the parties involved and that makes them special. Of course, this is more true for personal relationships and the use of this in a work context is an exaggeration to some extent. But I think that the central point remains valid even in a work context.

Any comments?

Truths stretched too far - Part I : Blame it on the managers

These days HR practices are supposed to be 'research based'. As HR professionals, when we recommend/implement a particular practice/policy in the people domain, we want to substantiate it with 'solid research findings'. There could be many problems with this. The first is the validity of the research findings in contexts other than that in which the research was conducted. The second problem occurs when there is a 'chain of reasoning' (and sometimes even an 'inferential leap') involved between the actual research finding and assumption(s) underlying the HR practice in question. It is also possible that other factors (other than the dimension covered in the research) that have an impact on the outcome gets ignored (In the people domain, and in life in general, most important things are 'overdetermined' - i.e. they have more than one cause). Of course, there is also the ever present danger of confusing between 'correlation' and 'causation'. In this series of blog posts, we would look at some of those research findings ('truths') that tend to get misinterpreted when they get stretched too far.

In this post (which is the first one in this series) let us look at the very popular research finding "People leave managers and not organizations". I think that there a lot of truth in this finding. The immediate supervisor is a key influencing factor in employee engagement and retention. The problem happens when other factors that influence employee engagement and retention are ignored and the entire responsibility(or even blame) is put on the managers. Often there are other significant factors involved (e.g. the basic nature of the job, 'Rewards' strategy, work environment, lack of career advancement opportunities etc.) over which first level managers don't have much influence. So when the attrition level goes high, the tendency is to respond with 'training the managers on engaging and energising teams'.

This response also suits HR admirably. The factors like basic nature of the job, 'Rewards' strategy, work environment, career advancement opportunities etc. are more difficult influence as compared to 'sending the poor managers for training'. While this gives HR the satisfaction of having 'responded quickly to the business challenge of attrition', unfortunately this does not solve the problem adequately. It also leaves the managers (who are already facing the consequences of attrition in their teams) more confused and frustrated. Hence we come back to the point that 'system level issues' have to be addressed at the system level (and no amount of manager training can obviate this need).

Related Links: Next post in this series , related post

At the receiving end of 'change management'

If one looks at the job description of any 'strategic' HR position, it is highly likely that 'management of change' (or 'driving change initiatives') would feature very prominently. While I fully agree that organization-wide change management efforts are important in fast changing business environment, I am finding that my interest these days is more on the the psychological process of dealing with change (the 'transition') and on developing change resilience in individuals. Having been 'at the receiving end of organization level change management efforts' many times in my career, I am not sure as to what extent these are really effective. Often they degenerate into communication programs (at best) and con games (at worst). Unless the organization can create a credible value proposition ('what is in it for me') for the impacted people the chances are that the above degeneration would happen. It can also been argued that 'second order change' can not be managed (in the usual meaning of the term 'manage'). In this context, helping the employees to become more change resilient becomes more important.

I also feel that the impact of change on the 'psychological contract' between the employee and the employer is often not given adequate attention. The violation of the psychological contact could be one of the key reasons for 'change resistance' and negative outcomes like attrition, lack of motivation etc. Often employees feel that they are 'taken for granted' in the name of 'flexibility' and 'organization responsiveness'. Of course, organizations have sound business reasons for making these changes (realignment, restructuring etc.). My point is just that often the impacted employees (who have been 'realigned') feel that the psychological contract has been violated because of what they perceive as 'unilateral changes made by the organization'. (See a related link here)

Coming back to the 'HR job description' mentioned at the beginning of this post, there could be additional factors (apart from skill set related factors) that limit the ability of internal HR professionals to manage change. For example, often HR professionals get involved too late. By that time 'emotional wounds' have already been created and what is left is more of communication and 'dressing of wounds'. While this is useful, this is not change management. This is more of 'damage control'. Of course, in many situations the internal HR professionals themselves are experiencing the same adverse effects of change and hence this could further limit their ability to carry out their 'change management responsibilities'.

Note : Another related aspect (to organization-wide change efforts) is 'culture change initiatives'. There are many 'levels of culture' (like artifacts, norms, values, basic underlying assumptions etc.) at which an intervention can be made. Technically speaking, to be fully effective, culture change has to happen at the 'basic underlying assumptions' level (as per Schein's model). This would mean that 'culture change' has to happen in a bottom-up fashion (starting with the individual) as these assumptions reside in people's minds. However, the difficulty is that often a clinical intervention is required to surface and change these assumptions. This is usually too much to manage in the context of an organization-wide change effort. I think that the 'basic underlying assumptions' & 'world view' of a person are unlikely to change unless he/she is faced with a very significant event (often a traumatic event) in life. So it might not be realistic to make an intervention at this level in the context of an organization level change. Anyway, since one is likely to change many jobs during one's career, one can't afford to get influenced by organizations at such a deep level!!!

May be what can be attempted is to create a rational reason for behavior change. This does not necessarily mean 'carrot-and-stick' in the usual meaning of the term. The 'reason' could be aimed at any level in the hierarchy (e.g. Maslow's hierarchy) of human needs (including esteem and self-actualization) and not just at the lower level needs. This would also mean creating a context (including 'role models') where the desired new behavior has a higher possibility of emerging and thriving.

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 1 - The 'attrition principle'

Let me begin with a warning. I did not learn this this very interesting HR/People Management related concept at XLRI (or from any of the other 'reputed' sources). I came across this principle in one of the organizations that I am familiar with.

The principle is simple. It can be stated something like this.

"If one hangs around in the organization for a long period of time, most of the good people will leave the organization during that time, and, one will be kicked upstairs(i.e. promoted)".

If we look at the statement closely, we can deduce that there are some conditions to be satisfied for this principle to work well. They include inter alia

(1) The organization tolerates not-so-good performance
(2) The organization is not able to retain very good performers
(3) The organization is not able to attract/hire very good new people from outside
(4) The organization prefers to promote people internally even when they don't have requisite competencies
(5) The organization is doing reasonably well (so that there is no shrinkage of promotion opportunities)
(6) One is able to stay in the organization for a long period of time without doing anything very stupid/atrocious.

While this principle gave me 'hope' as an employee, it worried me as an HR professional . Allowing this principle to work is a sure prescription for mediocrity.

Fortunately, the conditions for this principle to work (listed above), give us a clue. We can make a good beginning in preventing this principle from becoming operational in our organizations by ensuring that the first four conditions listed above are not met. This calls for effective performance management, rewards, career development and staffing systems - i.e. the basics of good people management!