BW Communities

Analysis: Honesty And Synergy

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[Let us ask a fundamental question: why do organisations exist? They exist to meet a need of society, providing an environment in which individuals can use their skills and strengths to collectively find a solution to this need. Human thought and effort are, therefore, central to the organisation. Are people then "costs", as Manika describes them, and not assets? For it is people that make organisations conceptualise, run and deliver products and services. Deven Vats, head of HR, reminds the others of something he had heard: idam na mama (this is not mine).  When we consider the real reason for the organisation's existence, we understand our individual place in the collective. This can result in brilliant team performance like a great orchestra, where something beyond the wildest imagination of each member is created. Therein lies the reason why people come together in organisations. We know all this, yet organisations are ruled by conflict and ego. Perhaps our society is too individualistic, as so much of success is measured in terms of how the individual stacks up against others. This is not to say that individual brilliance is unimportant — outstanding organisational performance requires every single person to put his or her best foot forward. Organisations have to start with hiring the right people in the right way. And then build upon their strengths instead of highlighting their weaknesses. Worse, as in this case study, leaders tend to take people decisions based on opinion, without knowing enough of the individual's capabilities. Likewise, organisational decisions are not to be confused with individual decisions — each person has a perspective, but eventually, collective intelligence should prevail. Sangachadhwam (may we progress in harmony): The role of the manager in a team is that of stitching the people together, finding their strengths and helping them perform together for their larger vision. When organisations, teams or individuals have a larger purpose, they are energised, knowing what each is to do and how to do it — this curtails gossip. The discussion about teaching employees brings up a key shortcoming in the way managers think. Sure, organisations hire for what has already been learnt; but it is the duty of leaders to provide a context for employees to apply those skills.  Learning never ceases — as individuals and as teams. It is unwise to brush the issue of learning aside as Deven does. New ideas and energy come in with new employees. Therefore, ‘integration' of a new employee is a two-way process.  How often do we see enthusiasm turn into cynicism as the person ‘settles in'? Manika compares their own situation with the political situation that is developing. Her question about who would assume responsibility for the people is at the heart of understanding management's role. The description of "back of the envelope management" is interesting — it throws up questions about how deeply we understand and study issues before taking decisions. Very few people take the trouble to really understand an issue. Which is why perceptions weigh over facts in people decisions. Radical change in management thinking is required to create, run and lead organisations of the future, when change will be faster. Aggression can typically be seen in organisations that do not carry conviction in what they do. Manika describes the prevalence of aggression in the workplace as a reflection of the social context. Can organisations like Temple actually bring about social change? Deven highlights the importance of grace in managers. But is grace innate to certain leaders, or can it be learnt? Na brooyaat satyam apriyam (do not speak hurtfully, even the truth): There will be times when, for several reasons, people have to leave the organisation: lack of performance, little team co-operation, personal setbacks or new situations. It could also simply be that expectations have changed, but have not been communicated in an actionable way to the employee. Jimmy Sangma, for example, had outstanding technical capabilities but a style of management not suitable for Alsor. The way the message is communicated, sensitively and with respect, is important as it reflects the spirit of the organisation. It is not surprising that the young managers on Facebook had strong comments on this. Could Alsor have retained Sangma's value in some other way? Charles Handy's cloverleaf model is one way of thinking about how people associate with organisations. Manika says it is the company's duty to anticipate that people would want to know what has happened. Indeed, not enough attention is paid to this issue. It seems that fairness can only be achieved at the cost of humane-ness. Could we not apply a balanced scorecard approach to managing people as well? Finally, why communication should be honest and open is because only then can people work synergistically. That perhaps is the takeaway for management teams. Susheela Venkataraman is managing director of internet business solutions group, Cisco. Her consulting experience has focused on enterprise and community transformation (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 18-07-2011)