Of Espoused Competencies, Enacted Competencies and Janus-faced Leaders

"All models are wrong, but some are useful!"

We often talk about espoused values (professed/stated values of the organization), enacted values (the values the organization actually lives by) and the ‘cognitive dissonance’ that the employees/stakeholders experience because of the difference between the two (Please see ’Of espoused values and enacted values’ for more). A similar point can be made in the case of leadership competency frameworks also.

Most of the companies have leadership competency frameworks. They are supposed to outline the competencies that will make one successful as a leader in the organization (see 'Of competencies and carbohydrates' for more on competencies). They also serve as the basis for leadership development, leadership hiring, leadership succession and performance management for leaders. 

The above mentioned ‘cognitive dissonance’ occurs here also when one compares the ‘demonstrated/enacted competencies’ of the successful leaders in the organization (what is actually required to be successful as a leader in the organization) with the competencies mentioned in the leadership competency framework (the stated competencies) and find that there are significant differences between the two. 

In addition to causing confusion, this also implies that leadership hiring, leadership development, leadership succession, performance management for leaders etc. are being done based on wrong assumptions. This can adversely affect organization effectiveness, apart from wasting time and money and causing avoidable human suffering in organizations. Therefore, we need to look into this in a bit more detail.

Organizations meticulously craft leadership competency frameworks that delineate the behaviors considered vital for a leader’s success in the organization. These frameworks are replete with ideals such as integrity, communication, strategic thinking, and empathy. However, beyond these polished documents, lies an unspoken truth: leaders who are most 'successful' in the organization (as indicated by rewards and career growth) often exhibit traits that are sometimes contrary to these prescribed competencies. This situation can arise from problems in the approach used to arrive at the leadership competency model. For example, the leadership competency model might have been created based on a 'wish list' of competencies as opposed to developing it through on a structured competency mapping exercise based on the actual leadership behaviors and their degree of success in the organization. This can make the leadership competency framework more of a 'convenient collective delusion'.   

Now let's come to the leaders who are very successful in the organization, without demonstrating most the competencies outlined in the leadership competency model. One interesting category among these leaders are the 'Janus-faced leaders' – those who embody dichotomies in their leadership styles and are rewarded for it. These kinds of leaders are most commonly found in hierarchical organizations. Janus, the Roman god with two faces, one looking to the future and one to the past, provides a fitting metaphor for this kind of leadership. In modern terms, Janus-faced leaders adeptly navigate upward and downward relationships in dramatically different manners. They may present a facade of deference and subservience to their superiors while simultaneously displaying a demanding and exacting approach to their own teams (please see 'Followership behaviors of leaders' for more)

These leaders are often perceived as highly effective by their superiors because they create the impression that they are ‘squeezing out maximum performance from their team’ and because they shield upper management from unpleasant realities of organization life. They are also amazingly good in taking credit when something good happens and blaming their team (or restructuring their team) when something goes wrong. Of course, this comes at the cost of team morale and trust. However, if the Janus-faced leader is able to create the impression that the team is not competent and are being to deliver only because of the ‘tough love’ of the leader, this might not matter to the senior leadership.

Another unacknowledged 'competency' that often characterizes successful leaders is the ability to "suffer in silence". Leaders are expected to bear the weight of responsibility without complaint, to absorb the pressures of high-stakes decision-making, and to manage their own stress without it spilling over onto their teams or affecting their performance. This stoic disposition is seldom featured in leadership models, but it is an unspoken expectation and a reality for many at the top. This can lead to emotional labor and even to 'smiling depression' among the leaders. 

The irony here is not that these unspoken competencies exist, but rather that organizations continue to espouse frameworks that do not fully capture the reality of leadership success. There is a need for a more holistic and perhaps more candid conversation about what effective leadership really entails – including both the noble and the ignoble traits (the bright and the dark sides of leadership).

Having highlighted this, let’s look at a couple of counter arguments. It can be argued that that the competencies mentioned in the framework are aspirational/futuristic – competencies required to be successful as a leader in the future. This is sort of ‘what got you here won’t get you there’ kind of argument. The problem happens when the ‘future’ never arrives!  Another counter argument is that we shouldn’t reinforce negative aspects of successful leadership in the organization, by highlighting them (or 'institutionalizing them' by including them in the leadership competency framework). This definitely has merit. The problem is just that by pushing these negative aspects of successful leaders under the carpet, we reduce the chance that they will ever be addressed! Of course, this requires a deep and often tricky intervention to address (See 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for an approach that might be helpful in this context).

It is time for organizations to reflect on the complexity of leadership and recognize that the sanitized version presented in competency frameworks is often at odds with the less savory – yet effective – traits and behaviors that contribute to a leader’s success. Until we can openly discuss and integrate these aspects, we will continue to hire/ prepare leaders for an idealized world that is far removed from the one they actually inhabit.

 Any comments?

Of Leadership Development, Business Schools and Consulting Firms

“Our professors bring in the latest academic research to the program delivery. Based on their deep understanding of the topic, they can facilitate first principles thinking which can lead to profound insights. We don't want our faculty members to become trainers!", remarked the executive education lead in a reputed business school.

“To what extent the professors are able to bring in actionable insights for the practitioners based on academic research is debatable. The professors who have a teaching style that is similar that of trainers often get the best feedback scores from the participants. Deep expertise coupled with an accessible kind of program delivery facilitates skill building and makes the program content easier to understand and implement!”, observed the leadership development lead of a large firm.

“We need the leadership development programs to be customized to our context. We prefer to partner with consulting firms as they do a much better job on customization as compared to business schools. It is not that the business schools don’t do a diagnostic study. It is just that the professors often end up teaching whatever they originally wanted to teach irrespective of the findings from the diagnostic study!”, remarked the Chief Learning Officer of an Indian Business Group.

“Why should we try to customize the leadership development programs? We should partner with the best of the business schools and let them teach what they think is the best. We should even look at open programs as they help our people to get a much better exposure because they provide the opportunity to interact with leaders from other companies. Leadership development programs at the top management level are more about helping our leaders to expand their mental horizons and not about skill building!”, said a senior business leader.

I often hear statement likes these in the context of leadership development. They bring my attention to a question that people who are responsible for leadership development in organizations frequently grapple with - "when it comes to leadership development programs for senior leaders, is it better to partner with reputed business schools or with reputed leadership development consulting firms?" There are many perspectives here – that too along multiple dimensions. Let's look at some of them here.

Customization

In general, consulting firms can offer highly customized executive education programs tailored to the specific needs and challenges of an organization. They can develop bespoke content and case studies that directly address the context-specific learning needs. Business schools tend to have less flexibility in customizing their programs to meet the specific needs of an organization.

Incorporating insights from research

Business schools can bring in the most empirically validated research findings. While the consultants do have some understanding of the latest research findings, they are unlikely to have the deep understanding that can come from a systematic literature review or a meta-analysis. One key challenge in incorporating the latest research into executive education programs is that of keeping up with the pace of change in the business world. Some research findings may become outdated relatively quickly, especially in fields that are rapidly evolving. Of course, ensuring that the research is communicated in a way that is accessible and practical for executives is indeed challenging.  Business schools must work to translate the research findings into practical insights that executives can apply in their day-to-day work.

Domain expertise

 Premier business schools typically have a strong foundation in academic research and theory, which can provide a solid base for executive education. They have faculty with deep expertise in various management disciplines. Consulting firms often bring in domain expertise derived from practice. The best results are obtained when the faculty/facilitator can 'stand at the intersection of theory and practice' though it is indeed a tightrope walk (please see 'Treating the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR professionals' for a related discussion).

Industry knowledge

Consulting firms often have extensive experience working with clients in various industries, which can enable them to provide industry-specific insights and best practices. They also have a better understanding of the paradoxes and dilemmas that senior leaders face in the context of their jobs and this enables the consulting firms to be more helpful in equipping the leaders to cope with these paradoxes and dilemmas (please see 'Problems that refuse to remain solved' for a related discussion). Professors also do some amount of consulting work. Of course, if the professor has written a case study on one of the most reputed companies in the industry that the firm operates in and leverages the same for the program for the participants from the firm, it can be perceived as highly valuable.

Application focus

Consulting firms generally have a stronger focus on practical application and problem-solving. This can lead to more actionable insights and strategies that the senior leaders can implement in their organizations. Business schools, particularly premier ones, often emphasize theoretical knowledge and research-backed learning. These schools also provide case studies to practice leadership skills. Leadership training firms, alternatively, are often more focused on practical, real-world application, with a heavy emphasis on experiential learning. Consulting firms may also provide better support in facilitating transfer of learning.

Bringing in outside experts/industry leaders

Consultants often can bring in top industry leaders through their contacts. The top academic institutes can also do this to some extent. Senior business leaders tend to value the opportunity to interact with top industry leaders very much. 

'Zeitgeist'(Intellectual atmosphere)

When the programs are delivered on the business school campus, it often puts the participants in a frame of mind that is more conducive for learning as compared to what happens when the program is organized in a hotel. Many of the participants consider the professors as ‘gurus’ and that might further enhance their openness to learning – especially in those cultures that put the teachers on a pedestal. This works even in the case of participants who are senior business leaders. Facilitators from consulting firms do get the respect they deserve from the participants for their expertise. However, the participants might still look at them more as ‘service providers’ as opposed to ‘gurus’.

Prestige

Top business schools have a strong reputation and brand value. Hence the participants often attach great value to the program certificate issued by the premier business schools. A certificate from a leadership training firm may not carry the same weight, unless it is a certification based on a proprietary methodology of the consulting firm (e.g., certification on the proprietary Job Evaluation methodology). However, such certifications from consulting firms tend to be less relevant in the case of senior business leaders. 

Cost/investment

Customized executive education programs at the top business schools can be relatively more expensive. However, based on the teaching methodology used (e.g., case studies) they might be able to support larger batch sizes and thereby bring down the per participant cost. As compared to this, leadership development consulting firms tend to use a more interactive and practice-oriented methodologies that work better with relatively smaller batch sizes. Yes, it is often possible to engage the professors directly (without going through the business school). However, the institute brand/ certification won’t be available in such cases.

Best of both worlds?

 There are consulting firms that have close tie-ups with premier business schools. In those cases, the consulting firms do the business development and the diagnostic study, and they bring in the professors at the program design and delivery stage. Here the key success factor is the extent to which the data and insights from the diagnostic study are incorporated by the professors in the program design and delivery. This is often a problem area.

Business schools also have ‘Professors of Practice’ who often have significant industry experience before they moved to academics. Whether they end up bringing in the ‘best of both words’ or the ‘worst of both worlds’ or ‘something in between’ in the context of a particular leadership development program is quite unpredictable!

In lieu of a conclusion

Let’s go back to the question that we started this post with- "when it comes to leadership development programs for senior leaders, is it better to partner with reputed business schools or with reputed consulting firms who focus on leadership development?

As we can see from the discussion above, both the options have their own advantages and disadvantages and hence the answer becomes highly context specific. The best choice depends on the specific goals of the organization and the factors (e.g., from the list above) are relatively more important keeping those goals in mind. This is complicated by the fact that capability building programs (including leadership development programs) serve many purposes - including those that are not directly related to capability building (please see 'The many lives of capability building programs' for the details). Yes, the return on the learning investment is most important. The point is just that this 'return' need not be only in terms of increase in capability and change in on-the-job behavior/the business impact of the change in behavior. 

Also, all the premier business schools and all the leadership development consulting firms are not created equal. There are business schools that have a special focus on executive education. They tend to have teams that focus on diagnostic studies and instructional design in addition to the professors who focus on program design and delivery. There are also professors who invest time in doing a detailed diagnostic study. Similarly, there are specialized leadership development consulting firms that conduct primary research in the domain of leadership development. This brings in an additional set of considerations that are entity specific. In addition to the entity-specific aspects, there are also individual-specific aspects. Afterall, program delivery is a 'performance art'. There are also the aspects of the depth of the partnership between the organization and the learning partner and that of the 'chemistry' between the particular individuals involved. Having said this, we can still make a couple of general observations.

If customization is less important as compared to domain expertise, premier business schools often have an advantage over the consultants especially in the case of ‘standalone instructor-led programs'. In the case of highly customized and application-oriented programs, consultants often have an advantage especially in the case of ‘learning journey programs’ (that integrate multiple program components like instructor-led learning, executive coaching and action learning and require extensive program management and transfer of learning support).

Any comments/ideas?

Do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve?

“CEOs get the CHROs they deserve!”, said the Senior HR leader when he was highly frustrated. This was my seventh ‘encounter’ with this gentleman (See 'Passion for work and anasakti ‘, 'Appropriate metaphors for organizational commitment ‘ ,‘To name or not to name, that is the question’ , ‘A Mathematical approach to HR’, ‘OD Quest’ and ‘Of leaders and smiling depression’  for the outcomes of my previous interactions with him). Similar to what happened in the previous occasions, this comment prompted me to think deeply about the topic.

Yes, a CEO can try to get the  type of CHRO he/she wants by 'shaping' the behavior of the current CHRO, bringing in a new CHRO etc. The degree of success of this attempt will vary based on the context and the people involved. Of course, if a CEO is looking for a difficult to find set of capabilities in the CHRO and/or if the organization context is not suitable for attracting and retaining the type of CHRO the CEO is looking for, things can get complicated. The CEO-CHRO interaction is a human interaction and hence personality related factors, connect related factors and fit related factors (including that of the unstated definitions of 'what good looks like') come into play. Sometimes, the perceived lack of alignment is just a matter of perception. For example, the CEO might think that the CHRO doesn't understand the business context and the CHRO might think that the CEO is too shortsighted! It can work the other way also. The CEO and the CHRO can form a 'mutual admiration society' and ignore problems that adversely affect organization effectiveness! 

There is no doubt on the importance of the CEO-CHRO relationship, for them and for the rest of the organization. The CEO and the CHRO need to work very closely with each other on a lot of important and/or sensitive matters, and hence an effective relationship between them based on mutual respect and trust is critical. Lack of alignment between the CEO and CHRO, apart from creating a lot of frustration for both of them, can slow down decision-making, lead to suboptimal decisions, reduce response speed on critical issues and also lead to lack of commitment and passive resistance. It can also give the impression to the rest of the organization that the leadership team is like a 'house divided against itself'. 

Again, there is no doubt on whether the HR function (and the CHRO as the head of HR) should be business-oriented/business-aligned. HR exists to support the business and hence it should be aligned to the business needs/goals/strategy. ‘HR for HR’ (‘I want to do some HR interventions and I will get the business leaders to agree’) is definitely not a good idea. The problem occurs when we look at how exactly should HR demonstrate this 'business-orientation'.

There are multiple possibilities here - each with its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, the CHRO can agree to whatever the CEO says on people related issues ('after all, we get paid to support the business'). The CHRO can take this approach to the next level by trying to ‘guess’ what the CEO will be comfortable with and advocating that ('the CEO is our primary internal customer and we should be anticipating customer needs'). The CHRO can also avoid surfacing issues (or suggesting solutions) that he/she thinks the CEO will not be comfortable with ('business leaders are already stretched to the limits fighting for the survival of the company, how can we risk annoying them at this point ?').

This approach might help in reducing the number/intensity of possible arguments/conflicts between the CHRO and the CEO and the associated investment of time and emotional energy, leading to faster decision-making and smoother relationships. In this case, the CEO might ‘like’ the CHRO and will be more likely to support the CHRO in the roll out of basic HR processes and less likely to come down heavily on the CHRO when the CHRO/HR team makes a mistake. Hence, conflicts are avoided - making life easier for both the parties involved. However, this can also lead to sub-optimal decisions (see 'Training the victim' for an example).

The other option is to develop and articulate an independent point of view – based on the HR philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.

Yes, this point of view might turn out to be different from what the CEO has in mind/is comfortable with and hence this can create conflicts and lengthy discussions/arguments and possibly delays in decision-making. The CEO might feel that ‘HR does not understand the problems that the business is facing’, ‘HR is becoming a pain in the neck’ or that ‘HR is being too idealistic’. This might lead to a situation where the CEO becomes very demanding – questioning the rationale behind each of the initiatives that HR comes up with. Therefore, this option can make life more difficult for both the parties involved. However, if the conflict can be managed constructively, this option can lead to superior decisions and also to the development of mutual respect and trust. Of course, there is no guarantee that this can be achieved in all the situations.

It is also possible that the CEO was more open than what the CHRO had guessed. Maybe, the CEO wanted the CHRO to make an independent recommendation. Again, it is possible that the CHRO’s ‘independent assessment’ of the business needs/constraints was totally off the mark, making his/her point of view completely unrealistic. Maybe, the context is such that the conflict of opinion can’t be resolved successfully quickly enough for the matter at hand. Thus, there are many possibilities here.

It can be said that if we take a long-term perspective, if both the parties are competent and open and if the conflict can be managed constructively and quickly enough, the second option will give better results. But that is too many ‘ifs’ (3 in the last sentence!). It can also be argued that the two options mentioned above are just two extremes and that reality lies somewhere in between. For example, a particular CHRO might adopt option 1 in the case of some issues and option 2 in the case of other issues – depending on the context/nature of the issues. After all, ‘picking and choosing one’s battles’ is supposed to be a key requirement for survival in the corporate world!

An important factor here is the credibility of the CHRO/nature of the relationship between the CHRO and the business leaders including the CEO. It is possible that the CHRO hasn't paid sufficient attention to positioning of the HR function appropriately, managing/shaping expectations, building capability and consistently meeting commitments/delivering value, enhancing the levels of mutual respect and trust etc. This can lead to serious problems because effectively managing the relationships with the business leaders can be the most significant enabler for demonstrating and sustaining the 'business-orientation' we have been talking about.

In this discussion about 'business-orientation' we should not forget the other customers of HR- like the employees and line managers. There is an increasing tendency on the part of HR to give less emphasis to the ‘employee champion’ role because of the increasing importance given to the ‘strategic business partner role’. This can easily lead to situations where there is not enough focus on ‘employee engagement’ (other than the cosmetic efforts/peripheral initiatives – see 'Employee engagement and the story of the Sky maiden’ for details). Of course, there are 'special-cause variations' in the focus (or lack of it) on employee engagement. For example, in response to the 'great resignation', currently there is a lot of focus (talk?) on employee engagement. 

As it is widely known, employee engagement is a good predictor/lead indicator of business results. Thus, if this 'business-orientation' (and being the 'strategic business partner') is achieved at the expense of 'employee' engagement, the result might be 'strategic (long-term) harm' to the business. This is not to say that when the business is under financial stress, the CHRO should ignore the boundary conditions set by the same. The point is just that the focus on employee engagement shouldn't be lost though the actual manifestations of this focus can be different under different circumstances (see 'Of employee engagement and the survivor syndrome' for details).  

It is also interesting to model this situation using the concepts of 'static' and 'dynamic' equilibrium (A chair has static equilibrium. A bicycle in motion has dynamic equilibrium. In a state of static equilibrium there is balance, but no change or movement that exists in the case of dynamic equilibrium). A 'live and let live' kind of arrangement between HR and business leaders (that avoids conflict) is similar to 'static equilibrium'. But, a scenario in which HR and business leaders openly and clearly state their independent opinions, followed by constructive debate/conflict leading to decisions that both the parties are comfortable with is similar to 'dynamic equilibrium'. This does not mean that the parties can't be passionate about their points of view/express 'strong' opinions. The requirement is just that they should not get too much attached to their opinions.

In general, dynamic equilibrium provides richer possibilities. However, establishing dynamic equilibrium might not be required or even feasible in all the cases. It requires more time, effort and skill (as the equilibrium needs to be constantly reestablished) . It is also more risky (you are more likely to have a fall from a bicycle as compared to that from a chair - especially when you are learning to ride - which can be compared to the 'establishing the relationship' phase that we discussed earlier!).

A key enabler for this dynamic equilibrium is for the CHRO to work with the business leaders to crystallize the HR Philosophy/the basic tenets of people management in the organization (see ‘Towards a philosophy of HR’ for details). This will also enable HR to come with quick and effective responses to various issues/situations – based on the people management philosophy of the organization, HR functional expertise and an assessment of the context/situation.  This is not to say that the people management philosophy is cast in stone. The people management philosophy can be revisited as the organization and its environment evolves. Also, if there are extraordinary situations, extraordinary responses are required!

So, do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve? ‘Probably, to a large extent’ – is the best answer that I can come up with at this point. After all, the CEOs hire and fire the CHROs and are their direct managers (with the associated powers of 'carrot and stick'). Also, the CEOs want the CHROs to be aligned to them. This doesn’t mean that the CHROs can’t influence the CEOs. A lot of CHROs manage to do this. Yes, this requires competence, deep business-understanding, courage to speak truth to power, and clarity on values. The CHROs won't be earning their salary if they don't put forward their professional opinion. If CEOs want someone who will just execute whatever they ask without discussion, such a person can be hired at a much lower salary than what CHROs are paid. Also, the CHROs are not trees - CHROs can move (to another organization with a different CEO)! If all these are true, why do the CEOs get the CHROs they deserve to large extent?

One possible factor here is the hierarchical nature of many of the organizations. In hierarchical organizations, if the CHRO disagrees with the CEO, it can very easily get misinterpreted as 'lack business-understanding', ‘lack of competence’ or as ‘lack of trust in the judgment of the leader’. The relatively 'fuzzy' nature of the HR domain (that makes it difficult to prove or disprove things conclusively) also contributes to this. Yes, the CHROs also realize that there are no perfect CEOs/ organizations that would exactly match their preferences and hence learn to adjust (to varying degrees).  

Of course, there are other factors. Let's look at one of them. I spent the first five years of my career in HR in HR consulting. One of the things that amazed me was how easy it was to into walk into any organization, do a diagnosis and find many areas where there was potential for significant improvement. Why would the CHROs (who were much more experienced than me) fail to identify and act on those areas? Initially, I thought that this was mainly because of the ‘fresh eyes’, specialized diagnostic tools and 'learning from other contexts' that the external consultant brings in. Now, I am convinced that that there is much more to this.

Many of the organizations are not optimized for effectiveness. Organizations tend to gravitate towards a way of working that is most comfortable for the people who run it – even if it takes away from the effectiveness and efficiency. Of course, the leaders would like to believe (and make others believe) that what they are doing is the best way of functioning. Perpetuating this ‘convenient collective delusion’ (or at least not disturbing it) is often one of the unstated expectations the leaders have from the CHROs. This works even better if the CHRO is someone with impressive credentials – with best of the qualifications and prior experience in reputed MNCs and with a reputation for having done transformational work in those organizations. If such a person is the CHRO and he/she is not doing any transformation in the current organization, then the organization must be perfect – without any need to change!!!!

Of course, there is a positive side to 'CEOs getting the CHROs they deserve'. Progressive CEOs get (hire/retain/develop) progressive CHROs. There are indeed a lot of CEOs who push their CHROs to focus on  building an effective organization that is a great place to work, and also support the CHROs in this endeavor. These CEOs also set an example by role modeling the right behaviors. Again, we have no reason to believe that there are more 'good' CHROs in the industry than 'good' CEOs! 

We must also remember that there is a larger organization ecosystem that both the CEO and the CHRO are part of and it has expectations and/or influence on the CEO, CHRO and the CEO-CHRO relationship. Also, the strength and tone of the relationship that the CHRO has with the other CXOs in the company might have an indirect influence on the CEO-CHRO relationship. In MNCs and in companies that are part of a business group, the CHRO is likely to have an additional reporting manager (apart from the CEO) and this also influences the CEO-CHRO relationship/power balance! Yes, the strength of this influence will depend on the strength/nature of this additional reporting and the personalities involved. Therefore, the power that the CEO has over the CHRO (and on the decisions related to the CHRO role) will not be an absolute one! Also, CEOs are often people who have spent many years in organizations and hence learned to live with some degree of 'imperfections' in organization life. Hence, they might not have the compulsion to get exactly the kind of CHRO they want!

Any comments/ideas?

Balancing our intellectual pH!

 "Listening to him for five minutes a day might help you to balance your intellectual pH", I blurted out during a conversation with a friend of mine. We were having a conversation on a topic on which my friend had a very strong point of view and I was trying to encourage him to listen to an expert who was known for having a different point of view. My friend was refusing to do so and that was when I blurted out the statement at the beginning of this post.

The above discussion with my friend was inconclusive, and it left me feeling a bit uneasy. These kind of unresolved incidents (the undigested thoughts and feelings arising from those incidents, to be precise) can create 'ghosts' in our field of thoughts that can 'haunt' us for a long time. The ideal way to exorcise these 'ghosts' is to listen to them, revisit those incidents and thoughts and deal with them adequately to ensure that those thoughts are properly digested/absorbed/integrated. In a way, it is very similar to the 'chewing the cud' behavior of some animals (called 'ruminants'). Blogging has given me the opportunity to exorcise quite a few of such ghosts (see 'Competencies and Carbohydrates' for an example) and hence I thought I will attempt the same in this case also!

After I had done some reflection on the interaction that I have had with my friend, I became increasingly aware of the paradoxical nature of this issue. A paradox is a situation with an inherent contradiction. A paradox occurs when there are multiple points of view on an issue, each of which are true and essential, but they appear to be in conflict with one another. Therefore, let's look at few of the perspectives on 'intellectual pH' and its implications for what we should read/view/listen to:

• Just like a chemical pH balance is important for healthy functioning of the body, an intellectual pH balance is important for he healthy functioning of the mind and for intellectual wellness (effective participation in scholastic and community activities). Intellectual curiosity/openness and lifelong learning are essential for intellectual wellness. After all, it is our intellect that makes us different from other animals.  

• There is nothing like  'one right pH balance'. Even in the human body, the optimal pH value differs for different parts of the body. Similarly, our intellectual equilibrium point should be different for different issues. Moreover, while the pH balance in the body is in terms of acid-base balance, the intellectual pH can have multiple dimensions (e.g. conservative-liberal, communist - capitalist etc.).  

• It is always better to listen to multiple perspectives. It enables us to broaden our intellectual horizons and to better informed decisions and more nuanced positions on issues.

• We have only limited time and energy. Hence, we should be selective in what we read/view/listen to. Moreover, we don't know if what we read/view/listen to is accurate/valid. 

• If we try to be selective, the selection is likely to be influenced by our current point of view/biases. So, we might just end up confirming/strengthening our current point of view. While there is indeed a lot of 'fake news' out there, we can reduce our chance of being misled by focusing on those sources that are widely regarded to be reliable and that follow a rigorous validation process.  

• One has to take a position and stick to it. 'If you don't stand for anything, you will fall for everything'!

• It is very much possible to have strong opinions and to hold them loosely at the same time. Remember, the nature of 'truth' in science is always 'provisional'. 

• Not everything is a matter of scientific truth and philosophy of science. Some things are a matter of personal values and beliefs. Also, just because something confirms to the most widely held opinion, it need not be true.  

• Intellectual balance is essential for making good judgements which is essential for being effective individuals and effective members of  the society. While we do have personal values and opinions, 'no man is an island'. 

• One can't look at the world (or listen to ideas/perspectives) in a truly objective manner. All observation is theory-laden, even though we might not be aware of the theories in our mind. Since each of us have our own unique ways of looking at the world, it will be impossible to be completely intellectual balanced.

• If we are deeply aware of our point of view we can watch out for the possible biases that can creep into our thinking because of that.

Where does this leave us? We cannot resolve a paradox in the way we solve a typical problem. We cannot choose one of the options over the others without oversimplifying the situation. What is possible is to struggle with the paradoxical situation for a sufficient period of time so that we can reach a higher level of awareness and deeper understanding of the context and the issue, that will enable us to come up with the most effective response at a given moment. I guess, that is direction we should go on this particular issue also.

Yes, being 'intellectually honest' (in terms of honesty in the acquisition, analysis and expression of facts/ideas and in terms of the willingness to accept the possible limitations of one's point of view) is very important to have a fair conversation (with others and with oneself). It is often possible that being open to other perspectives might enable one to better understand ones' perspective better (or make it more nuanced) even if one doesn't change it ("We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and to know the place for the first time" - in the words of  T S Eliot). 

Humans are 'territorial' like many other animals and in our case the 'territory' includes our 'intellectual territory' and 'psychological territory' in addition to 'geographical territory'. Hence, we do have a tendency to get defensive when someone criticizes us or our points of view (as we tend to perceive it as a violation of our psychological/intellectual territory. One can (and should) definitely have personal beliefs and points of view. The requirement is just to ensure that one's personal beliefs don't interfere with one's pursuit of truth and with the quality of one's interactions with others! Yes, we look at the world (and ideas/opinions) through our own lenses. But, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to clean those lenses and to keep them as distortion-free as possible! 

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?

The 'paradoxical importance' of people

 "Show me whom should I fire", said the global business leader to the HR Head. The global business leader and the HR Head were reviewing the performance of the company operations in the country they were visiting. During the review, some complex issues were highlighted and that was when the global business leader made the above statement.

  
After two decades in the domain of people management, if there is one thing I have understood about the domain, it is that the domain of people management is inherently paradoxical. While the above statement made by the business leader seemed like a knee-jerk reaction (and reflecting a 'not so people-friendly' philosophy), it also highlighted the underlying belief that people make all the difference (and that just by changing some of the people the company performance issues can be fixed). 

Yes, in some cases, the cause of business performance issues can be traced back to particular individuals. But, in many cases the main problem might not be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policies or processes level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the business leaders to address the issues/make changes at those levels. So, there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue that can be fixed just by replacing the people involved.

Yes, it is highly tempting to 'throw people at problems'. This becomes even more of a concern in organizations that worship 'newness'. These organizations go through repeated cycles of trying to improve company performance by firing a large number of employees and replacing them with new employees. Even when there is no evidence to prove that the newly hired employees did any better than the employees they replaced, this gives the leaders the satisfaction that they took quick and decisive action. It can also create an illusion of progress, by wrongly equating 'change' with 'progress'. 

Sometimes, these people changes can trigger a chain reaction. There is often explicit or implicit pressure on the newly hired leaders to demonstrate their commitment to the change agenda by replacing the team members they have inherited. 'Infusing new talent from outside' appears to be much more progressive and decisive as compared to just 'recycling the existing talent'. This can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants)!

In a way, what we have here is an 'irony'. Irony is the paradox of consequences. Irony occurs when what actually happens turns out to be completely different from what was intended. In the particular example that we started this post with, an action that was based on the belief in the importance of people and the impact people can create, led to a consequence that was not at all people-friendly!  

Another paradox here is that the global business leader asked the HR Head to show him the people to be fired. While HR is very much expected to 'know the pulse of the organization', line managers are often in a much better position to diagnose and address business performance issues. This also raises interesting questions on the role of the HR function and what exactly should be the right type of 'business-orientation' that HR function should demonstrate. 

The domain of people management is rich in paradoxes, dilemmas and ironies. My new book 'Life in organizations - Paradoxes, dilemmas and possibilities' explores many of those paradoxes, dilemmas and ironies in more detail. The book is available on Amazon India, Amazon UK and Amazon US in both paperback and Kindle versions.. 

Would love to to hear your comments/thoughts!!!

 

Problems that refuse to remain solved : Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities

After my book on 'Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities' got published, I received multiple queries on how to correctly identify paradoxes in business organizations. This is a very important question, as not all the problems that we face in organizational life are paradoxes.

Many of the problems that we find in organizational life can be solved using regular problem-solving methods. Categorizing a simple problem as a paradox can complicate our lives unnecessarily. Some problems are to be solved, some problems are to be swamped out (by putting them in the broader context) and some problems are to be approached through paradoxical thinking. 

To me, the easiest way to spot a paradox is to look for problems that refuse remain solved. If an organizational problem is indeed a paradox, it cannot be solved in an algorithmic or prescriptive manner. If such a solution is attempted, it will create new problems. There are many fundamental problems in management that have not yet been ‘permanently solved’ - even after decades of efforts by managers, consultants and management gurus. So, when you encounter such a problem that refuse to remain solved, you are likely to be in the presence of a paradox. 

The domain of people management is rich in such paradoxes. A paradox occurs when there are multiple points of view on an issue, each of which are true and essential, but they appear to be in conflict with one another. That is why basic aspects of people management like hiring, employee engagement, performance management and rewards have become renewable resources, where solutions to the problems will create new problems to solve, and they will continue to provide opportunities for 'management' and  'thought leadership'. The good thing is that this phenomenon has sustained an entire ecosystem of ‘HR Professionals, People Managers, Consultants and Thought Leaders’ for many decades!

Paradoxical thinking is not about about endless analysis. In organizational life, decisions have to be taken, and often quickly. Paradoxical thinking is just about enabling better decisions - by developing a more nuanced understanding of the conflicting perspectives, wrestling with them for a while and taking a decision based on that higher level of awareness. Yes, it is highly context-specific, as the attempt is essentially to find the best possible equilibrium point of the conflicting forces (pushes and pulls) acting on us at that moment in the given context!

Yes, managers are paid to manage, and paradoxes can indeed be managed, if we use the term 'manage' the sense of 'to cope with effectively' instead of 'to fix it permanently'. If we approach paradoxes with the respect they deserve, they can reveal profound truths, spur creativity and help us to actualize the immense possibilities that come along with the inherent contradictions in organizational life.  Yes, it is this very process of identifying, understanding, wrestling with and responding to the paradoxes that opens up possibilities for creative living at the workplace (and in life)!

The book is available on Amazon India, Amazon UK and Amazon US in both paperback and Kindle versions. It is also available in other eBook formats like Kobo and Google Books. 

Would love to hear your comments/ideas!!!

Judging a Book by its Cover : Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities

One of the most frequent questions that I have received on the book is related to the image of a gyroscope on its front cover.  What is a rather scientific looking image doing on the cover of a book about the paradoxes, dilemmas and possibilities in organization life?

Let me make an attempt to explain the thought process that led to this. 

Managing paradoxes in organizational life is more about achieving the right dynamic equilibrium or

'dynamic balance' between the conflicting forces (the opposing pushes and pulls acting on us at that point in that particular context) as opposed to regular problem solving. A gyroscope is an example of dynamic equilibrium and it was further  shown to be balanced on a person's finger to bring in the human element.

The primary attempt in this book is to take a closer look at the some of the key paradoxes, dilemmas and polarities that we encounter in business organizations, and, to wrestle with them for a while. This can help us to reach a higher level of awareness that makes it possible for us to respond creatively to the contradictions in our specific context and to actualize the possibilities for living a more fulfilling and effective life in business organizations.

Paradoxes are divergent problems. While convergent problems should be broken into pieces and solved, divergent problems should be approached differently. They should be transcended using a higher awareness and scope.  This often involves arriving at a higher plane where the diverging forces converge. While this is indeed more challenging, wresting with divergent problems often lead to breakthroughs. Creative leaps and integration are made possible by the presence of divergent problems and simultaneous opposites.

 

Without the ability to hold competing perspectives in mind simultaneously, we risk losing sight of the wisdom and opportunities that emerge when we pursue paradoxical thinking. Holding contradictory ideas in the mind is not easy, as it creates cognitive dissonance, stress and anxiety. However, it is a very valuable skill in a world full of contradictions. While it is said that eastern cultures more naturally embrace opposites, it is indeed a learnable skill. It will also help us to resist the temptation to oversimplify the situation and to wish away the paradox. As organizations and individuals work though higher and higher levels of uncertainty and change, paradoxical thinking can enable us to differentiate ourselves. 

 

Dealing with paradoxes need a high degree of openness, mental flexibility, intellectual honesty and humility. It also calls for some sort of ambidexterity and tolerance for ambiguity at the organizational level, to live with conflicting perspectives. This is what differentiates paradoxical thinking from the typical management approaches that worship clarity, predictability and control. 

A paradox cannot be solved in an algorithmic or prescriptive manner. If such a solution is attempted, it will create new problems and do more harm than good. This is the reason why many of the fundamental problems in management have not been ‘permanently solved’, even after decades of efforts by managers and consultants. However, if we approach them with the respect they deserve, paradoxes can reveal profound truths, spur creativity and help us to actualize the immense possibilities that come along with the inherent contradictions in organizational life!   

Now let us come back to the image the gyroscope that was used to represent the concept of dynamic equilibrium or dynamic balance. While a gyroscope is indeed an excellent example of dynamic balance. a bicycle in motion could also have conveyed the same idea.  But, the gyroscope looked like a more profound metaphor!

I guess, I have a soft corner for gyroscopes as they are also used to stabilize/orient satellites in space, and I started my career with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) as an engineer. Yes. this is a rather curious mix of rationality and emotions! Maybe, that is the way most of the human decisions are!!

The book is available on Amazon India, Amazon UK and Amazon US in both paperback and Kindle versions. It is also available in other eBook formats like Kobo and Google Books. 

Would love to to hear your comments/ideas!!!

The Why of a Book : Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities

I started my career as an Aerospace Engineer at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre of the Indian Space Research Organization. Engineering is essentially about problem solving. Yes, it also involves creativity, optimizing within constraints and making design trade-offs. However, the core reality remains that the problems in engineering are meant to be solved. After I made the ‘quantum jump’ from engineering to management, I started becoming more aware of another type of ‘problems’ – problems that cannot be, and even should not be, ‘solved’ in the engineering sense.

Slowly, it occurred to me that these kinds of  problems are probably the norm, as opposed to being exceptions, when it comes to life in business organizations, especially in matters related to people and people management. 

A paradox is a situation with an inherent contradiction. A paradox occurs when there are multiple points of view on an issue, each of which are true and essential, but they appear to be in conflict with one another. This implies that that we cannot resolve a paradox in the way we solve a typical problem. We cannot choose one of the options over the others without oversimplifying the situation. 

What is possible is to struggle with the paradoxical situation for a sufficient period of time so that we can reach a higher level of awareness and deeper understanding of the context and the issue, that will enable us to come up with the most effective response at a given moment. These responses are not necessarily solutions in the normal sense of the word ‘solution’. Sometimes, these are effective ways of coping with the situation. Sometimes, these responses involve totally reframing the situation and opening up radically new possibilities.

Here, we are using the term paradox and paradoxical thinking in a broad manner. Therefore, it will also involve dilemmas, polarities and dialectic, though strictly speaking, they are not necessarily paradoxes. A dilemma occurs when one has to make a choice between two mutually exclusive options, neither of which is clearly better than the other one. If these options are polar opposites, then we have a polarity. 

A dialectic is a pattern that begins with a thesis followed by an antithesis and resolved by a higher synthesis. This synthesis can be followed by another antithesis and the pattern can repeat, though at a higher level, as one point of view teaches the other point of view instead of invalidating it!  Another term that is relevant here irony. Irony occurs when what actually happens turns out to be completely different from what was expected. In a way, irony is the paradox of consequences.  

This book is the outcome of my struggle with these paradoxes, contradictions, dilemmas and possibilities over the last two decades. While this struggle can indeed be very frustrating, it also holds the key to achieve a higher level of awareness and more nuanced understanding that can open a wide range of possibilities for us – possibilities for responding creatively and effectively to the paradoxical situations that we face at work and in life.

This book is an expedition through the paradoxes, dilemmas, polarities and possibilities in the various aspects of organizational life. Our focus will be on ‘real world paradoxes’ that impact our effectiveness in business organizations, as opposed to ‘logical paradoxes’ that are more like logical riddles. The book is organized in a manner that anyone who works in business organizations should find it interesting. If you are a people manager or business leader or if you work in the Human Resources domain you will find many additional insights. I do not promise any algorithmic solutions or to do lists. However, I do promise a lot of triggers for insights!   

The book is available on Amazon India, Amazon UK and Amazon US in both paperback and Kindle versions. It is also available in other eBook formats like Kobo and Google Books. 

Would love to to hear your comments/ideas!!!

On what good looks like : HR policies and processes

This post is an attempt to come back to a topic that we had explored here 7 years ago. The topic is the implications of the unstated assumptions that organizations and individuals have on 'what good looks like'. 

In the the previous post (See 'On what good looks like') we had explored this mainly from the point of view of selection decisions and 'person-organization fit'. In this post, let's look at it from the point of view of the different options for running the HR function, especially from the point of view of HR policies and processes.  

Now, if you were to ask me what is the significance of 7 years, I can only say that the number 7 is considered to be a 'perfect number' in many cultures and that some even associate mystical qualities to it!

When it comes to the underlying (unstated) definition of 'what good looks like' we had identified two themes that can be conceptualized as two ends of a continuum. They were 'absence of variation'  and 'presence of value' . Let's see what this means from the point of HR policies and processes.

In 'absence of variation' kind of organizations (where the definition of quality is similar to the 'Six Sigma' definition of quality), consistency of implementation of HR processes/policies is of paramount importance. This ensures ‘procedural justice’. This is also largely in line with HR models that emphasize process stability and maturity. This would mean very few or no exceptions! The essential message to the employees in this way of working is something like  "If you are eligible for something you don't have to ask for it (because you will get it without asking). If you are not eligible for something, then also you don't have to ask for it (because you won't get it even if you ask)."

In 'presence of value' kind if organizations(where the definition of quality is more like 'fitness for purpose'), the emphasis is on what makes most sense (adds most value) in a particular situation. This approach leads to a lot of flexibility in running HR (subject to some broad principles/HR philosophy and the laws of the land, of course). But it also can lead to a lot of exceptions. This, in turn, can lead to perceived inconsistency unless the HR and Business leaders have deeply understood the broad principles/HR philosophy and also have extensively communicated the same to the employees. 

Most of the companies find their equilibrium point somewhere in the continuum between the two polar opposites. The state of evolution of the company, the state of evolution of the HR function in the company, the industry in which the company operates, the culture of the company and the personal preferences of the leaders are often the factors that impact the choice of the equilibrium point. 

It can be argued that when the size a company becomes very large, it tends to gravitate towards the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'Paradox of HR systems' for a related discussion). 

It can also be said that in those contexts where 'the owner and the manager are the same person' (e.g. in the case of partnership firms and proprietor-driven companies) there is often an affinity towards the 'fitness for purpose' kind of underlying definition of quality (See 'HRM in partnership firms' and 'Of owning and belonging' for more details)

Again, it can be argued that as the HR function in a company evolves, the underlying definition of 'what good looks like' often follows a U-curve kind of pattern - starting with 'fitness of purpose' kind of definition (as HR policies and processes are yet to take root). moving towards the 'absence of variation kind of definition' (when there are very detailed policies and procedures in place) and then coming back to 'presence of value'  kind of definition (when the policies and procedures are perceived to be too restrictive/bureaucratic). This is especially significant in companies that are operating in rapidly changing industries, and hence requiring more agility in terms of people management also. By the way, this 'U-curve' is a concept is found in many of the social sciences (See 'U-curve and Simplicity @  the other side of Complexity' for more details). A similar argument can be made in the case of some of the key enablers in HR, like behavioral competency frameworks, that assume that 'there is one right way of doing things' and hence comes very close to the 'absence of variation' kind of underlying definition (See 'Competency frameworks : An intermediate stage?' for more details).  

It is also possible to create some sort of a ‘synthesis’ of these two definitions of 'what good looks like' ('absence of variation' and 'presence of value') that act like the 'thesis' and the  'antithesis'. One pragmatic option could be to define the policies/procedures very clearly/in detail, and also define an exception process that is very tough!

Any comments/ideas? 

The Paradox of High Performance Cultures

'Creating a high-performance culture' is a phrase that adorns many a corporate presentation, made by both Business and HR Leaders. Once you have spoken about whatever else you wanted to say about your business strategy and plan adding this magic phrase, 'creating a high-performance culture', seem to give it a nice 'human touch' and demonstrates your commitment to facilitating the unfolding of human potential in your organization!

So, what is the problem? Just because something looks good on PowerPoint slides, we can’t assume that it won’t work in real life. The problem begins when we start asking questions. Is there really something like a high-performance culture? Does it remain constant across organizations? Is it a naturally occurring phenomenon or is it something that can be created? If it can be created, what kind of creation is required?  Once created, can it be sustained? It is when we try to answer these questions we come to the paradox mentioned in the title of this discussion.

An issue becomes a paradox when there are multiple opinions the issue, each of which appears to be true, but they seem to be in conflict with one another.  In this discussion, we will look at the various perspectives that exist regarding high-performance cultures and try to make some sense out of them.  Let’s start with some of the perspectives:

• High-performance culture is the ultimate source of competitive advantage and hence developing a high-performance culture should be given the highest priority
  High-performance culture is just a fad. It sounds good. But it is very difficult to bring it down to specifics and impossible to implement. It is just something that has been invented in retrospect to explain the success of some high-performing groups
  

• Culture is a characteristic of a group whereas high-performance is an outcome that depends on multiple factors. So it is misleading to speak about high-performance work cultures. One should instead speak about high-performance work systems
  

• There is no one culture that leads to high-performance
  

• There are cultural traits leading to high-performance that hold good across organizations
  

• We can define a target high-performance culture and create it in a short period of time
  

• Culture is something that evolves over a period of time and deepest levels of culture consist of unconscious assumptions. It is not something that be ‘copied and pasted’ on a group
  

To make sense out of this we need to clarify what is ‘culture’ and what is ‘high-performance’.  While there are multiple perspectives here also, let us use the following as working definitions. A group is said to be high-performing when it consistently achieves its goals. Culture is the ‘way we do things around here’ – the recurring patterns of behavior in a group. If we put these two definitions together, we can define a ‘high-performance culture’ as those recurring patterns of behavior in a group that enables the group to consistently achieve its goals. So, the real question becomes ‘is there really a set of such of behaviors that by itself lead to high performance of the group’?

 If we have to understand the functioning of groups, we have to look at both its hardware and software. Hardware is the structure, policies, processes etc. Software is the people and the culture. Often, problems at the hardware level get conveniently misdiagnosed as software problems, because it is much easier to train people and to run culture-building sessions as compared to making significant changes in structure, policies and processes. So, if we have to have a high performing group, both the hardware and the software have to be good and also in sync with each other.

 Most of the studies in the domain of high-performance cultures list a set of characteristics and factors associated with high-performance cultures. These characteristics and factors and their relative importance vary across the different studies, Yes, sometimes they do look like wish-lists and not like proven causal factors for high-performance cultures. Nevertheless, it is instructive to take a look at them.

Some of the popular characteristics listed are passion for excellence, shared understanding and buy-in to the organization purpose, vision and goals, outward focus, decisiveness, sense of urgency, speed and agility, sense of ownership and personal accountability on the part of all the employees, discipline, diversity and inclusion, innovation and risk taking, passion for learning and renewal etc. All these do seem reasonable. What is not proved is whether these characteristics are causally linked to high-performance or if they are just correlated with some of the high-performance situations.

Now let us look at the factors that the studies on high-performance culture list as the ones responsible for high-performance. They include high performance standards and benchmarks, alignment of goals, high person-job fit, clarity of individual performance goals coupled with real-time feedback, review and coaching mechanisms, streamlined, and simplified processes and procedures, policies that enable and not hinder performance, flatter organization structures, realigned competency frameworks and incentive schemes to reinforce appropriate behaviors, high degree of performance based differentiation in rewards, role modeling by the leaders etc. Here again all these factors seem reasonable. But, they seem to be part of any good performance management system and not something unique to high-performance cultures.

May be, that exactly is the crux of the issue. If these factors corresponding to good performance management are coherently and consistently implemented, it will lead to high-performance. That is, when these gets consistently done and get role modeled by the leaders, it becomes ‘the way things get done’ and that is exactly the definition of culture that we have been using! When these are also structurally reinforced by appropriate structures, processes and policies they become sustainable. This helps us to realize the true power and importance of performance management. The performance management system, when properly designed and implemented, can be the most effective culture building tool instead of being a collection of annoying forms and formats!

Yes, spelling out what exactly is high performance and what exactly is the target culture required in their particular context would be helpful for a group to work towards high performance. High-performance need not necessarily be relative. It is with respect to whatever goals a group sets for itself though the group might refer to external performance benchmarks before arriving at the its goals. Similarly, there is no one right blueprint for culture as the culture that will lead to high-performance for a group will depend on the group’s strategy, context and stage of evolution.

The most important thing here is to go beyond broad statements of intent and empty platitudes. To make things we work, we have to identify the few most important cultural characteristics that needs to be changed and reinforced. We also need to keep in mind the interrelationships, structural reinforcements and alignments. We must ensure that the new cultural characteristics that we are trying to build is in alignment with the core values of the organization. Another important enabler is to remove impediments to high performance like ‘passive resistance’. All these, when done consistently, becomes the way of life and hence fit to be called ‘culture’!

So where does this leave us? Yes, groups vary in terms of performance levels and some of that variations in performance can be attributed to differences in the patterns of behavior (culture) in the group. Since these groups function in different contexts and with different goals, we can’t identify a single blueprint for high-performance culture that will be valid across groups though there could be some common characteristics and factors. Yes, in any group we can examine the hardware and software of the group to see if they are optimized and aligned for the achievement of the goals that the group has set for itself. When we detect gaps in the same, steps can be taken to address the same. However, these will often require fundamental changes in the functioning of the group and that requires commitment and investment from the leaders for an extended period of time. We must remember that what often differentiates a high-performance culture is the intensity and rigor of the implementation and not content of the culture! Unless the group is fully committed to the change, in both letter and spirit, the changes can’t be implemented and sustained. After all, a culture becomes real only when it is experienced!