BW Communities

Analysis: Find The Missing Link

BW Online Bureau Nov 08, 2014

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><root available-locales="en_US," default-locale="en_US"><static-content language-id="en_US"><![CDATA[A US based internet radio site comes to mind. When they air some lesser known singers/musicians a blurb comes up asking you to "make 'em" or "break 'em".  If you don't make the grade you're out. Either you fit in or you don't. Perhaps a very functional approach to things but one which does not take into account the more humane side. There are many such organisations that can be quite cut and dried about shaping up or shipping out. Which is not to suggest that it's either being cold about it or excessively tolerant. Let us dig a little deeper... While there are several skills or competencies that are necessary for 'doing justice' to a role and indeed one's evolution as a professional, there are some 'career stallers' or 'derailers' that  pose a potential threat. These are behaviors that can undermine and lay low a perfectly promising career. Some of these derailers include workplace arrogance and bruising others through the viciousness of what one says or the inability to adapt to changing circumstances or to learn or issues around the lack of integrity or failure to build teams or overmanaging/ micromanaging and so on (one can get a whole list of these derailers in the book FYI: For Your Improvement, A Development and Coaching Guide by Lombardo and Eichinger, published by Lominger Limited). Sometimes the most promising careers can get completely destroyed.  Often one sees that a certain aggressiveness actually works in getting things done.  Over time such people get promoted and rewarded and that seems to validate their behavior. However, they reach a point when suddenly the same aggression begins to raise eyebrows and people start doubting what given further promotions will do for both the person and those in the 'firing line' Awareness of these derailers is far from automatic. One is often confronted by one's own 'blind spot' that prevents a clear line of sight to the problem areas. The more senior one gets the less constructive feedback is given. Often, in hierarchical organisations, the 'juniors' or subordinates find it nearly impossible to give potentially self correcting feedback for fear of antagonizing the boss. Consequently, the boss can get away with a whole lot and the burden really falls on those who work with such a person. Capability associated with delivering numbers is one thing but how the process was achieved and how many people were bruised along the way is quite another. The recognition of these career stallers or derailers is a necessary first step to appropriately dealing with them. If we believe that such blind spots are 'deal-able' with, then we are in a position to look for ways and means of building awareness as a starting point.  Which is not to say that they are always 100 per cent rectifiable but there can be an attempt to redress the issues and speak about them openly in the spirit of learning and growth. The reason Manika is assailed with doubt about her decision is that there is no framework to help her (or others) think through these issues. Clearly Jimmy is very competent in some ways "...a very sound technical man.... he could see a product... simply 'see' it and tell you what was wrong inside." He has very special and unique skills. The downside with Jimmy was that there were pockets of behaviours which put off some team mates ....they all felt a certain displeasure working with him, the sort you cannot easily define, yet you know it is derailing your speed. The issue came down to 'retain vs sack' without any intervening 'working through' process, which could potentially allow a second look into the issues and make it at least possible for change. Of course, if the change is not forthcoming, the derailing behavior wins the day and there may be no other option but terminate. Jimmy also comes across as a strong 'individual contributor', a specialist. Perhaps he is not such a good 'manager'. Often in organisations, promotions happen because of expertise without the person's understanding how the role changes when one has to 'manage' other individual contributors. Either one can create a space to learn the critical skills or else opt for retaining one's position as a individual contributor. Naturally a clear and frank discussion would be a must if it is not to be misunderstood as a demotion. Not everyone may be suited to taking managerial responsibility. This is perhaps what Kannan was saying when he questioned Manika's decision. Having a doubt about a decision only means it needs to come back onto the 'drawing board'. Where Manika seems to get stuck is between her appraisal of Jimmy and whether it warranted a sacking. Perhaps the missing intervening variable is exploring alternate options prior to the sacking so that one is trying to make the best of a hard situation. Fairness, to my mind would be far better than a cold decision to terminate. That would involve either a coaching process based on data gathered (such as 360 feedback, self report and the like) or even a re-deployment based on skills Jimmy has demonstrated. It is the absence of this intervening process that makes the decision somewhat haunting for Manika. She may be inclined to terminate him but perhaps after some exploration of alternatives it can become easier and 'more fair' both in one's own as well as others' eyes. However, what if Manika has a 'natural' difficulty in having a face-to-face conversation with Jimmy? This does seems to be avoided in the case, leading to a quick decision to terminate outside of a talk. Perhaps there are some conditions that govern more direct communication. For instance, between a parent and a child or an older, 'more experienced' boss and a less experienced direct report the talk can be more straightforward and easier to do. But what happens when there is a reverse situation: an older, more experienced report and a younger manager or from a daughter to a father? Perhaps we are treading on one of our several 'cultural edges'. These edges are ones that mask subtle hierarchies around gender, class, caste or age. Typically they are skirted making for a broken conversation and several things unstated. We may need to 'go against the grain' of our culture in these matters and prepare ourselves for these difficult conversations. Kaushik is an organization consultant, leadership coach and facilitator.  He has a background in psychoanalysis and the behavioral sciences. He is an Associate Coach and Faculty with the Center for Creative Leadership and he works with Chatur Knowledge Networking Pvt Ltd. Kaushik Gopal is an organisation consultant and leadership coach. He is an associate coach and faculty with the Center for Creative Leadership and works with Chatur Knowledge Networking (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 13-06-2011)