Of learning and legitimacy

Almost all the organizations say that they ‘value’ learning. Some of them even claim to be a ‘learning organization’.  The trouble starts when we look at the extent to which this ‘proclaimed importance’ of 'learning' gets reflected in the ‘actual way of working’ or the ’decisions made’ in the organization.

The answers to the following questions can throw some light on the importance (or lack of it) of learning in an organization:

• Is ‘learning’ supposed to be something that one should do only when one is ‘free’ (from the demands of other work activities)?
• Are the capability building programs conducted on regular working days or on holidays/ weekends?
• Do the senior leaders participate in capability building programs? Do they 'teach' in the capability building programs that their team members attend? Do they ensure that their team members don’t get pulled out of the capability building programs when some important work comes up? Do they demand/facilitate/track the transfer of learning/newly learned behaviors to the workplace? 
• Is learning considered to be mainly a 'cost' or an 'investment'? Do the learning budgets get cut at the 'slightest provocation'?
• Is ‘learning’ a ‘cherished presence’ in the organization or is it is just a ‘tolerated presence’?

Of course, the answers to these questions are not binary – they are indeed a matter of degree – with each organization finding their equilibrium point between the two polar opposites.

This choice of the equilibrium point does have implications. For example, it is one thing to make world class anytime learning (e-learning) solutions available to the employees. It is entirely a different matter to make it ‘culturally acceptable’ to do an anytime learning course during office hours. Hence, even when two organizations in the same industry make the same set of anytime learning solutions available to their employees, how the employees perceive them (and the utilization of those programs) can be very different. Similarly, if two organizations, with one working Monday to Friday and the other working Monday to Saturday, nominate their employees to a capability building program that takes place on a Saturday, the employees might perceive it quite differently.  

 I must say that I have had a very lucky start when it comes to this aspect. Before I made the ‘quantum jump’ to the management domain with my MBA, I had started my working life as an Aerospace Engineer/Scientist with the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) at the Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre (VSSC). VSSC had very big library with books/journals/magazines on a wide range of subjects and we (the employees of VSSC) were encouraged to spend as much time as possible in the library during office hours. Since this was my first job, I assumed that this is how all organizations (at least organizations in knowledge-intensive industries) work and I was promptly proved wrong once I started my career in management. Of course, this was not the only wrong assumption I had made while I made this transition (please see 'The why of a book: Life in Organizations - Paradoxes, Dilemmas and Possibilities'). However, my 'early career experience' did have an impact of my definition of 'what good looks like'.  

Now let’s come back to the title of this post. Does the organization consider 'learning' to be a legitimate 'business activity'? 'Business activities' can be defined as activities that a business engages in for the primary purpose of making a profit. Hence, the core issue here is whether learning is considered to be an activity that adds substantial net positive value to the business and hence worth investing in. If the answer is a clear ‘yes’, then prioritizing and investing in learning should happen naturally. If not, investment in learning is more of a 'necessary evil' or a requirement for the 'license to operate' or a 'nice to do (and not a must do) thing'. 

Of course, 'learning' is not just about ‘structured capability building programs’ or ‘anytime learning’. Learning indeed happens in many ways and as per the ‘legendary’ 70:20:10 model, about 70% of the learning happens ‘on the job’ and only about 10% of the learning takes place through ‘structured learning programs'.

I do agree that most of the learning happens through job experiences. It does become problematic when this finding is used as an excuse for 'cutting capability building budgets without establishing any concrete mechanism for facilitating the learning through job experiences'. Since 'job experiences' are outside the traditional domain/mandate of the Learning & Development (L&D) function, it is easy (and very convenient) for the organization to jump to the conclusion that 'the entire responsibility for ensuring that this type of learning happens lies with the employees and their managers. 

Unfortunately, this type of learning (learning through job experiences) often does not happen automatically. Just doing a relevant project/activity need not necessarily lead to learning the target capability. It requires multiple cycles of ‘deliberate practice' and 'reflection' (ideally with help from a coach) to derive and assimilate learning from the on-the-job experience. Therefore, there is a need to put in place mechanisms to structure, facilitate and track this type of learning (please see ‘Truths stretched too far’ for details).

 Another interesting aspect here is that capability building programs mean different things to different people and that the alternative (unstated) purposes of the capability building programs could be very different (and much more important) from the ‘textbook’ purpose of  capability building programs -  building the targeted capabilities (please see ‘The many lives of capability building programs’ for details). For example, if the capability building programs are mainly meant to be ‘fun' or 'pleasant distractions from unpleasant work realities', then conducting them on holidays makes a lot of sense!

Any comments/ideas?

The silent organization

"I noticed something surprising during my induction program. While I met many employees from the various functions and levels in the organization, no one told me any stories about the organization. This has never happened to me in any of the organizations that I have worked before!", said the newly hired employee with a puzzled expression. 

The first thing that came to mind when I heard the above exchange was the Sherlock Holmes story ‘Silver Blaze’. The following exchange takes place in the story: 

Scotland Yard detective: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Scotland Yard detective: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."

Typically, employees like to tell stories (from the 'glorious past' of the organization) to a newcomer. These stories could be about a great leader who architected a turnaround in the organization, about a team that managed to accomplish a difficult goal in the face of overwhelming difficulties, about something that the organization did that made big impact on the society, about an amazing example of customer service, about a significant innovation or technological breakthrough made by the company, about outsmarting the competition etc. The stories also could be about something in which the employee was personally involved like an accomplishment, a great manager or team member or mentor, an incident where the company went out the way to support the employee during a crisis etc. 

Telling these stories to a newcomer allows the employees to 'relive' the incident and feel proud and energized. These stories can help the newcomer to connect to the heart and soul of the organization better than any facts and figures presented during the induction. It is said that a social group (including an organization) constructs its reality through the stories and legends. These stories embody the culture and values of the organization and serve as an effective enculturation tool. Also, the connect between the new employee and the organization (a key component of employee engagement that impacts the motivation and retention of the new employee) happens mainly through the connect the new employee forms with the current employees (and their stories!). So, this kind of storytelling is highly beneficial for the newcomer, the existing employees and the organization. 

If these stories are absent, it can be a sign of potential trouble for the organization and a useful 'early warning' for the new employee. Silent or 'story-less organizations' tend to be devoid of 'identity' and 'soul', and, hence it becomes impossible for the stakeholders, including the employees, to connect to it at an emotional level. After all, what is there to connect with?! 

Hence, typically, these kind of 'silent situations' occur when the employees are unable to connect emotionally to the organization or when they don't feel proud about the organization, their function or their job. While it is possible that 'nothing worth mentioning has happened in the organization', it is more likely that the employees 'didn't feel the connection and ownership' to what has indeed happened.  

These situations are more likely in organizations that take a more transactional approach to people management and don't pay sufficient attention to employee engagement, sense-making and creating a sense of belonging. Another possibility is that the organization has done something  trust-destroying (or even 'soul damaging'), like a 'mismanaged restructuring' or 'acting in a manner that very much at odds with the espoused values of the organization'. 

The difficult thing here (for the organization) is that the situation can't be remedied just by getting the internal communication function to hunt for/write a large number of stories and do an intense campaign based on those stories. It is because the problem is with the 'emotional connection' to the stories and not with the absence of stories. In a way, it is a like the type of diabetes that occurs not because of lack of insulin but because of the loss of sensitivity to insulin! 

At the most fundamental level, this is exactly the way it should be. Storytelling is an intensely human activity and unless the human side of the organization is given adequate importance and nurturing, storytelling (and culture building and employee engagement/retention based on the same) would be an impossible dream! 

Stories come alive (for the storyteller and for the listener) only when they come 'straight from the heart' and that can happen only if the employees can connect with the story (and the organization) emotionally (and not just rationally). So, in an organization that doesn't invest in building and sustaining an emotional connect with the employees, employees are unlikely to connect with 'corporate-sponsored stories' and they are even more unlikely to tell those stories to newcomers. Yes, the employees might derive some pleasure in ridiculing the 'corporate-sponsored storytelling' attempt!    

Postscript: One of the queries that I have received in response to this post is whether this kind of storytelling can happen without face to face interaction (as virtual working is the norm in the current pandemic situation). I think that storytelling and the connect through the same can take place through virtual interactions also. These days, even psychotherapy is being done effectively through virtual meetings. It has been said that one of the advantages of virtual meetings is that one can observe the other person very closely without making that person feel uncomfortable. Of course, it works the other way around also!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 7 – Herophobia

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. Here we are exploring concepts that are unlikely to be found in ‘respectable’ text books (and also not taught in ‘premier’ business schools) but are very much real in the paradoxical world of people management (See ‘The attrition principle’,  'In the valley of attrition' , 'Sublimation of vision statements' , 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment', ‘Training the Victim’ and ‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ for the previous posts in this series).

Why are we so wary of the term 'hero' in business organizations? This is a question that has intrigued me quite a bit. We actively look for heroes in other walks of life. Even when it comes to a novel or a movie, a hero is almost always present. Considering all this, why is it so fashionable to make statements like “we don’t have any heroes in our organization” when it comes to business organizations?

To avoid any possible confusion, let’s clarify the basic terminology for our discussion. We are using the term ‘hero’ in a gender-neutral sense here. So 'hero' doesn't have to be male (or the 'alpha male'!)  The sense in which we are using the term ‘hero’ here is quite similar to what Joseph Campbell does in his book ‘The hero with a thousand faces’. So a hero is someone who goes beyond the current boundaries, conquers difficulties, brings back something that is of immense value to the group and also undergoes a personal transformation in the while doing all this. 

The benefit of the hero to the group is in terms of expanding the horizons of the group and also in terms of motivating other members of the group to realize the heroic potential in them. Once the hero is back, he/she goes back to his/her old ‘job’ but approaches it in a new (better/higher) manner. Of course, the journey can start again on a different dimension (and hence becoming a hero is a continuous process and not some sort of one-time achievement or ‘certification’!).

So the hero is different from a celebrity or a superstar! Also, heroes and leaders have different roles in a group (though they are not mutually exclusive). While the hero provides outstanding positive examples by going beyond the current standards in the group, it is not their role to ‘rescue the group or the group members from trouble’.

I guess most of the herophobia is because of the concern that if a group celebrates heroes it might become dependent on the heroes, that it might impede teamwork or that the others in the group might feel inferior. In a way, it is also because of the residue of the reaction to the (now discredited) ‘great man theory of leadership’. Based on our discussion so far it can be seen that these fears are unfounded. 

Apart from the above factors that lead to herophobia at the organization level, there could also be factors operating at the individual level. That we want to be heroes is evident from the fact that most of us like to live out the hero's journey vicariously through identifying with the heroes in novels and movies. Hence, it is not that we don't like being heroes. Probably, what leads to herophobia at the individual level is some sort of 'learned helplessness' based on the belief that we can't be heroes (and that only a 'special few' can be heroes). So if we want to be something, and we can't do it and we see a some others (heroes) do it, it can trigger a host of negative emotions ranging from frustration, envy and fear. As these are uncomfortable  emotions, we might not consciously recognize or own them! As we will see shortly, this learned helplessness is based on a wrong assumption (about who can be a hero) and hence unwarranted.

Being a hero is not a 'character trait' that is present only in a few people. It is essentially a process of exploration and personal transformation that all of us can undertake. The hero’s journey gives hope to the other members of the team (that is work can be much more meaningful and impactful) and inspires them to kindle the spark of heroic potential in them. We must remember that the hero has a ‘thousand faces’ (or an 'infinite' number of faces) and hence (inspired by the heroes) every group members can be a hero. Heroes are very much part of the group and they are in no way an impediment to team work!

Now, let's come back to the "We don’t have any place for heroes in our organization; we have place only for teams that swim or sink together” kind of statements that we came across at the beginning of this post. They are based on a misunderstanding of the role of the hero in a group. Using the same metaphor, we can say that ''heroes not only swim with us but also help us to redefine how fast, how far and in which direction we can swim and thereby help us to realize our own heroic potential"!

So where does this leave us? It is clearly beneficial to the group to celebrate the journey and achievements of the heroes (without making them ‘celebrities’ or ‘privileged few’) in a way that it encourages the others in the group to realize heroic potential. They should be highlighted as examples that all of us can learn from, help us redefine what is possible and thereby give us hope and courage to unleash our true human potential. One doesn’t qualify as a hero unless one brings back something of significant value to the group and hence the hero’s journey is not some sort of ‘ego trip’. Also the personal transformation itself is the greatest reward for the hero. The power of the hero derives from the inner-strength he/she developed from the journey and not from the group putting the hero on a pedestal. Hence, the heroes don't need to monopolize the limelight or the rewards.

These days, when finding meaning and realizing one’s potential becomes increasingly important for employees at work, herophobia can limit the options available to the organizations. It might be worth considering modelling some of the long-term people development programs on the hero’s journey (see ‘Accelerated learning and rites of passage’ for a somewhat similar discussion on an anthropological approach to facilitate role transitions).

Another related application of the hero's journey is in coaching, especially to help an employee to discover his/her calling and to chart out the journey to fulfill the calling. It helps to derive more meaning from coaching and to provide better orientation and more hope for the journey of self-discovery and personal transformation. In this way, coaching becomes a conversation with the hero latent in all of us! By the way, coaching can also help in unlearning the 'learned helplessness' that we discussed earlier (the one that is based on a wrong assumption about who can be a hero and hence leading to herophobia).

Yet another application is in culture building and cultural induction of new hires. Telling stories about the deeds of heroes that exemplify the values of the organization is a  great way to communicate and reinforce the values of the organization!

It is interesting to note that the concept of 'hero' became 'unfashionable' in business organizations mainly in the last two decades. To some extent it was triggered by the highly visible/publicized  failures of some of the 'celebrity leaders' who were wrongly equated with 'heroes'. This in turn triggered the apprehensions related to the possible adverse impact on the organizations and teams that we looked at earlier. All this is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of hero and who can be a hero. So, at its core, this post has been an attempt to 're-democratize' the concept of a hero so that it becomes accessible to all of us and we can leverage it to realize our heroic potential!.

Any comments/ideas?

Of values and competencies

“If we don't clearly differentiate between values and competencies, we are devaluing the values!”, said the Organization Development Manager to the HR Business Partner. They were discussing the plight of the new hires in the organization who were confused by similar-looking names that they come across in the list of organization values and in the competency framework of the organization. Since this is quite a familiar situation across organizations, let’s try to explore the domains of values and competencies in a bit more detail in this post.

To begin with, let’s understand these two concepts more deeply. Competencies are a combination of knowledge, skills and attitudes that lead to success/superior performance (e.g. in a job, in a function, in an organization etc.) Values are the things that the organization ‘values’ (i.e. consider to be important) and hence values are deeply-held beliefs about what is most important.

Most of the confusion comes because we often don’t take the organization values seriously. In many organizations, they are an ornamental piece (i.e. they don’t really influence decision-making) and they harmlessly exist in the posters on the walls of the organization and in the slides of PowerPoint Presentations(typically in the elite company of the vision and mission statements of the organization).

To me, something should be called a value only if it is so important (so valuable and so core to the organization) that it would be exhibited even if it leads to competitive disadvantage or even a loss for the organization.  Since competencies (by definition) are linked to success, this clearly brings out the difference between competencies and values.In a way, competencies are about how to win and values are about how to live, and winning has to be done within the overall context of living!

The difference between values and competencies are evident in the typical manner in which they are arrived at. Competency frameworks are ‘designed’ where as values are ‘discovered’ or ‘crystallized’. In a way, competencies are more a matter of the mind where values are essentially a matter of the heart!

Typically, values are identified at the organization level (i.e. there is only one set of values for the organization) where as competencies can be defined at job, function and organization level (based on what leads to success at each of the levels). Competencies are developed whereas values are aligned! Addressing competency gaps in the employees is much easier as compared to addressing lack of alignment between the values of the employees and the values of the organization.

The competency frameworks are often revised much more frequently (based on changes in business environment and strategy) as compared to the values for the organization. It is interesting to note that the organization values are often a reflection of individual values the founding members of the organization. While the values of the organization can be shaped to some extent by the members of the organization and by significant events that shape the organization over a period of time, values remain relatively more stable as compared to competencies. The relative stability of values is also because the fit between the individual values and the organization values (the so called ‘culture-fit’) is often a criteria in the selection process! In a way it make sense, as inculcating values is a long process!

It is interesting to note that while the same thing can be a competency or a value, the implications are vastly different. For example, if ‘customer orientation’ is a competency, we will probably understand customer needs deeply and meet the needs better that what our competitors do so that the customer is willing to pay us more. But if ‘customer orientation’ is a value, we would meet a commitment made to the customer even if it leads to a loss for the company (even when there are ways to wriggle out of the commitment). So while values might look nice and innocuous, they definitely need skin in the game! Competencies should be exhibited in the context (spirit and boundary conditions) provided by the values! If this condition is met and the difference between values and competencies are clearly understood, then the same thing (e.g. customer orientation) can be both a value and a competency in an organization and it might even be beneficial as it might lead to greater focus on capability building (as competencies are often linked to HR processes like assessments and learning & development).  

Yes, deeply-held values can guide behavior when no one is looking (and even shape how we experience and interpret the world) and values can be a great culture-building tool (In a way, culture is encoded in the DNA of values!). But if there is a disconnect between the espoused values and the enacted values, it would lead to confusion and loss of trust that can be very damaging to the organization culture. Technically speaking, it can be argued that values are 'value-neutral' (in the sense that what defines them is their supreme importance to the group and not their correctness according to some external ethical standards). But we must remember that each group is part of a larger society and there are some basic standards of ethics that are largely accepted by most of the current human populations!

So,  what does all this mean? I am all for leveraging the power of values so long as the values are really valued. That is, we should include something as a value if and only if it is so important to us that if required we would be prepared to take a a hit to the business for it. This conflict is easier to manage if the values are in sync with the core purpose of the organization. Actually, some companies include values explicitly in the purpose/mission statement (as opposed to keeping it separate). Of course, this would work only in those organizations where the purpose/mission of the organization is taken seriously!

Identifying the values is only the first step. After that entire chain of activities including clearly describing the values and articulating why values are so important, creating and communicating representations/examples of how each of the values play out in the various parts of the business, ensuring that the leaders visibly demonstrate the values/are role models in living the values, conducting values workshops across the organization to enable the employees to understand what exactly each of the values mean in the context of their jobs so that they can live the values more completely in their jobs, collecting and celebrating/recognizing outstanding demonstrations of the values across the organization, measuring the actual experience (of lack of it) for the values across the organization and taking action to reinforce the values where needed etc. begins! Of course, we must validate that the policies and processes in the organization are in alignment with the organization values.

How strongly a value is held decides the extent to which it influences decision-making. Also, if there are multiple values, how strongly each one is held becomes the deciding factor when there is a situation where the values are in conflict (i.e. where we have to prioritize one value over the other). Since values usually ‘goody goody things’, often we don't even consciously think about the relative importance of the values to us, unless we are forced to choose between values (and hence the importance of doing an exercise like 'value auction' that forces us to prioritize the values  as part of value clarification/crystallization sessions). It is also highly useful to clearly articulate (e.g. during the values workshops mentioned above) how to deal with situations where there is a possible conflict between two of the company values!

 

Hence, while values are very powerful and useful they also involve hard decisions and hard work! So, 'handle with care'!!

Any comments?