BW Communities

Analysis: The World’s Opinions

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[The way the narrative of this case opens is not a coincidence. It comes across like a metaphor, or a cinematic montage: "The new corporate campaign for Temple India's Office Products Division was ready and the marketing people wanted to show her what the feel of the ad would be when viewed between news as against between any other programme." So much care and diligence in making sure what gets communicated and how it gets communicated. The internal processes of the organisation also willy nilly get transmitted to the general public. We are in the midst of a time when there is communication or, more specifically, broadcast explosion. There are a host of new media forms. Referred to here are the ubiquitous social networking sites as well as the "gaining-in-popularity" case discussions in learning institutions, not to mention all the informal spread that is hard to track. Almost anything can come out into the public space for debate, comment and opinion. The reputations of people, much like brands, are continually evolving. The more senior you are, the greater the public focus. And how do these reputations form? What sort of collective process goes into it? How does anybody really know what the truth is? Sangma, a senior and experienced technical person, was virtually asked to leave the organisation because his behaviour left a lot to be desired. ("Sangma was not sacked. But he was asked to step off," clarifies Manika Singh. This shows her intention but the fact that people view it as a sacking shows how the opinion of the crowd has taken over.) His team was divided; backbiting and group-ism was prevalent; the younger lot were not being related to in a manner that inspired them, and so on. All these functions are perhaps a subset of what a manager is expected to do — work with the task and the people. In short, Sangma may have been great as an individual contributor but not as a manager of others. So when an opportunity came up, he was shunted out. The wisdom of this decision was questioned and created doubt. People in different forums — social networking sites and education — started discussing the matter and quite a few were more sympathetic towards Sangma. Manika, who had taken the decision, was left feeling misunderstood. Her intention behind the action was different from the negative reaction she was receiving. To my mind, and in retrospect (where one has the proverbial 6x6 vision), some attempt should have been made to help the person concerned become more aware of his negative behavioural impact and get support before a decision of easing him out was taken. But that did not happen. Now the consequences have to be dealt with. Then this comes out as a case and the ‘whole world' has some opinion or the other on it. The more vociferous and fierce successfully outshout the milder voices. It then comes back to hit Manika and perhaps damages her image in the larger public eye. Her reference to Kartik's story is also in the same vein: Kartik comes angrily from a perspective of righteousness to confront JJ on a breach of intellectual property issue. But the manner and approach results in the whole thing being seen as Kartik the drunken demon unleashing on a hapless and innocent JJ. Perhaps, over time, Manika too could be ‘demonised'! The just don't necessarily get justice. There are two critical issues here. First, it is very important to build awareness of oneself since we are all in the sphere of public opinion. Using the ad campaign as a metaphor, one would need to look at the possible impact this may have on others. The buy-in and support from key people in the decision-making process also helps buffer the decision and potentially provide perspectives that a single person may not be able to see. Needless to say, those one seeks opinions from regarding the decision should feel fully empowered to speak out and not be mere ‘head nodders' for the leader. The second issue is the management of the negative press that has accumulated. As Manika says quite wisely, "If we do not communicate with the employees clearly, then we too are going to be divided." If this is not done, the brewing and distortion can continue and spread to find its way into potential employers' dossiers. Recently, I had exposure to an organisation, emerging onto the international platform, that had changed its logo from a written word in English to a symbol. The perception down the line was oddly negative — many people could not relate to it. The logic behind the change had not been communicated. A senior leader put it in perspective during a meeting with a few managers. He said the aim was internationalisation, where a symbol and not a word could help establish the brand to a linguistically diverse global group. This immediately made sense to the unhappy managers. The communication clarified the intent behind the action. Without it, the quietly negative view would have persisted. 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 18-07-2011)