Treating the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR Professionals!

“Those who say theory and practice are two unrelated realms are fools in one and scoundrels in the other”, I came across this quote (from 'Letters of Ayn Rand')  some time ago and it reminded me of a ghost that I have been trying to exorcise for the last 11 years. In 2007, I wrote a post called ‘HR Professionals and Multiple Personality Disorder’, where I talked about many HR Professionals (especially those who have taken their behavior science education seriously) developing multiple personalities to deal with  the conflict between the apparently mundane nature of their jobs and the desire to apply their behavior science knowledge to their work. So, when they are in their Personality 1 (the dominant personality) they carry out their jobs without any application of their behavior science knowledge and when they are in their Personality 2, they go to HR conferences and HR team meetings and talk about applying theory to practice (without ever getting around to implementing what they have discussed). Both these personalities co-exist, without being consciously aware of the existence of the other!

Though this post had triggered quite a bit of discussion in the blogosphere (see here and here apart from the comments section of the post for examples), the post was incomplete in a very significant way. While I did detail out the disorder (and the possible causes for the development of the disorder), the only thing I mentioned on treating this disorder was to get the multiple personalities to talk to one other. While this was a useful first step, it was far from sufficient as a cure. So, the matter of finding a cure was not properly closed (buried) and it created the ghost (that I mentioned at the beginning of this post) that has been haunting me ever since. What follows in this post are some thought fragments based on my struggle with this ghost during the last decade.

Let’s start with a basic question. Is there really anything like ‘HR theory’? This question becomes important as HR is essentially an applied field. Yes, one learns many theories during one’s HR studies. But these theories are mostly borrowed from psychology, sociology and anthropology. We must also remember that HR is a relatively young field even as compared to other social sciences.

Now, let's see what is a theory and how it is different from a law and a model. A scientific law is the generalized (often mathematical) description of an observed phenomenon (e.g. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation). It doesn't explain why the phenomenon exists or what causes it. The explanation of a phenomenon is called a scientific theory (e.g. Einstein’s theory of relativity). To be useful in the context of our discussion here, a theory should provide predictions that can inform actions, and to be scientific a theory should be falsifiable (i.e. the predictions of the theory can be empirically tested, and the results of the testing can strengthen/weaken the theory or even lead to modification/discarding of the theory). It is interesting to note that when we move outside the realm of scientific law and consider the laws created by an authority (e.g. the government, as in the case of labor laws), these laws are intended to impose order or  create a desired pattern in the behavior (as opposed to just describing a pattern that already exists). A model provides a structural representation of a phenomenon to enable a simplified understanding (e.g. 70:20:10 model of learning).

To be pragmatic, any theory that helps us to understand, predict and possibly influence human behavior at the workplace, we would consider to be an HR theory regardless of its field of origin (e.g. Vroom’s Expectancy -Instrumentality- Valance theory of motivation).

Since I was aware of the risk (of not being able to apply what I have learned; and I did take my behavior science education very seriously), I wanted to ensure that I did something beyond commonsense. So, I learned the various tools and methodologies (job evaluation methodology, change management methodology, tools for competency mapping, tools for data analysis, psychometric instruments, behavioral event interviewing etc.). While it gave me some satisfaction, later I came to realize that what I have become is more of a ‘mechanic’ and not a scientist or even an engineer (See Daydreams of an OD Mechanic). From that point, I made a more conscious effort to apply theory to practice and the following thought fragments are based on my learning from that effort (and from experience of young HR specialists I mentored) during the last decade.

• First, some good news! Contrary to popular belief, most of the business leaders do want us to bring in our specialist expertise to our work (remember, they are paying us higher for our HR expertise). Yes, they want us to bring our expertise to solve the most important business problems (forget 'HR for HR') and that too in such a manner that they can relate to it.

• There is an entire continuum from abstract theory to middle level theory(principles) and models. While it makes sense to understand the entire continuum (so that higher levels can inform the choices at the lower levels), the lower levels are easier to communicate and apply in the business context. For example when it comes to Learning and Development, we have theories of perception (abstract theory), principles of adult learning and 70:20:10 model of learning.

• It is critical to communicate at the appropriate level of abstraction depending on the client/audience. In general, it is much better to bring in theories and principles without using intimidating labels. For example, instead of using terms like Expectancy -Instrumentality- Valance of the Vroom’s theory of motivation, we can simply say that employees would be motivated if we our performance management system can give them the confidence that their efforts would lead to higher levels of performance, that the higher levels of performance would lead to more rewards and that the rewards would be those that the employees are interested in. No, this doesn’t lead to loss of rigor. It definitely takes more effort to crystallize our understanding of the theory. As Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”!

• It makes a lot of sense to understand how and in what context a particular theory was derived (and the underlying worldview, if possible) so that one can make more informed choices on its degree of relevance in a particular context. Also, one should be open to look at the multiple theories that might apply to a particular situation even when they give different predictions. By struggling with the paradoxes arising out of the different predictions provided by the various theories one can develop a certain kind of wisdom (See Wisdom-level consulting) that can help us to make better decisions!

• Theories and models can also be valuable sources of ideas and of the various ways to think about a situation, even when we can’t directly derive a specific recommendation based on the theory (remember, there are other factors that impact decision making like the ‘people management philosophy’ and organization constraints). Like Randy Pausch said, “Life is an Engineering problem” (it is about optimizing within constraints and not about perfect solutions). Hence, if we consciously think through what we can infer from the various theories that are applicable in the particular situation, we can do a much better job of optimizing the decision-making.

• We must be wary of the seductive charm of ‘best practices’. Of course, we can leverage best practices as a source of ideas. Knowledge of ‘best practices’ can easily give us an illusion of expertise (and even that we are applying theory to practice). We must remember that a best practice is a best practice in a particular context and that unless we can figure out what made it a best practice in that context (our knowledge of the applicable theories can help us in figuring this out) we can’t deduce what is ‘transferable’ to our context. Casual benchmarking, like casual sex, is easy but dangerous! Similarly, having a strong understanding of the fundamental theories governing a particular domain, allows us to make better sense of the large number of ‘research findings’ (which are often about some relationship that has been 'found' between two variables) that we come across professional magazines, so that we can make more informed decisions on their applicability to our context (as the theories can explain the ‘’why’ of the relationships between the variables).

• There are many opportunities in organizations (especially when you are facilitating sessions or even when you are part of group interactions) when you can use the data points from the group’s (immediate or historical) experience to highlight patterns predicted by applicable theories. In a way, theories are about predicting probable patterns. By being aware of some of the probable patterns, one is in a much better position to point out the patterns when they emerge. This can lead to insights and actions. Yes, depending on the preferences and learning style of the people involved, one can take a decision on whether or not to use the actual (technical) terminology associated with the theory. In a way, this process also helps us to develop our ability to detect new patterns and explanations and to abstract new knowledge from our experiences that would be helpful to other professionals. To me, HR being essentially an applied discipline badly needs more models and concepts that are derived in the context of the actual practice of the profession.

• While consulting or internal consulting oriented jobs do provide a formal mandate to stand at the intersection of theory and practice(and hence to apply theory to practice), one must resist the temptation to get obsessed with (and hence get stuck at the level of) tools, methodologies and best practices as mentioned above.  

As in the case of many other diseases, ‘prevention is better than cure’ in the case of the Multiple Personality Disorder of HR professionals also. This requires making changes to HR education (e.g. also teaching how and in what context a theory was derived, what sort of empirical validation of the predictions of the theory exists and how the theory is applied in the context of business organizations instead of just teaching the theory, helping the students to 'develop the stomach for theory' that enables one to integrate the various theories applicable in a context or at least to hold the competing theories in mind without going crazy etc.) and to the way we manage the ‘campus to corporate’ transition (e.g. orienting them to the aspects mentioned in the bullet points above, highlighting the possibility of the differentiated contribution they can make to the organization by applying what they have learned, providing them a mentor who can guide them in applying theory to practice etc.). 

Applying theory to practice requires both sensing the emerging patterns in the organization (so that one can identify the most important needs) and understanding the theories and models deeply enough (to figure out what is core and what can be reinterpreted based on the context and how various theories can be combined to address new or complex situations). Yes, testing (piloting) the recommendation in one part of the organization (ideally where the need is very clearly felt and hence there is more appetite to take the risk of trying out the solution) makes eminent sense as it can give confidence to the stakeholders on the applicability of the (theory and the) recommendations in the context of the particular organization and also give the practitioner a greater understanding of how the various nuances play out. Yes, this also needs brushing up one's fundamentals in social research methods (so that one can appropriately set up the pilot and accurately interpret the results of the pilot) and enhancing one's consulting, business partnering and change management skills. 

I must add that 'applying theory to practice' doesn't imply that we don't value the 'practical knowledge'/heuristics(rules of thumb, mental shortcuts) that comes from experience. The idea is to go beyond them and see if we can get deeper insights into the situation at hand by looking at applicable theories. Most effective solutions result when we are able to combine these two types of knowledge (theoretical and practical) in an appropriate manner! Applying theory to practice and deriving theory from practice are two sides of the same coin!  

Let's look at an example here. The thumb rule on 'span of control' says that the span of control should ideally be between 4 and 7. Now, if we also know the theories governing span of control we would have a better understanding of the factors that can either increase or decrease the ideal span of control (e.g. if the team is geographically dispersed then the span of control should be lower, if the tasks performed by the team members are similar then the span of control can be higher, if the degree of supervision required is high then the span of control should be lower, if the amount of administrative tasks that needs to be performed by the manager is high then the span of control should be lower, if the skill level of the manager is high then the span of control can be higher etc.). This would enable us to make better decision in a particular context as compared to what was possible if we just used the thumb rule. The knowledge of the theory/factors impacting span of control can also help us in another way. It enables us to enable higher spans of control (if we want to do so, e.g. for increasing cost efficiency) by modifying the factors (e.g. by increasing the skill levels of the manager and the team members, using information systems to make supervision easier and admin load lesser etc.) 

Since the primary concern of a practitioner is solving a problem in a particular context, and also considering the typical nature of data relevant for HR related problem solving, a 'grounded theory' approach can also be very useful (as the theory is 'grounded' in the particular data set it is derived from). 

It is highly useful to discuss one's thoughts and learnings with other practitioners within the same organization and also outside the organization (without violating any confidentiality requirements) during the various phases of the initiative as it can give new perspectives especially on the context specific aspects of the theory and its applications. Yes, mentoring other practitioners also greatly enhances one's ability to apply theory to practice! I have also found it highly useful to periodically interact with academics who also do consulting work in the domains that I am working on. It is interesting to note that one of the foundational methods in organization development was 'action research' (research with the intent to facilitate action). In a way, all this points to the way of the 'scholar-practitioner' whose work is focused on the most important issues of context he/she is in while being grounded in theory and informed by research!

Having said all this, we must remember that 'applying theory to practice' is not about any sort of compulsion to apply (force-fit) theories to every situation (and definitely not a compulsion to apply one's pet theories). The idea is just to study the situation and critically assess if there are any theories that are applicable to this situation. If yes, we will go on to evaluate the relationships, explanations and predictions provided by the theories/models and use them to inform our decision-making. It is not an algorithmic process and we need to develop the meta-cognitive ability to choose wisely. While we must be careful not to let our attempt to apply theory to practice short-circuit our observation of the situation, we should also remember that 'all observation is theory-laden' (by the unstated theories/ideas in our mind). Hence, there is nothing like 'pure observation' and the best we can do is to be as aware as possible about the biases that can be created by of both the unstated theories in our mind and the stated theories that we are trying to apply. Even if it was somehow possible to remove all the previous knowledge and theories from our mind so that 'pure observation and response' can emerge, the response would be either child-like or childish and nothing in between!

So, these are the thought fragments I have at this point. Now, over to you for your comments/suggestions!

The curious case of the object and subject of Employee Engagement

"You should join us only if you fall in love with our company”, said the HR Head to a group of summer interns from premier business schools.

“I don’t think my exit should be considered as attrition; the company that I am leaving is very different from the company that I had decided to join”, said the OD Manager during his farewell.

I heard these statements quite some time ago. But they pop up in my mind whenever I think about employee engagement. The first statement (made by the HR Head), makes me think more about the appropriateness (or the lack of it) of the various metaphors used to describe employee engagement. The second statement (made by the OD Manager)  makes me wonder who or what exactly is it that the object of employee engagement and if employee engagement is a one-way street. Let’s explore these in a bit more detail in this post!

Employee engagement is a concept that is very popular these days as there is a significant amount of research that indicates the positive impact that employee engagement can have on business performance. Yes, like many fashionable things, employee engagement often gets trivialized into (‘fun and games’) activities that misses its core (See ‘Employee engagement and the story of the sky maiden’ for more details). While there are many definitions of employee engagement, a ‘strong emotional connect’ that leads to ‘discretionary effort’ is the central theme in most of these definitions. Also,  it is this ‘strong emotional connect’ that is one of the key underlying factors in the two statements that we started this post with!

Let’s start with the statement of the HR Head. He definitely had a point. Any transition to a new organization (especially when it is from campus to corporate) will have its own share of frustrations and if one develops a strong emotional connect to the organization (during the summer training, in this case) it becomes easier to overlook these frustrations.It also helps in not getting distracted at the workplace. The metaphor he used (that of falling in love, in the romantic sense of the term ‘love’) has remarkable similarities with the ‘strong emotional connect’ that we found in the definition of employee engagement sense. Yes, romantic love is a great enabler for 'pair formation' (and for recruiting one into the organization). Yes, this type of love can also lead to the employee putting in discretionary effort. 

The main problem is that people fall out of this kind of love, that too fairly quickly. To put it in another way, while it is a great enabler for pair formation, romantic love is not so effective when it comes to 'pair maintenance'. Also, as we have seen earlier in ‘Appropriate metaphors for organization commitment’, metaphors that are used to talk about the ‘employer-employee’ relationship often create complications because a metaphor is not an exact comparison and hence inaccurate/misleading meanings and assumptions creep in into our understanding of the relationship. Of course, metaphors have tremendous rhetorical value and hence leaders are tempted to use them for ‘motivating’ the employees (Please see ‘The Power of carrot and stick’ for a discussion on if there is any difference between motivation and manipulation)

Falling in love can lead to attachment or even possessiveness which can be counterproductive (see ‘Passion for work and anasakti’). Also, if the employee falls in love with the organization (and the organization doesn’t fall in love with the employee), it can lead to an exploitative relationship. Love that is not reciprocated often turns into hurt and hate very quickly!

Yes, there are other definitions of love, like the one Scott Peck uses in 'The Road Less Traveled' ('extending oneself for the spiritual growth of another') that can lead to discretionary effort without the complications mentioned above. But, those types of love are not something that someone can 'fall into' as it requires aspects like a higher purpose and conscious decision-making. 

This brings us to the interesting discussion on if it makes sense to (re)define engagement as conscious decision that the employees make instead of being an emotional reaction/outcome of emotional connect. While this sounds promising, this type of engagement (which is a deliberate decision) might not so easily lead to discretionary effort if the returns of that discretionary effort (which can very well be in terms of satisfying the higher order needs like esteem or self-actualization in the Maslow's hierarchy in addition to satisfying lower order needs like physiological and safety needs that are usually met by salary and job security). 

Yes, I have heard employees making statements like "I keep myself engaged regardless of what the organization does or doesn't do", though I am not sure if they used the term 'engagement' in the sense of discretionary effort (or just in the sense of keeping oneself focused on one's job). If it is the promised 'magic of employee engagement' (creating something out of nothing, like getting extra work done without paying anything extra for it) that get employers excited about employee engagement, then this definition can create complications! 

Now let’s come to the statement made by the OD Manager. Here the key issue is ‘what exactly is the ‘company’ that the OD manager was referring to when he talked about 'the company he joined' and 'the company that he was leaving'?’’ Is it the legal entity, is it the company brand , is it the products and product brands, is it the immediate manager, is it the team, is it the senior leaders, is it the CEO, is it the some higher purpose (other than making money) served by the company or is it the way get things get done in the company (company culture)? Most of the studies indicate the 'immediate manager' as the most important player in the game of employee engagement. But it could also be because the manager represents the organization for the employee and the organization's 'sins' are often incorrectly attributed to the managers (like when we say 'people leave managers and not organizations'; see 'Blame it on the managers' for more details). So, when it comes to the object of employee engagement, there are many possibilities and also many combinations of these possibilities!

If we examine the above list of possibilities (objects of employee engagement), we will find that most them can change and that some of them do change frequently in many organizations these days. This also indicates that the loss of social capital/breaking of working relationships during reorganizations can have an adverse impact on employee engagement. Again, it is possible that the employee’s preferences/factors that engage the employee changes during his/her tenure in the organization. So there are many moving parts here, on both sides of the equation, and that makes keeping the employee engaged quite challenging. Hence, employee engagement becomes a continuous activity and it requires a deep understanding and careful management of the evolution of the psychological contract!

 At a more fundamental level, the issue here is about the 'reciprocity' aspect of employee engagement. Why is it only about the employees feeling emotional connect to the organization (and putting in discretionary effort)  and not also about the organization reciprocating the feeling (and going out of the way to do something for the employees). Yes, as we have seen in the above paragraph, the 'object' of employee engagement can vary and hence the issue of who or what exactly is the 'organization' that is supposed to reciprocate  can further complicate things. May be, we can just say that all those who benefit from the the discretionary effort put in by the employee should reciprocate. While it is very clear that employee engagement benefits the organization, it is not very clear if it leads  to employee happiness or even employee satisfaction in the long run. 

So what does all this mean? To me, (employee) emotions are precious (or even sacred) and they should not be trifled with. Yes, emotions are also highly powerful in driving discretionary effort and they can lead to remarkable (business) results. So, organizations should engage the emotions of the employees only if they are willing to reciprocate (in terms of going out of the way to care for the employees in various ways depending on the context). If the idea is just to increase performance or to create accountability, there are other ways (that works on rational commitment and are well within the scope of the employment contract without getting into the domain of psychological contract) like goal alignment, performance management, gain sharing plans and performance linked incentives that can align the interests of the employer and the employee and hence address the 'principal -agent problem' (see 'Of owning and belonging' for more details). 

Hence, we should leverage the power of emotional connect (and the discretionary effort that comes from it) only if we are willing to look at employee engagement as a relationship (and hence a two-way street) and are able to consistently respond in a manner that respects and nurtures the relationship! Otherwise, we run the risk of the (perceived) intent of our employee engagement efforts resembling that which is often depicted in the cartoon strips on employee engagement (e.g. tricking the employees into 'gladly putting in extra effort without getting paid anything extra in return')!

Any comments/ideas?

Of owning and belonging

"This is as much my company as it is your company", said the Organization Development (OD) Manager when he was having a courageous conversation with the CEO. While he was being deliberately provocative (safe under the 'Court Jester' immunity that he used to enjoy), what he said was factually correct, While the CEO was two levels higher than the OD Manager in the organization hierarchy, the CEO didn't have any other claim to ownership in the company that the OD Manager didn't have.

I do wonder if the OD Manager would have been able to make the same statement, if he was having this discussion with the head of a partnership firm (where the partner is both the owner and the manager) or if he was having the discussion with the CEO of a family-owned firm (where the CEO owns a large percentage of the shares of the company). In a way, this situation is ironic. The role and the mandate of the OD Manager is the same in all the three scenarios. The only difference is that in the second and third scenarios there is someone else in the organization who has an additional claim to ownership that the OD Manager doesn't have. So the question becomes, just because there is someone else who can say 'My company' in more ways than what you can, does the level of ownership you feel come down?

Let's push this thought experiment a bit more. What if the OD Manager doesn't have any interaction with the CEO and hence there is no way the CEO can convey this message (of having any special ownership claim) directly or indirectly? What if the owner gives up the CEO role and becomes purely an investor but holding the same large percentage of the shares of the company? What if the OD manager is given some shares of the company? Would the risk of the OD Manager feeling less ownership reduce in any of the last three scenarios? Again, if other things remain the same, would there be an impact on the level of  ownership based on whether the company in question is a public limited (listed) company or not?

This brings us to the question of what exactly is this 'ownership'. In business organizations, the phrase 'building ownership and accountability among the employees' is heard very frequently these days. To me, accountability is external (you are held accountable by somebody for something and it is usually reinforced with carrot and stick) whereas ownership is internal (it is something you feel). In a way, the relationship between accountability and ownership is similar to that between change (externally imposed) and transition (internal psychological transition that happens in your mind).

It is  interesting consider if 'ownership is a conscious decision that you take' or if 'ownership is a feeling that somehow develops in your mind'! It is also interesting to think about what exactly is the object of ownership. Is it your job? your team? your function? your organization or  some combination of the above with varying weightages? Yes, the answer can vary for different employees. It can also vary for the same individual across organizations or even within the same organization as one progresses in one's tenure in the organization.

While there can be a difference in opinion on whether ownership is a decision or a feeling, there is agreement on the behavioral manifestation/outcome of ownership. They include taking personal responsibility for the outcomes, going the extra mile, careful use of the resources and even passion for work or the group. These are obviously highly useful to the organization and hence the enormous amount of good press enjoyed by ownership.

In a way, the question of whether your sense of ownership would reduce just because someone else is around who has more claims to ownership is a funny one. It is like asking just because there is someone (nearby or far away) who is more attractive than you, would you feel that you are less attractive as compared what you feel about yourself when you are alone. In another way, this question is not trivial, because the degree of ownership you feel has important implications for your organization (in terms of your productivity on the job) and for yourself (your happiness and satisfaction).

In Economics, this issue of ownership and accountability is represented in terms of the ‘Principal-Agent problem’. The fundamental issue here is the lack of perfect alignment between the interests of the Principal (Owner/Employer) and the Agent (Employee). Hence, the proposed solutions under the ‘economics model’ are in terms of increasing the alignment by mechanisms like profit sharing, employee stock (option) plans, aligning the objectives of the employee to that of the employer through performance management system backed up by close supervision, performance linked incentives and the threat of termination of employment if the employee actions don’t align with what the employer wants. While these have their relevance, they run the risk of (further) shifting the employer-employee relationship to the transaction paradigm away from the relational paradigm and to extrinsic motivation away from intrinsic motivation. In a way, this makes the contents of the psychological contract very close to that of the employment contract and hence makes the degree of ownership essentially a matter of rational (and not emotional) choice! So, when we operate under this economic paradigm, the Organization Citizenship Behavior (employee behavior that is discretionary/not directly linked to the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization) and/or Extra-role Behavior (behavior beyond the role-expectations that can benefit the organization, including whistle-blowing and principled dissent) might take a back seat!  

 

Now, let's look at another type of situation where we use the term 'my'. For example, when I say 'Kerala is my state', what I mean is that I belong Kerala (and not that I own Kerala!). So, ownership can also be about belonging. Another example is that of a 'family'. When I say it is 'my family', I mean that I belong to the family. Of course, if this belonging is sort of 'permanent' it is much easier to accomplish. So, I can say that 'it is my company' also in the sense that I belong to this company, especially if I am confident that this company will continue to be my company for the foreseeable future. Of course, I should also feel that there is a deeper connect between me and the company (in the sense of shared purpose and values), that I have a say in the organization, that I can make a significant contribution to the organization and that I am valued.

This also highlights the power and peril of using the 'family' metaphor in the organization context. If  a company uses the family metaphor ('we are all one big family') consistently, it can act as a 'nudge' to the employees to take higher degree of ownership. However, the other associations/assumptions that come with family metaphor (like somewhat unconditional and permanent membership) also gets generated in the minds of the employees. Hence, if the company does a downsizing after that, it would be much more painful (more like a divorce and not just termination of a contract that is economic/transactional in nature) and it is likely to be perceived to be unfair (you don't expect that you will be expelled from your family). 

From the above discussion, it is curious to note that in many of the family owned firms, while there is definitely a risk in creating 'ownership in the sense of possession' (the employees don't own the company and the owner-manager does), it is often compensated by a higher sense of 'ownership in the sense of belonging' (personal connect with the owner and the other employees, long tenures, job security etc.). 

Where does this leave us? This post is meant to facilitate a discussion and it raises more questions than it answers (and may be, there are no standard answers to many of these questions!). We can definitely say that ownership need not be in the sense of 'possession'. It can also be in the sense of belonging. Of course, these are not mutually exclusive and they can reinforce each other. Yes, the employees having a high degree of ownership is becoming increasingly important with taking initiative, creativity and discretionary effort becoming evermore critical for business success.

The sense of ownership is experienced in the context of a relationship and a mental model(or paradigm). There are some important aspects of this relationship like empowerment, trust, continuity of the relationship, managing the psychological contract throughout the tenure of the employees etc. Hence, this relationship needs to be nurtured in an ongoing and consistent manner! While the sense of ownership can be beneficial for both the organization and the employee, it often comes with expectations and attachment (anasakti is not so easy). Hence, appropriate metaphors should be used, with extreme care, to manage the mental models that govern the employment relationship. 

Now, over to you for your comments/ideas!