<p><em>Leaders need to think carefully about how they address issues around inclusion and relatedness in an ever increasing virtual world</em><br><strong><em>By Matangi Gowrishankar</em></strong><br><br>It is yet another feather in india’s cap — big regional and global roles based out of the country give our leaders opportunities for growth that were not always possible without living overseas. This is a good thing, specially for professionals who balance family responsibilities with their career aspirations. The broad remit, the opportunity to work on the global playing field and the drive for achievement seem to attract us. The unprecedented growth of Indian leaders in a wide array of global firms is encouraging many of us to step into these sometimes uncharted waters.<br><br>Yet, many of us have not thought through what doing these global roles out of India truly entails. Most of us romanticise the roles to such an extent that we are unable to see the sacrifices we need to make until it is almost too late. I am certain that Janki’s situation resonates with many of us in the corporate world — and her dilemmas a bitter sweet story of triumph and despair.<br><br>There are many dichotomies that we can discuss in this case and I will focus on three that resonate with me.<br><br>Heroes or victims? We are driven by a very strong urge to achieve, to succeed against all odds and in the end to say “I did it”. We take the oft-repeated advice of elders — “Hard work never killed anyone” — to such extremes that we lose the benefit of choice. We bend over backwards to prove to ourselves that we are capable of achieving anything we want, and end up being taken for granted by the organisation. While everyone speaks the “right words” about not taking on too much and pacing oneself, the reality is that the willing horse is flogged — and before long, the hero is indeed a victim. A victim of their own making, and a prison that they cannot get out of for fear of being seen to fail.<br><br>Tightrope act or juggling? There is a fine divide between being able to prioritise versus taking pride in multi - tasking. While there is a thrill in being able to juggle several balls simultaneously, but there is also a point at which the whole act becomes dysfunctional. We really are not able to say no and find it difficult to make that judgement call about the risks involved in taking on too much. The reality is that the risk of multi tasking is as much for the individual as it is for the organisation. If not consciously addressed, the risks for the individual range from total burn out to a crisis of self confidence. While Janki is doing her best to juggle everything, she obviously has no time for herself . It is as if her identity is defined by her work and her role as a caring daughter …Who is Janki? We must accept the fact that we are responsible for managing the risks associated with stretching ourselves so thin. Do not hope that the boss will see what is happening and will somehow let up on the pressure. This is not going to happen. The Jankis (and Janaks, since this is a malady across genders) of India need to get real clear about priorities and deciding not to be all things to all people. They need to work out the consequences of the real risk that they might not be able to meet all the demands of the somewhat unrealistic standards they have set for themselves. How then will they cope with the disappointment of the loss in credibility, reputation and self confidence?<br><br>Organisations face the risk of attrition and disengagement. Disengagement is slow poison! Leaders need to think carefully about how they address issues around inclusion and relatedness in an ever increasing virtual world.<br><br>Technology a boon or curse? It is clear from the case and the stories of many similar leaders that the continuously connected organisation has made a world of “leaders constantly on the move”. I am convinced that the “busyness” of technology is taking away our ability to pause between breaths and take stock of the real contribution we are making. Should we not be thinking about how we really make technology our ally, instead of adding more to the already taut tight rope act?<br><br>Global organisations are hungry for action and their ask of individuals is growing exponentially. Yet, there must be a real pause between acts for both parties to evaluate and ensure that effectiveness is winning over efficiency. This is a joint responsibility, of the individuals in these roles and their manager. Organisations need to foster an environment where the real conversations need to be had. It requires both the individual and the manager to have the courage to call out when enough is enough. <br><br><em>The writer is the Head of Capability Development for the Downstream Businesses of BP plc. She is passion-ate about organisation and leadership development</em><br><br>(This story was published in BW | Businessworld Issue Dated 27-07-2015)</p>
