Of inner compass and uncertainty

“Do what you think is right!”, said the HR leader. I had gone to him to seek his advice on a complex issue where there were multiple courses of action possible and all of them contained significant risk of failure. Somehow, this comment impacted me profoundly.  

I am not sure if I interpreted this comment in the way he intended it to be. May be, the that is exactly the way it should be. The impact of these conversations are often similar to what happens when we read a great book. The meaning often runs in parallel with or is even independent of what is written/spoken. These books (and conversations) create some sort of a ‘field’ that helps us to derive our own meaning.

I guess, the current uncertain environment made this comment emerge from the ‘back of the mind’ to the ‘day to day mind’! To me, what is great about this comment is that it helps in decision-making under uncertainty. 

To maintain integrity (in the sense of integration of thoughts, words and deeds), our actions should be in alignment with our values (what we consider as important, see ‘Of values and competencies’). In an uncertain situation, evaluating the various courses of action based on whether they are likely to work becomes even more difficult. 

So in such situations, one’s inner sense of right and wrong or the inner sense of fit or inner sense of beauty (one’s inner compass) becomes the only useful guiding force. If one hasn't paid enough attention to this inner compass, then one's actions might be driven primarily by fear, in uncertain situations. Use of this inner compass also ensures some sort of affirmation/intrinsic reward even if the course of action that one chose doesn’t succeed to the expected level or ‘pay off’ in the external sense!

This 'inner compass' is somewhat like a muscle. The more one uses it the stronger it gets. In a way, this creates a bit of a 'chicken and egg problem' and hence this involves some sort of 'leap of faith', with the word 'faith' being used in its original meaning of 'trust' (from Latin 'fides').'  While external validation has some relevance, the most important question is if one beats oneself up if the choice made using the inner compass does't succeed as expected. This brings to mind the following quote/story: "From the morning, I have been standing in front of a house begging. Only now I realized that it was my own house!".  

Note: It would be interesting to examine if the concept of 'inner compass' is applicable at the organization level also. To me, the 'inner compass' is applicable - for those organizations that have done successful 'soul-searching' efforts and haven't 'bartered away the soul' after that. In a way, the 'real values' of the organization (not necessarily the ones that are pasted on the walls) are the closest organization equivalent to the inner compass. One must differentiate between values and competencies. Something qualifies as a value only if it is so important (so core/so valuable) to the organization identity that it would be demonstrated even if it leads to a competitive disadvantage. Also, values are discovered (through a deep soul-searching process) and not designed. Competencies are about how to win whereas values are about how to live! 

Any comments/thoughts?

Who is talking to whom?

This post was triggered by the pattern of interactions that I observed in one of the alumni groups that I am part of. Most of the people in this group had worked together for a period of 3-5 years about 20 years ago. After that, there was not much interaction among these group members, till a WhatsApp group was set up a couple of years ago.

So, the ‘shared experience’ of this group was from a period about 18-22 years ago, when most of the members in this group would have been in their twenties or early thirties. So, the current interaction is taking place when most of the members are in their forties or early fifties. Very different life stages indeed!

This can lead to a wide variety of scenarios, in terms of ‘who is talking to whom’. For example,

• the ‘younger selves’ of the members are talking to each other about their shared experience (that happened a long time ago)
• the 'current selves' of the members are taking to each other about their current situation
• the ‘younger selves’ of the members are talking to each other about their current situation
• the 'current selves' of the members are talking to each other about their ‘old’ (shared) experience

I guess, the most ‘interesting’ interactions occur when the ‘current self’ of a member 'unexpectedly' interacts with the ‘younger self’ of another member. In a way, this is similar to a ‘crossed transaction’ in Transactional Analysis (TA), because the response one gets is from a 'different self' (different 'ego state', in TA terms) of the other person as compared to what one was trying interact with. It is very much possible that different people are looking for different patterns of interaction in  the alumni group. 

Since the alumni groups are created based primary on a 'shared experience that took place a long time ago', people can have varying expectations on the extent to which they want the members in the group, including themselves, to 'grow up' - in terms of the behavior/interaction in the group. If some of the members had joined the alumni group mainly to 'relive the good-old days' or to 'be their young self again', then 'growing up' might not be such an obviously correct choice for them, when it comes to their behavior in the alumni group (and this can annoy some of the other members in the group who have different expectations)!

These 'crossed transactions'  can lead to rage, tears, frustration, laughter or indifference. This is also one of the most common reasons* why people leave such WhatsApp groups (though they tend to come back after a while). The key factor that influences the outcome of this 'crossed transaction' is the level of trust/strength of the relationship between the members. If others join in on this interaction (from their various 'selves'), the situation can get even more 'interesting' and unpredictable!

*Note : Apart from the crossed transactions mentioned above (which is, in a way, a 'perceived violation of the psychological territory' of a group member), another important reason why people leave alumni WhatsApp groups is a 'perceived violation of their ideological territory'. As we get older, we tend to solidify our positions/ideologies in life. In a way, this is a attempt to make our life easier/ a mechanism to simplify the complexities in decision-making. If I define myself as a socialist  (or as a religious person or as a liberal), I can view and respond to life from that perspective. While this simplifies decision making, it can lead to inflexibility and intolerance. So, if someone says something in the WhatsApp group, that goes against my ideology, I am likely to perceive it as a personal insult and feel compelled to respond to it or to leave the group. This is especially so since the shared experience (that would have acted as a bonding factor/integrating mechanism) is in the distant past and it is no longer strong enough/active enough to help in resolving these perceived violations of ideological territory. 

Have you come across such patterns of interaction? Any observations/comments?

Appropriate metaphors for Organizational Commitment

"We need more commitment in this organization. Employees should just trust their managers and the organization and do what they are asked to do. Instead, they get confused and start asking questions", said the senior HR professional. It was my second encounter with this person (See 'Passion for work and anasakti', for the details of the first encounter that happened many years ago). Like what happened last time, this statement set me thinking. I have realized that interactions like this prompts me to examine my own opinions/assumptions and hence enrich my understanding. That is why I treasure these encounters!

For the purpose of our discussion here, let us define Organizational Commitment as the psychological attachment or affinity that employees have to the organization they work for. It is highly useful for the organization/employer as organizational commitment (or certain types of organization commitment - to be more precise) can have a positive impact on important workplace outcomes like employee retention, attendance, performance and extra-role behavior. There exists a significant volume of literature on organization commitment (e.g. affective commitment, continuous commitment, normative commitment etc.), its antecedents and its outcomes.

Now, let us come back to the statement made by our senior HR professional. What intrigued me the most was the likely underlying assumptions in his statement about the behavioral manifestations of commitment and trust. My objective is not to prove that these assumptions are wrong. Having been a people manager for more than a decade, there have been many situations where I felt that it would be so much better for everyone if my team members just did what I asked them to do without forcing me explain everything. Different assumptions are valid to different extents in different contexts. The objective here is just to examine if there are other ways of looking at the situation.

To begin with, I am not sure if 'getting confused' or 'asking questions' necessarily indicates lack of commitment. It might just be that the employee does not have enough information/clarity on what exactly needs to be done and how. Often, this is the result of the so called ‘curse of knowledge’. As the manger might have additional information/background/big picture understanding & knowledge/expertise about the situation/task the employees don’t have, what seems so simple, clear and obvious to the manager might not be so for the employees. But since the manager does not realize this (i.e. as he burdened by the ‘curse of knowledge’) he does not feel the need to provide all this information. Hence the most reasonable response on the part of a committed employee is to seek clarifications. However, in some organizations it could be culturally more acceptable for the employee to ‘muddle through the situation’ as compared to seeking clarifications upfront. In such cases it is the organization culture (and not the employee) that needs fixing (see 'Placebos, Paradoxes & Parables for Culture Change').

Sometimes, it is possible that the employee has a different view from that of the manager. In this case also, the most effective response is to discuss the matter upfront. But if such a behavior is not permitted/feasible, it can lead to 'passive resistance', especially on the part of the 'good' employees. As we have seen ‘Paradox of passive resistance’, it is often the highly competent (and hence capable of seeing the limitations of the approach suggested by the manager) and committed (and hence caring too much about the organization to accept the suboptimal solution) employees who exhibit passive resistance in an organization context where they can’t express their disagreement directly without seriously jeopardizing their careers.

Now let us look at the ‘trust’ aspect. I think that expressing the feeling of confusion and/or seeking clarifications can actually be a sign of the employee’s trust on the manager. If this trust did not exist, the employee won’t make himself vulnerable by expressing the feeling of confusion or by seeking clarifications (and hence revealing his lack of understanding). In a way, it also demonstrates the trust the employee has on the manager’s competence (to be able to provide the clarification). Of course, expressing confusion/asking questions can also be a defensive behavior – to avoid/delay the task. It is also possible that questioning too much when there is a critical need to take urgent action is counterproductive. My point is just that expressing confusion/asking questions doesn’t necessarily indicate lack of trust. It is interesting to note that the type of trust implied by our senior HR professional (on the omniscience and infallibility of the manager/organization) boarders on trust in God. That kind of trust would be appropriate in a religious/spiritual context but not in the context of business organizations! This brings us to the topic of metaphors and the appropriate use of metaphors.

Metaphors are highly useful tools for thinking. Metaphors facilitate the understanding of one conceptual domain (typically an abstract one) by relating it to another more familiar conceptual domain (typically a more concrete one). They are so much a part of our lives and thinking that often we are not fully conscious of the metaphors we use. It has also been argued that by examining the metaphors we use, we can a learn a lot about ourselves – our values and assumptions. A good metaphor is generative. It helps us to develop new ideas, perspectives and understanding about the topic that we are exploring (especially when the topic is a relatively unfamiliar one). But the use of metaphors also has its disadvantages. Since a metaphor is not an exact comparison, often inaccurate/irrelevant/misleading meanings & ideas creep in into our thought process/understanding. Since we might not be fully conscious of the use of metaphors in our thinking, this can be dangerous.

Now let us look at a couple of metaphors used to talk about (think about) the ‘employer-employee’ (employment) relationship. The most common one is that of ‘marriage’ – with sometimes a finer distinction being made between ‘arranged marriage’ and ‘love marriage’. While this metaphor help us to generate useful ideas (e.g. the importance of ensuring high degree of ‘person-organization’ and ‘person-job’ fit at the time of selection), it also brings in meanings that might not be appropriate (e.g. the requirement for making a long term commitment at the time of joining the organization – reflected in statements like ‘we should hire only those people who are willing to make a long term commitment to the organization’). As a social institution, we don’t yet have a viable alternative to marriage. But we do have viable alternatives to lifelong employment. In some societies, marriage is a sacred bond. But employment might not be so. While stability/continuity of employments is important for business, the disruption caused by employee attrition is often no way close to the trauma caused by the dissolution of marriage. Again, in the context of frequent rightsizing and reorganization, a sacred longtime employment commitment might not be feasible even from the organization’s point of view.

Another metaphor is that of the family (with the employer being the parent and the employee being the child). While this metaphor also helps us to generate useful ideas (like encouraging high degree of mutual trust & collaboration, care/benevolence towards the employees, extra-role behavior/going the extra mile etc.), it also brings in meanings that might not be appropriate (like a lopsided relationship/power balance, assumption that the employer/manager always ‘knows best’, encouraging ‘Parent-Child’ interactions as opposed to ‘Adult-Adult’ interactions– in the Transactional Analysis sense – between the employer/manager and the employee etc.)

So where are we now? We have found that two of the most common metaphors used to talk about (think about) the ‘employer-employee’ (employment) relationship have significant disadvantages. They also create avoidable complications when it comes to figuring out what kind of trust and commitment would be appropriate in an organizational context. However, metaphors have tremendous rhetorical value and hence they are highly useful for leaders/managers in the complex endeavor of ‘motivating’ or ‘inspiring’ employees (Please see ‘Power of carrot and stick’). Metaphors are also be very useful for employees to find meaning (or to make sense) in the workplace (Please see ‘Architects of meaning’). Again, it would be very difficult (or even impossible) to totally avoid the use of metaphors as they are such an integral part of our thinking process. Hence metaphors are here to stay and we need to make the best use of them.

Are there metaphors that are more appropriate for helping us understand commitment and trust in the employment relationship? May be, there is no one metaphor that is appropriate. The best course of action might be to use multiple metaphors (e.g. marriage, family, contract, partnership, citizenship, mission, journey, marketplace, channel, tribe, village, casino etc.) to generate a wide range of ideas on the various aspects/dimensions of the topic/concept, while consciously watching out for spurious meanings/ideas that are likely to come in as part of that process, so that we can select the useful ideas (and discard the irrelevant/misleading ones) enabling us to come up with richer understanding and better responses!

Any ideas/comments/metaphors?