Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 9 - The plus one problem

In this post, we will continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. 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’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’, 'Herophobia' and 'Type N and Type O organizations' for the previous posts in this series).

"I am as competent as my boss. The only difference between the two of us is that he speaks slightly better English!", said the sales team leader during a Focus Group Discussion(FGD) based on the employee engagement survey results. I have heard statements like this quite frequently across organizations. This made me think more deeply about the 'plus one problem'!

So, what exactly is this 'plus one problem'? It is very simple. Each reporting layer in an organization tends to think that the level immediately above it is useless, or, at least highly overpaid!

There could be many reasons that lead to the 'plus one problem'. Let's look at five of the most  common ones!

1. The  unique value addition from each reporting layer is not clearly specified: For example, sales volume target might appear in the Key Result Areas (KRAs) of a Front-line Sales person, that of a Sales Team Leader and that of a Sales Manager. If the unique value addition from each level (e.g. the Sales Manager sets the sales strategy and decides on resource allocation, the Sales Team Leader creates the optimum route plan and provides coaching/problem solving support to the Front-line Sales people etc.) is not specified, it can appear that the bosses are just adding up the targets of their direct reports and taking (stealing!) the credit!
2. Too many reporting layers : This can exacerbate the problem mentioned in (1) above. It is also possible that some roles in the structure don't make logical sense (See 'Do regional and global roles always make sense?' for a detailed discussion). In a broad-banded structure the 'plus one problem' is less likely to happen. 
3. Behavior of the bosses : If the bosses take their 'right to lead' for granted and don't ask themselves the question 'What exactly is the value that I am adding to each of the team members?' and take sincere action based on that, the 'plus one problem' is highly likely to happen. Of course, if the bosses are not fully competent or if they have reached their level of incompetence (see 'Career Development and sublimation') it definitely adds to the problem.  
4. Lack of developmental feedback: Development feedback (e.g. what do I need to develop/improve to develop readiness for the next level jobs) is rare as compared to performance feedback(e.g. how well am I doing in my current job). Sometimes, this happens because managers are reluctant to get into such a discussion (on what are the skill gaps the employee has as compared to the requirements for the next level jobs) - especially in the case of high-performers - because they don't want to distract/annoy the employees. While this buys short-term peace, the employee feels cheated in the long term (as he/she is not getting promoted despite great performance and apparently no skill gaps). Sometimes, this happens because the organization doesn't have a career framework (that specifies what exactly is required to be ready for each of the roles in the organization and how to work towards that) and/or because the organization hasn't invested enough in the career development of the employees. 
5. Superiority Illusion : Illusory superiority is a cognitive bias wherein a person overestimates his own abilities and contribution, in relation to the abilities and contributions of other people. See 'Performance ratings and the above-average effect' for a detailed discussion on this cognitive bias and how to deal with it. Lack of accurate development feedback mentioned in (4) above is often a very significant contributing factor to the unhindered existence of the superiority illusion that leads to the 'plus one problem'.

If the above actors are addressed, the 'plus one problem' can be mitigated to a large extent. Deep psychological factors (like the 'superiority illusion' mentioned above) don't completely disappear and hence a total victory over the 'plus one problem' is unlikely! By the way, there could another interesting principle operating here. As per 'tournament theory', the boss is paid much more because it would make everyone else aspire to be the boss and hence they will work harder even without additional payment (and hence overpaying the boss economically efficient)!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 8 - ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations!

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’ ,‘Two plus Two personality profiling’ and 'Herophobia' for the previous posts in this series).

Based on my experience as an employee and as a management consultant, I have noticed an interesting pattern. Some organizations are optimized for newly hired employees (‘Type N’ organizations) whereas some organizations are optimized for tenured/'old' employees(‘Type O’ organizations). Of course, there are organizations that are equally good (or equally bad!) for all the employees! However, ‘Type N’ and ‘Type O’ organizations are quite common!

One easy way to determine the type of the organization is to see how employee engagement scores vary with tenure. Yes, the dividing line between ‘new’ and ‘old’ varies across organizations  I have seen organizations where you become an ‘old employee’ as soon as you complete one year and I have seen organizations where you will be considered to be a ‘new employee’ till you complete about five years. While the median tenure of employees in the organization has some impact on this ‘new-old dividing line’, it is usually a matter of organization psychology and is not directly derived statistically!

In ‘Type N’ organizations, 'not being burdened by the past' is a great advantage. So, the new hires, especially new leaders, have the advantage. These tend to be organizations that believe that new employees are hired to solve particular problems or to seize particular opportunities that the existing employees have failed to do. In these organizations, ‘tenure’ seems to have psychological association with ‘inability to drive change’. They might even consider many of the existing employees to be part of the problem! Hence, new hire has an advantage, so long as he/she is considered ‘new’. The difficulty is that the ‘new’ employee can move to the ‘old’ category quite quickly (and even get fired fairly quickly). If this happens mainly because of an underlying/unstated assumption that ‘new is good’, this ‘new-old-out-new’ cycle can repeat!  

'Type O' organizations tend to believe that one needs to understand the organization context deeply before one can really contribute, especially at senior levels. So, tenure is valued. These also tend to be organizations where it takes quite a bit of time for a newcomer to figure out how the organization really works. In these organizations, often the effective style of influencing tends to be ‘indirect’ (almost like billiards- you hit something so that it goes and hits the target as compared to hitting the target directly)! This doesn’t mean that ‘Type O’ organizations don’t value performance. It is more matter of a newcomer taking time to figure out how to perform better. Things get progressively easier as you spend more time in the organization. In a way, it is like batting on a difficult wicket. It takes time to ‘get your eye in’ but things become much easier after that. It becomes so wasteful to 'throw your wicket away' (leave the organization) after having done all the hard work to 'get your eye in'.  

Now, let’s look at an interesting question :  “Can the organization type change?” The answer is ‘Yes’. This happens mostly when there is a leadership change at the CEO level and sometimes at CXO level. A new leader, hired with a transformation agenda, can view most of the tenured employees as ‘part of the problem to be solved’ and hence might replace them with external hires. If a critical mass of ‘new people’ are brought in (and ‘old people are vilified), the organization can move from Type O to Type N. Now, two scenarios can happen. The first one is that newly hired people and the CEO/CXO stays on for a long time and the organization starts drifting towards Type O. The second scenario is that the new CEO/CXO keeps on replacing may of the people (including many of the newly hired people) as soon as they become ‘old’ (e.g. after 1-2 years) and hence the organization continues to be Type N.

In 'Type O' organizations, the leadership (especially at CEO/CXO levels) tend to remain remarkably stable  and that increases the probability that the organization continues to be 'Type O'. It is when a 'Type O' organization under-performs for a long time that a 'Type N' CEO is brought in, and the possible shift to being a 'Type N' begins. If the new 'Type N' CEO doesn’t have sufficient powers, he/she can easily get lost in the system or the system might even reject him/her. This ‘reaction’ of the system can be one of the reasons why the new CEO might be tempted to make a lot of people changes. Of course, there are indeed wise 'Type N' CEOs who are very selective and fact-based about the people changes!

So what does this mean? It definitely makes sense to figure out if you are joining a 'Type N' or 'Type O' organization. It is part of the psychological alignment required on what good looks like! Obviously, it makes sense to join a Type O organizations only if you are willing to sweat it out for a long period – significantly beyond the 'new-old dividing line' in the organization. Since they are optimized for new people, it is easier to join type N and to come up to speed faster. But the danger is that of the transition from ‘new’ to ‘old’. So, one must join for the right reasons (beyond the organization being 'Type N'). Remaining a bit of an outsider can definitely help,  especially in driving change.  Of course, being a bit of an outsider while being a full member of the organisation is a delicate balancing act!

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?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 6 – Two plus two personality profiling

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' and ‘Training the Victim’ for the previous posts in this series).

Personality profiling is an evergreen business. Human beings find other human beings difficult to understand. And, those who bother to think about it, find themselves to be even more difficult to understand!  So, if there is a 'scientific-looking tool' that can enable us to map (fix!) ourselves and others into some sort of  'neat categories' with 'precise-looking' characteristics and consequences, it reduces our (existential) anxiety and gives us a feeling of being in control. 

Now, there are all kinds of personality profiling tools. Almost everyone would claim that their tool is the best (and an unadulterated blessing to mankind) and that the other tools are so seriously flawed that they can corrupt young (and old) minds and even souls! Though the validity and  usefulness of these tools are doubtful, personality profiling tools can provide amusement and a pleasant diversion from the unpleasant realities of work! Since, I have always aspired to be some sort of a 'Corporate Court Jester' (see 'OD Managers and Court Jesters' for details), how can I resist the temptation to jump into the business of personality profiling - at least for comic relief?!

My preference is for tools that are more like 'straws in the wind' - simple ones that can give an indication regarding the direction of the wind (personality). One option to make this kind of tools work is to leverage the following phenomenon: when we give people an ambiguous question, people will project their own meanings into it and hence their answers would reveal quite a bit about their personality. Actually, this is similar to what happens in a human process lab where an unstructured situation is deliberately created so that participants will project their 'here and now' reality into it (say, in their attempts to structure the situation) which in turn can serve as a mirror for the underlying feelings and thoughts. All this led to the creation of the 'two plus two' personality profiling tool.

So, what is this '2 + 2' personality profiling tool? 

• 2+2 profiling aims to highlight some aspects of the occupational personality of the individuals concerned based on how they will answer the question ‘What is two plus two?’

• 2+2 profile is more of a ‘caricature’ and it is not intended to a ‘portrait’ of the individual

• 2+2 profiling is intended to be a joke (with a grain of truth)

• 2+2 profiling won’t work on people who have a mathematical approach to life (See ‘A mathematical approach to HR’ for details).

Since this is a 'caricature' of the personality(and not a portrait), directly asking the question "What is two plus two' won't work. If we want to get an interesting answer, we have to ask people to answer the question "What is two plus two?'  in such a way that it reflects some prominent aspect of their occupational personality. However, considering the fact that we are better at making caricatures of others as compared to making caricatures of ourselves (and that many of us are likely to have an overly positive image of ourselves), it might be even better to ask  people to indicate how different members of their team are likely to answer this question in a way that it reflects the most prominent aspects of occupational personality of those team members.

Now, let us look at some of the possible answers. Of course, many more are possible!

• Why do want to know? Why are you asking me? Who told you that I know the answer? What will you do with this information?

• Before we can answer this question, we need to have a detailed discussion on 'What is addition?'

• The answer can be 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 22 depending on the organization culture!

• Both the 2s are my family friends. Let me tell you long stories about my last 4 meetings with them. By the way, since both of them are family friends, it won’t be proper for me to add them!

• What do you want the answer to be? You can choose the answer you like and I can help you to convince others that it is the right answer

Is there anything at all that you can infer from the answers about the people involved?

Can you think of any modifications to the tool that can make it more effective in bringing out the personality characteristics?  

What about possible applications for the tool? For example, can we do some sort of a team building activity using this tool? This could involve asking the team members to write down different answers to the above question so as to highlight key personality characteristics of themselves and of each of the other team members. Then each person can look at the various answers that others have written to highlight his/her personality characteristics and try to infer what could be the underlying personality characteristics. May be, they will learn something useful about themselves or at least about perceptions others have about them!.

Any ideas/suggestions?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 5 – Training the victim

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'  and 'Computer-controlled Manager Empowerment' for the previous posts in this series).

Training the victim' is one of the most common 'crimes' committed in the domain of HR/Learning and Development. Often, this 'crime' follows a standard plot. There is a steady deterioration in the performance of a unit. Customers are unhappy. There is a lot of firefighting happening. The unit head is shouting at the senior employees. But nothing seems to be working. The unit head feels that since the situation hasn't improved despite all his efforts, the employees must be incompetent and/or don't have the right attitude (e.g. 'solutions mindset'). So he calls the HR Business Partner demands that the employees should be trained urgently. This leads to things like attitude training, skill-based training and training the managers in the unit on people management (under fancy names like 'engaging and energizing teams'). The employees dutifully attend the training programs, though they feel that they are being blamed (or even 'punished') for no fault of theirs. Even after the training programs have been rolled out, there is no significant improvement in the performance of the unit. 

These kind of situations occur mainly because of wrong diagnosis/wrong need identification. The main problem in these contexts might not necessarily be related to the capability level of the individual employees at all. The problem could mainly be at the strategy, structure, policy, business process or leadership level. However, it is relatively difficult/inconvenient for the organization/unit head to address the issues/make changes at these levels. So there is a temptation to jump to the conclusion that it is an employee capability issue and to attempt a training solution. Since the real issue remains unaddressed (despite the 'training solution'), there can't much improvement in the situation. 

I am not saying that there won't be issues at the individual capability level. Of course, this possibility should also be explored and if there is evidence for the existence of such a need, an appropriate learning solution could be attempted. My point is just that a proper diagnosis needs to be carried out before a solution is attempted (instead of jumping into the most convenient solution) and that when it comes to taking the responsibility for the deterioration in the performance of the unit in such situations, sometimes, the individual employees are 'more sinned against than sinned'.

Often, the way the HR function is structured in the organization increases the possibility of a wrong diagnosis. This happens mostly in those organizations where the Learning function separate from the Organization Development and HR Business Partner functions. In these contexts, when a business leader directly contacts the Learning specialist supporting the unit with a 'capability problem' (or even with the request for a particular training program), it is highly possible that the Learning specialist just carries out the request without spending much effort to check if the problem has been diagnosed correctly and if a training solution is appropriate. Sometimes, this happens because the Learning specialist does not have sufficient understanding of the entire business/people context in the unit or because the training specialist does not have the requisite diagnostic/consulting skills. In these cases, 'training need identification' becomes no more than 'order taking'. Also, if the training specialist is measured mainly on the number of training programs/number of person-days of training, then there might not be much incentive for the training specialist to 'refuse an order' or even to 'question an order'!

Hence, a close partnership between the Learning function and the Organization Development/HR Business Partner functions will help in making the diagnosis/need identification more accurate by bringing in the requisite diagnosis/consulting skills, enhanced understanding of the context and greater credibility/influence with the business leaders (see OD Managers as Court Jesters). This would also make the 'solution' more appropriate and enhance the effectiveness of implementation by being able to manage the change better. Of course, defining the mandate for the Learning function in a more holistic manner and using the correct performance parameters to assess/reward Learning specialists would also be required.

Any comments/ideas?

Note: It is interesting to note that from a psychological point of view, 'training the victim' can be considered to be a variation (or a mild version) of the broader theme of 'blaming the victim'. This involves holding the victims responsible (at least in part) for what happened to them when something bad happens. This enables others (e.g. the unit head in this case) to absolve themselves of any blame/responsibility and also to reduce cognitive dissonance which would have resulted if they had to admit that the 'system' (strategy/structure/policy/process, in this case) that they were responsible in creating/managing might be at fault. This, in turn, helps them to avoid the need for taking the more difficult/painful remedial steps that are required to address the real issue/cause of the problem. 

Sometimes, this can also lead to tragic-comic situations. A few years ago, I heard about a situation where there was a proposal to conduct 'followership training' for the entire staff in a unit. Apparently, the unit head was a very poor leader and he was making the life of his staff miserable, leading to problems in employee engagement and retention (that, in turn, were creating issues for the HR team). Since it was felt that the unit head won't be open to any sort of feedback and/or training, it was being suggested that the staff in the unit be trained in followership (as the leader won't be/can't be trained on leadership)! This might qualify as a classic case of 'trying to solve the wrong problem' !

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 4 – Computer-controlled Manager empowerment

In this post, let’s continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, 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'  and 'Sublimation of vision statements' for the previous posts in this series).

People managers provide the last-mile connectivity for people processes and policies. Empowering people managers is a great way to 'customize' standard HR processes and policies to meet the needs of a particular context. Computer-controlled Manager empowerment (CcMe) has evolved as a response to the need (especially in large organizations) for empowering  managers to take people-related decisions while ensuring conformance to organization level guidelines and budgets. 

This CcMe takes many forms. One typical form is  that of a budget cascade, say for annual increments or bonus. Here the manager is free to distribute among his team members the budget that has been cascaded to him in whichever way he wants so long as he doesn't exceed the budget (else the computer won't save his recommendation). In some cases, a default allocation to each employee pre-populated (e.g. based on performance rating and other relevant factors) and the manger can choose whether or not to redistribute.

All this works reasonably well if the manager has a large team and hence he has the room to redistribute. In the case of small teams, this can lead to the managerial discretion becoming more of an illusion! Yes, in some implementations (where the absolute budget constraint is not at the level of the manager) manager can align his boss and exceed the budget. However, this 'pushes the problem up' and the absolute budget constraint has to come in at some level or the other. 

In some organizations, apart from the budget constraint, there are also some guidelines given (e.g. a preferred range for salary increments) and if the manager violates any of those guidelines, while the computer would save his recommendation, an alert/flag would be visible to everyone in the reporting chain of the manager. The message to the manager is, you can deviate from the guidelines but the deviation would be highlighted and you should be able to justify if you are asked to do so (an additional relevance of 'CcMe'!). So, the manager empowerment is subject to monitoring through the information system. This way of working can extend (beyond budget cascades) to other cases of managerial discretion also (e.g. in the case of managerial discretion in the case of HR policies like travel policy, leave policy, promotion policy etc).

Of course, this is not a perfect solution. A manager who is willing to take risks can get away with a lot of dubious decisions - especially if the people who could do the monitoring are not so keen to look at the data and/or to question the manager. Also, people who run reports at the large group/corporate level (who might look at the data in the reports in isolation - without adequate understanding the context around a particular set of data) could trigger a lot of false alarms. This could end up wasting a lot of time and irritating the managers ! 

Now, let's come back to budget cascades (for bonus, salary increments etc.). It is interesting to note that the computer-control can't avoid psychological factors from affecting the decisions. Of course, there are things that could be done to make it psychologically easier for the manager to apply discretion. Let's look an example. 

Many managers find it psychologically difficult to 'take money away' from one person in the team so that it can be given to another person in the team. It sounds like 'robbing Peter to pay Paul'! This is especially so if the performance ratings have already been factored into the default recommendation or if the increment % (as compared to previous years/industry) or bonus % (as compared to target bonus) is low. 

One psychological trick is to populate a lower percentage/amount, as compared to that dictated by the budget and guidelines, as the default recommendation for each employee  (e.g.  2 % lower) so that manager would see some extra/un-allocated budget over and above the amount used for the default recommendations. This allows the manager to apply his discretion/allocate this 'extra' amount to the more deserving people in his team without  feeling guilty about taking money away from anyone! 

So, a combination of 'computer-control' and psychology might be better than 'computer-control' alone so long as the managers are human!

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 3 – Sublimation of Vision Statements

In this post, let’s continue our exploration of Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, 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’ and 'In the valley of attrition' for the previous post in this series).

Let's begin by defining these terms - Vision statement and Sublimation.

Vision statement : A vision statement provides a snapshot of the preferred future of the organization. Usually, a timeline is attached to the vision statement (e.g. By 2025, we would be the largest company in our industry by revenue)

Sublimation : Sublimation is the name for the phenomenon when a substance changes directly from the solid state to the gaseous state without going through the liquid state (so we are using the 'Chemistry' meaning of 'sublimation' - as opposed that in 'Psychology')

So how do these two apparently unrelated concepts come together?  Vision statements have this interesting tendency to move directly (sublimate!) from 'future' to the 'past' without bothering to go through the 'present'!

In practical terms, what happens is something like this. In 2015, a company sets up a 2020 Vision. Around 2018 or 2019 the same company replaces the 2020 vision with a 2025 Vision.  Once this 2025 vision is in place, the 2020 vision is discarded and company is no longer bothered about seeing if the company achieves the 2020 vision. So, the the 2020 vision directly moves (sublimates!) from the 'future' to the 'past' without bothering to go through 'present' reality!  Hence, 'future becomes a great place to hide' the lack of progress on working towards the Vision!

While this sounds like 'cheating', it might not be that harmful to the organization. Vision, as opposed to a goal, is meant to be aspirational. It can even be argued that calling a long term aspiration as 'vision', and thereby putting it on a pedestal (and following it too rigidly), can in in fact be harmful to the organization in a rapidly changing environment as it might hinder the organization from seizing emerging (unanticipated) opportunities. 

Hence, in a way, it makes sense to keep the vision perpetually (and safely!) in the future. As we have seen in 'Mission without Vision', it might make sense to have only a mission and not a vision. Ultimately, what the employees want is a sense of direction and purpose and not vision or mission statements! 

Any comments/ideas?

Unorthodox concepts in HR : Part 2 – In the valley of attrition

In this post, let’s come back to a series that we had started a long time ago : Unorthodox concepts in Human Resources/People Management. In this series, we will explore concepts in HR 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’ for the first post in this series). 

What exactly is this valley of attrition? An employee is said to be in the valley of attrition when the mind has left the organization, but the body is waiting for an offer letter to arrive!

While this concept might seem unorthodox or even a bit esoteric, this phenomenon is quite common in organizations. In employee engagement surveys, typically there is a question on the ‘intention to leave’ (e.g. “Are you seriously considering leaving the organization?”)*. Now, if we compare the % of employees who answer in the affirmative to the question on ‘intention to leave’ with the actual ‘attrition rate’ we are likely to find a very significant gap (e.g. 55% of the employees express the ‘intention to leave’ but the actual attrition is only 15%  in a particular organization).

The gap (between the intention to leave % and the actual attrition %) indicates the % of employees who are ‘stuck’ or ‘trapped’ in the organization – they want to leave but can’t find a job. This could be because they got so busy with their jobs that they didn’t pay adequate attention to their employability (e.g. they didn’t develop market-relevant skills).  This could be because they haven’t developed job-hunting skills or because they are not sure if they can make a successful transition to another organization. This could also be because, while they want leave, they don’t want to let go of some of the ‘comforts’  they have got used to in the current organization (and hence they are in the 'comfortably miserable' state). By the way, the first reason  mentioned above, might give a hint for developing a ‘sinister’ employee retention strategy – making the employees less employable (or even unemployable) outside the current organization!

While there could be multiple reasons why people are trapped in their current jobs, it has important implications for employee happiness, employee engagement and the consequent business outcomes. 

Feeling trapped is definitely not a pleasant state to be in! If you have never been in 'the valley of attrition' (and hence can't connect to this), imagine yourself having to wait for a long time in the departure lounge of an airport with your flight indefinitely delayed!

The trapped employees are unlikely be to be in the ‘engaged’ category (i.e. putting in discretionary effort). They are likely to be in the ‘not-engaged’ or ‘actively-disengaged’ categories. These can lead to low performance and/or passive resistance! So while the trapped employees are not 'attrition risks' they pose even greater dangers to the organization from performance and morale points of view! If some of these trapped employees have 'identity that is wrapped in their job', this could even lead to workplace violence!

Any comments/ideas?

*Note :  It is a peculiarity of human nature that we are often more clear about what we don't want (I don't want to continue in this organization) as compared to what we really want (I want to join this particular organization)! The 'intention to leave' is somewhat similar to the 'flight' response in the 'fight or flight' basic repose to danger (or pain). This danger or pain can be psychological as well as well as physical. When we are running away from danger or pain, the main focus is to somehow get out of the current (dangerous/painful) situation and not really to get to a predefined better place. This can lead to sub-optimal career (job change) decisions especially in cases of 'intention to leave' triggered by specific events (e.g. being overlooked for a promotion, disrespectful remark by the boss etc.). In the case of intention to leave created by more enduring factors (like lack of person-organization or person-job fit; see 'On what good looks like'), the job changes are likely to be more thought-through/deliberate.   

When the new doesn't outperform the old...

"Our approach has been to bring in new leaders who can take the company to the next level of excellence", said the Business Leader. "Are we sure that those new leaders have performed better than the existing leaders?", asked the Organization Development (OD) Manager*.

Infusing new talent across levels, especially at leadership levels, has been a favorite response of many organizations, when faced with performance or organization effectiveness challenges. There is definitely some merit to this. If the existing leaders have failed to meet the organization goals, they might be part of the problem. Sometimes, the existing leaders don't have the requisite skills or experience to drive business transformation, especially when the business is moving into new domains.

It is also true that a business leader can't micro-manage a large organization and hence has to depend on the leaders down the line. Again, there is no point in hiring highly capable leaders and giving them micro-instructions on what exactly they should do. However, as we have seen in 'Paradox of hiring good people and letting them decide', this strategy is not as simple to implement as it appears to be!

Yes, it is highly tempting to just 'throw new people at problems or opportunities'. Replacing existing leaders with new leaders sends strong messages both inside and outside the organization. It can create the perception that the organization is taking 'decisive action' and that the future is likely to be much better than the present.

So what is the problem with this approach? To begin with, it often happens that problems at the organization strategy, structure or policies level get misdiagnosed as individual capability issues of leaders down the line. If that is the case, unless the new leaders have the empowerment to change/influence those upstream issues (at organization strategy/structure/policy levels), they have no chance of being successful. If the failure of new leaders also gets (conveniently)  diagnosed as 'hiring mistake', this cycle of 'hiring - firing - hiring' new leaders would go on! Of course, if the new leaders also follow the same philosophy and bring in new people to their teams, this can snowball into large number of people changes with the associated disruption/ripple effects (and an absolute bonanza for recruitment consultants). All this can create an illusion of progress.

The organizations that have a propensity to make leadership changes at the slightest provocation might also be prone to a 'swim-or-sink' attitude ('now that you have been hired as a leader, it is up to you to make it work') once the new leaders join the organization -with not enough emphasis given to new leader assimilation and to putting in place the supporting structures for new leaders (e.g. time investment by senior leaders and mentors). This can get further complicated if the new leader doesn't get the required resources he/she needs. Of course, leaders are expected to 'do more with less'. But 'creating something out of nothing' is more like magic and not management. Similarly, the degree of stretch in the role might not be realistic. It is important to differentiate between 'stretch roles and designed to fail roles'! 

Now, it would be unfair to say that all the failures in leadership transitions are the fault of the organizations. There are many things the newly hired leaders can do to make an effective transition.  Let's look at just four of them and also explore what can be done jointly by the newly hired leader and the organization to maximize the possibility of  a successful transition.

Validate 'what good looks like': Individual leaders have personalities, values and work preferences. Organizations have their own preferred ways of doing things, behavioral norms and underlying assumptions ('culture'). A large degree of alignment between the leader's and the organization's underlying definitions of 'what good looks like' would make life easier for both the parties and enhance the chances of a successful leadership transition (See 'On what good looks like' for more details). There are two specific actions that can help here. The first is ensuring a more in-depth and open discussion on the 'culture-fit' kind of dimensions during the hiring process. The second is (when a hiring decision has been made based on a large degree of fit; after all there no 'perfect-fit') providing detailed feedback and coaching to the newly hired leader on those aspects/behaviors where there is insufficient fit. Not leveraging the wealth of data  generated during the selection process  for feedback and development/coaching is a costly miss that many organizations make.

Consider a bit of 'exorcism' :When a leader works in an organization for a while, patterns of interaction develop around that leader. When that leader leaves the organization, a vacuum gets created and the patterns that were centered around that leader (or the 'ghost of that leader'; as Robert Pirsig says, ghosts are essentially such patterns) looks for someone to attach itself to and the new leader becomes the prime target. So if the new leader is not careful, he/she gets sucked into those patterns and becomes part of the previous way of functioning before he/she realizes it. Now, especially if the leader has been hired with a mandate to drive change, this can seriously impair his/her ability to drive that change. Of course, all old patterns are not problematic and some of them might be even helpful. Continuing those helpful patterns can help the leader to provide the team some sense of continuity (and the assurance that the new leader doesn't disrespect the past), which is a big plus from the change management perspective. So, all that is required is to recognize the patterns and discontinue ('exorcise the ghost of') the dysfunctional patterns.

Being politically aware without 'playing politics' : Driving change (which is often the reason why new leaders are brought in) is essentially a 'political' activity as it alters the current distribution of power. Even the very act of introducing a new leader into an organization, can change the power balance! Many leadership transitions fail because the new leaders could not recognize or manage the power dynamics. So, as we have seen in 'A political paradox of OD' , the requirement is to be sensitive to the political dynamics of the organization and to manage it without  'playing politics'. Yes, this is a tightrope walk (and sounds a bit mystical like 'doing without doing') that requires a very high level of self-awareness and critical self-monitoring. In a way, this is part of being 'enlightened' . Remember,  enlightenment is about 'seeing things as they really are' (in the organization). Even for leaders who have been hired with a transformation mandate, 'it makes sense to understand something before trying to change it'! 

Alignment, alignment, alignment : Soon after I joined one of my previous organizations (which had gone through multiple organization transformations) I asked a senior colleague what are the top three things that can make someone successful in that organization. His response was "alignment, alignment, alignment". I have seen this factor being relevant in other organizations also - especially for newly hired leaders. Having alignment with one's boss can be the starting point. My favorite question to ensure alignment on this is : "What would make you recommend the highest performance rating for me?". Enabling alignment with one's team through jointly developing the vision and way forward for the team is very powerful. Consulting widely with key stakeholders before one finalizes the vision and way forward is also very helpful (to deepen one's understanding of the organization, to clarify mutual expectations, to secure buy-in and to start building one's network). For a new leader it is very easy to make wrong (inappropriate)  assumptions based on his/her experience in other organizations. So, these alignment conversations are most helpful. The principle of  'survival of the fittest' (that governs  biological evolution) is applicable to the  'survival of newly hired leaders' also and we must remember that 'fittest' is defined in terms of 'being the best-adapted to the local environment'. Alignment is indeed a very powerful 'fitness' (fitness to the new organization) increasing activity!

So, where does this leave us? Bringing in new leaders is not some sort of a panacea for all the organizations' ills. Before bringing in new leaders, organizations should do some soul-searching on what exactly are the problems they are trying to solve and whether bringing in leaders from outside is the best option. The new leaders should bring in some capabilities or experiences that the organization doesn't have internally (and can't develop in the existing leaders within a reasonable time frame). 'Not being burdened by the past' shouldn't be the primary value that a new leader brings in. Else, the new leader would become part of the 'old' in a very short time (and becomes a candidate for replacing). Organizations should invest more in making the new leader successful. Apart from putting specific programs in place (like new leader integration, mentoring, coaching by senior leaders etc.), organizations should emphasize that the senior leaders who have hired the new leaders are accountable for making the new leaders successful.

Of course, the above discussion is applicable to all new hires and not just to new hires at senior leadership levels. It is just that possible negative impact of a failed or 'troubled' leadership transition (on the team and on the organization)  is much higher.  As we have seen in 'Polarities of leadership' , leadership involves finding the right equilibrium between polarities, that too along multiple dimensions. Newly hired leaders need more help to find the appropriate equilibrium for the new organization context. The encouraging thing is that the upside of a successful leadership transition is also very high and hence worth the additional investment!

Any thoughts/ideas?

*Note: Please see 'Organization Development Managers as Court Jesters' for another interaction between the Business Leader and the OD Manager. Kindly note that both the 'Business Leader' and the 'OD Manager'  are 'composite characters' and hence they are not 'constrained by' organization boundaries!

Of developmental advice and the nature of wisdom

This blog claims to be on ‘HR, OD and Personal Effectiveness’. However, there are only a few posts on this blog on personal effectiveness (like ‘Passion for work and anasakti’, ‘ Job and Identity‘ , ‘Personal effectiveness and wisdom’, ‘Of shibumi, areté and personal excellence‘, ‘Of career development and sublimation‘ etc.). Of late, I have been wondering why this has happened. Was it just because most of my work is more directly related to HR and OD? Or is there something deeper, like the nagging feeling that ‘words might not outperform silence’ when it comes to talking about personal effectiveness?  

So, I decided to do an exploration of the nature of 'developmental advice' (any advice that is intended to improve the effectiveness of someone at the workplace or in life in general) and the assumptions underlying most of the developmental advice. This developmental advice can be provided by anyone (e.g. managers, mentors, colleagues, team members, coaches, teachers, parents, elders etc. and sometimes, they are represented by the generic term 'teacher' in this post).

The first thing that I realized was that we need to differentiate between two types of developmental advice - one that is more 'information oriented' and one that is more 'wisdom oriented'. 

Information-oriented development advice is more like development feedback - it provides a piece of information that the person receiving the advice was not aware of. It can be internal (e.g. 'pointing out a blind-spot'  that the person was not aware of) or external (e.g. related to a developmental option that the person was not aware of) in nature. This kind of advice, so long as it is factually correct, is indeed helpful for a person to get started on a development journey though it might not have any influence on how much progress the person is able to make on the journey.

Wisdom-oriented development advice is deeper and more complex. Process of gaining wisdom often involves struggling with (and some times even unsuccessfully struggling with) the complexities in life. 

When it comes to wisdom-oriented developmental advice, the basic assumptions are 

1. that the person giving the advice has gained a higher degree of wisdom (regarding the particular aspect covered in the advice) through his/her life experience   
2. that this wisdom can be communicated and 
3. that the receiver is able to 'absorb' the wisdom and is also able to act on the wisdom

To me, the problem is mainly with assumptions 2 and 3. In general, wisdom is much more difficult to communicate as compared to information. Also, without going through the corresponding life experience, this wisdom, even though it is 'true', might not make sense to the receiver. There is a huge difference between knowing something philosophically and arriving at the same knowledge through experience! 

This brings to mind a Zen story that I came across in one of the books of Osho.  It is about the so called 'first principle of Zen'. The concept is that once you know the first principle of Zen, you become enlightened. The story is as follows:

Once, a beginner asked a Zen master, "Master, What is the first principle?". "If I were to tell you, it would become the second principle", replied the Zen master. 

Probably, it is this point (that wisdom can neither be 'stored' nor be 'communicated', in the normal sense of those words) is what limits the usefulness of most of the self-help books. Of course, self-helps books are often useful in providing hope (that there is light at the end of the tunnel) and encouragement. It is also said that the meaning that one derives from a great book often runs in parallel with or is even independent of what is written. May be, that holds true for all forms of developmental advice that we have been exploring in this post! 

It also makes me wonder if the 'wisdom-level consulting', that I was so keen to do, would really work (even if somehow I manage to 'become wise' in the future)! It is not that I haven't come across  HR consultants who are truly wise (See 'Truth and Beauty : Motivations and Elegance in HR' for an account of my interaction with one such gentleman). My concern is more about to the extent to which the clients would be able to 'absorb'  and 'apply' that wisdom. 

While wisdom can't be communicated, it can indeed be hinted at. While wisdom can't be given, it can be acquired. A wise teacher (or a wise coach or a wise manager) can 'create a field' or 'hold a space'  that maximizes the possibility that the learner is able to derive more understanding or even wisdom from the learner's own experiences (See 'Remarkable Encounters - Part 1: Teacher' for an example from my personal experience). Of course, we can't assume that the person giving the development advice is always correct or that the advice is the right one at the right right for the learner. This highlights the need for the learner to be discerning when it comes to accepting and absorbing developmental advice. This is a bit tricky as this discernment needs some kind of wisdom!

It is interesting to speculate what happens to this 'teacher-student'  relationship (that is so essential for the the above 'learning space' to materialize) when the teachers (or coaches) become (highly-paid/expensive) 'service providers' instead of being 'gurus'! Can the learners (especially when they are paying for it) hold the teachers/coaches accountable for results, and if yes, would that make the outcome (or Key Performance Indicators) move away from 'wisdom' towards 'information and skills'? Can this also lead to conflicts of interest between the teacher/coach and the learner?

While one can learn from the experiences of others, wisdom requires additional work in terms of 'personalization' before it can be absorbed and integrated. Yes, a certain degree of 'readiness' on the part of the student is required for welcoming the wisdom. If 'the teacher appears before the student is ready' the teaching (or coaching) is unlikely to work! When the learner is ready, wisdom might even appear unaided, like the proverbial butterfly that comes on its own and sits softly on one's shoulder. Now, developing this readiness is probably not just a matter of effort (and there is no algorithm for it), and, may be, some sort of 'grace' is involved in this process. Again, wisdom is more a matter of  'being wise in the moment' as compared to that of 'becoming wise for good'! 

Any comments/suggestions?

Note: It can be argued that there is another category of developmental advice called 'knowledge-oriented developmental advice' that comes somewhere in between the 'information-oriented developmental  advice'  and the  'wisdom-oriented developmental advice. This depends on how exactly do we define these three terms (e.g. information as 'processed data', knowledge as 'useful information gained through learning and experience' and wisdom as 'the discernment  to apply the appropriate knowledge to a particular situation'). Even if we bring in this additional category, it can be said that 'knowledge is useful only in those situations where it is almost superfluous'! Please see 'Driven to insights!' for more details.