Remarkable Encounters – Part 3 : Contented

It is said that we discover some parts of ourselves only in the context of our interaction with others. Some of these interactions are so enriching that they leave us feeling more complete, integrated, alive and human. Similarly, some of the interactions prompt us to think more deeply about the underlying aspects, instead of just floating on the surface of life. In this series of posts, we have been looking at the impressions from some of the remarkable encounters that I have had.  

In the first post, we looked at my impressions from my encounter with a remarkable teacher (See Remarkable Encounters – Part 1 : Teacher). In the second post, we looked at a constant companion to many of us – fear (See Remarkable Encounters -Part 2: Fear). This post is based on an encounter that I have had a long time ago, that stayed with me all these years. 

My first job, after I made the ‘quantum jump’ to the management domain, was with a global management consulting firm. Management consultants, in general, tend to lead stressful lives. Some of them even glorify their high-stress fast-track lifestyles that also involve frequent business travel. Of course, since the business travel is often billable to the clients, the consultants often get to stay in the best of the hotels with a wide range of food options. One of the ironic things that I noticed was that, even among the consultants who ordered very highly-priced dishes, only a small percentage of them ate the food mindfully/enjoyed the food (as their minds were often preoccupied with other ‘more important’ matters).   

There was one exception to this in the office – though not among the consultants. This was provided by the elderly security guard in the office who always used to greet everyone, employees and visitors alike, with a warm smile. He was also very effective in his work and he could resolve tricky situations (that would have got the other security guards agitated) with a large degree of grace and ease.

He used to eat his lunch from the roadside food stall just outside the office. His lunch was always the same – a plate of rice with some gravy poured on it accompanied by two pieces of 'dal vada'. What caught my attention was the slow and mindful way in which he used to eat this simple lunch that too with a great deal of enjoyment.

Initially I thought there was something special about this apparently very basic meal. I was even tempted to try it myself. But, since I didn't see the same level of enjoyment on the faces of others who ate the same food from the same food stall, I came to the conclusion that it was probably more to do with him as an individual. Maybe, he had learned how to enjoy his food. Maybe, this was part of something larger – like being comfortable in one’s skin/being comfortable with where one was in one’s life. This did prompt me to explore some of the definitions of/approaches to ‘personal excellence’ that go beyond the traditional measures of success.    

One such idea is the Greek concept of areté. Though this word is often translated as 'virtue', it actually means something closer to 'being the best you can be', or 'reaching your highest human potential'. Areté is frequently associated with bravery, but more often, with effectiveness. The man or woman of areté is a person of the highest effectiveness; they use all their faculties to achieve real results. Areté involves all of the abilities and potentialities available to humans. Thus, being one's best self and realizing one's  human potential is a key part of this approach towards excellence.

Another relevant concept here is that of 'flow' or 'being in the zone' – especially the aspect of ‘being fully immersed in an activity and enjoying the same’. One of the defining features of ‘flow’, that is particularly relevant in the context of our exploration here, is that ‘flow’ can be achieved at various levels of skill, so long as the level of skill and the level of challenge are in sync. This enables an individual-specific approach towards achieving the ‘flow’ (at one's current level of skill). 

Yet another such concept is that of 'shibumi'. While there are many interpretations on what shibumi means, I am using it here mainly in the sense of 'great refinement underlying commonplace appearances'. The other interpretations of shibumi that appeal to me include 'simple, subtle and unobtrusive beauty', 'articulate brevity', 'understated beauty', 'tranquility that is not passive', 'being without the angst of becoming', 'authority without domination, 'harmony in action', 'invisible excellence', 'effortless effectiveness', 'beautiful imperfection' and 'elegant simplicity'. 

From this discussion, the similarities between shibumi and 'simplicity on the other side of complexity'(which is the primary theme for this blog) are quite obvious. No wonder I like the concept of shibumi very much! This does highlight the role of ‘resonance’ in the perceptions of excellence – the resonance of a particular thing with one's (subjective) self -  that go beyond any absolute/objective factors!

Apart from areté, ‘flow’ and shibumi, another key underlying theme for the kind of excellence we are talking about here could be the emphasis on 'presence of value' rather than on 'absence of defects'. Thus, 'goodness and authenticity' are preferred over 'correctness'. One interesting aspect that is common across all the three underlying themes mentioned above is that they all imply internal benchmarks. Maybe, that is the way it should be since here we are talking about 'personal excellence'!

In this context, the Zen concept of 'personalization of enlightenment' also comes to mind. It says that your work does not finish once you attain enlightenment (otherwise, there is no point in living any longer !). Actually, your true work begins only then. The real work is to personalize the enlightenment that you have attained by bringing in your unique gifts/perspective/life context.

Now, let’s come back to my encounter with the gentleman that triggered all these thoughts/prompted this exploration on personal excellence. I don’t remember his name. However, I still remember him, his quiet efficiency, the relish with which he was eating his simple lunch and his state of 'being at peace with oneself' – even after almost two decades since I moved out of that office. Come to think of it, what I noticed in him also has similarities with some aspects of  ‘wu wei’ , especially those related to ‘unconflicting personal harmony’, ‘effortless action’ and ‘perfect economy of energy’ ('Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished').

Of course, I am in no way suggesting that the challenges and rewards associated with various jobs are comparable or that less stressful jobs are better. I am also not trying to glorify the job of a security guard in any way. I guess what made this encounter remarkable was that I saw something in his behavior that stood out (beyond what can be attributed to job-specific factors) and that it was something that was missing in the behavior of most of the consultants including myself.  So, in a way, the experience served as a mirror to me. Yes, it did prompt me to examine some of the unexamined parts of my personality, my beliefs and my behaviors, apart from prompting me to explore the concept of ‘personal excellence’ in some depth. Hence, going by the definition that we had started this post with, it definitely qualifies as a 'remarkable encounter' for me!

 Any thoughts/comments?

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? 

On what ‘good’ looks like…

“I am leaving this organization because my manager and I have very different ideas on what ‘good’ looks like in my domain, and we have agreed to disagree. It was not a matter of lack of clarity on the performance objectives and targets. The issue was a fundamental disconnect on what those objectives and targets should be and how they should be achieved – on what ‘excellence’ means in my role and in my domain”, said the Function Leader during his exit interview.

In my career so far, I have had the good fortune of experiencing many organization contexts – either as an external consultant or as an employee. Based on these experiences, I have come to realize that organizations often have different definitions of the ‘picture of success at an individual level’ (i.e. what good individual performance looks like). While the tasks/deliverable will vary from one job to the other within the organization, there are common patterns that hold good across jobs in an organization on what good performance (or ‘excellence’ or ‘quality’) looks like. But, these patterns can vary a lot from one organization to the other. When people move from one organization to the other this can create ‘rude shocks’ – for both the employee and the organization – especially when an employee who has been successful in one  organization joins another organization that has a different definition of excellence('what good looks like').

Let us take a closer look at these underlying(tacit) definitions of quality (or excellence). While each organization has its own underlying definition (assumption), it can be useful to conceptualize these underlying assumptions as points in a continuum between two polar opposites : 'absence of variation' and 'presence of value'. 

At one end we have organizations where the underlying definition of quality is very much similar to the ‘six sigma definition’ – ‘absence of variation’. In these organizations, the performance of an employee considered to the excellent, if he/she thinks through the goals before agreeing to the same, creates a detailed plan to work towards the goals in a systematic manner, archives goals even if there were changes in the environment (through scenario planning, risk analysis & mitigation and sheer focus). These organizations also tend to value and invest in building capability/expertise – at both people and process level. Hence the premium is on good design, deep expertise, meticulous planning, reliability, consistency, coherence and congruence. In extreme cases this can lead to rigidity.  

At the other end of the continuum we have organizations where the definition is more like 'presence of value' or ‘fitness for purpose’ (with the ‘purpose’ changing quite often). Here the focus is on ‘trial and error’. Simply put, this means do whatever makes most sense in a particular situation. In these organizations, muddling through things is acceptable and even preferred (over thinking through things and seeking clarity before starting work). People who insist on planning and consistency are considered to be ‘risk-averse’ (or even to be 'lacking in courage'). Operating with contradictions (and lack of coherence & consistency) is considered to be ‘heroic’. A lot of emphasis is placed on pragmatism (as opposed to expertise) and on workarounds.  Hence the premium is on ‘flexibility’ and ‘crisis handling’. In extreme cases it can lead to an organization that jumps from one idea (goal or fad) to another on a frequent basis.

Of course, there are many other dimensions (for the variation in the underlying definitions on what good performance looks like) in addition to dimension represented by the continuum between the two end points mentioned above. There is nothing inherently 'good' or 'bad' about these underlying definitions - they are just different (equally valid) ways of looking at the world. The point is that these variations exist across organizations and it could have a significant bearing on performance, employee satisfaction, engagement and retention.

To some extent, these assumptions are related to the environment in which the organization is operating in. But it is often it is a matter of the preferred way of responding to the environment. These assumptions are also closely related to the culture of the organization- especially the deeper levels of culture – values and basic underlying assumptions. Theoretically speaking, the match between the employees’ and the organizations’ definitions of ‘what good performance looks like’, is represented by some dimensions of ‘person-organization’ fit. However, an intellectual discussion on the low scores on some dimensions of ‘person-organization’ fit might not fully bring out the reality (trauma!) of the ‘rude shocks’ for the employee and for the organization (mentioned earlier in our discussion).

This brings us to the question of adaptation. Employees can adjust. Organizations can change too – though usually it is a very slow process and require a ‘critical mass of new employees with different preferences’. The individual’s definition of ‘good’ can also change. However,  the individual’s definition of ‘good’ is shaped mainly by his/her personality and his/her ‘early career experiences’ (see 'Influence of early career experiences') and a change in the same requires lot of time and a critical mass of high impact (profound or traumatic) new (different) experiences. Hence, for the time being, let us focus on the issue of new employees attempting to align with the organization’s definition of ‘good performance’.

Yes, employees do realize that they are unlikely to find an organization that provides a 100% match to their preferences and that they need to adjust. But if an employee needs to constantly act outside his/her preferences it can lead to stress.  This can also lead to mediocrity as the individuals are not able to play to their strengths. Excellence and engagement at individual level requires the opportunity ‘to bring more of who you are into what you do’ (see 'Employee engagement and the story of the Sky Maiden'). It is critical for those employees for who looks at work as one of avenues for self-expression. Similarly, when organizations talk about connecting with employees at higher levels of the needs hierarchy, this becomes important for the organizations also.

Now let us come back to the exit case that we saw in the beginning of this post. Ideally, the employee and his manager should have been able to arrive at a higher ground that integrates their conflicting points of view (like the struggle between thesis and antithesis results in a higher more truthful synthesis of the two - in Hegelian Metaphysics).But this ideal state is often not possible within the constraints of the organization context and the individuals involved. Sometimes (as the existentialist philosopher Kierkegaard says), people will have to make ‘either/or’ decisions (and the seductive beauty of Hegelian ‘and/both’ turns out to be an illusion).

One of my all time favorite books is ‘Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’ by Robert M. Pirsig. This book begins with the lines “And what is good, Phaedrus, And what is not good, Need we ask anyone to tell us these things?" In the context of our discussion (for a person who is trying to join a new organization or for an organization trying to hire someone), the answer should be a loud ‘YES’.  Yes, it is worthwhile to ask this explicitly, listen carefully, ‘read’ between the lines and to be very careful about what is left unsaid!!!