BW Communities

Lessons Of A Forgotten War

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[Acharya Vineet stood before the class of 75, taking in their individual expressions and energies. Dressed in white pyjama and kurta, he placed his laptop and mobile phone on the podium. Vineetji, a senior scholar from a research organisation, Discovery, was an adept in Vedanta after several years as a senior HR professional. As part of its aim towards an integrated approach to education and business studies, The Aryan Business School (TABS) had included a module in India's knowledge tradition, which would aid an understanding of ancient methods of learning and management. Vineetji was at TABS on an exploratory class in Vedic management. He was now listening intently to a case being described to him by a student, Vallabh Sarma. "Vineetji, the example that we wish to place before you is that of a company where managers have alleged that their appraisals were tampered with." And Vallabh read out the synopsis. Parmeet, an accountant was rated ‘Outstanding' by his boss, based on targets achieved, skills, potential, personality, etc. The appraisal committee thought there were too many Os. So all employee ratings were considered for the bell-curve and Parmeet was brought down to ‘Meets Expectations'. HR explained that his performance while good at department level, did not actively help in the growth of the organisation. Parmeet sued the company, saying, ‘How the company has done is not under my control, nor can my work ever impact the entire organisation. I have done what I can, so the company needs to reward me for the same.'  "Vineetji, do tell us, were these situations uncommon for ancient India. How did kings appraise and motivate?" Professor Amrita Krishnan (senior faculty member — HR): What baffles me is — whether the employee is getting demanding or the employer is acting dishonestly? Vineetji: Let us sort out the questions: a) Employees' unhappiness with appraisals, is it dishonest top management or inept line management? b) Was olden Indian management as described in the scriptures any different? Question: Do line managers have the right to communicate an appraisal as if it is a reward metric? Reward must remain separate from appraisal. The line manager (LM) can say you are doing a fantastic job. But by treating the appraisal as a reward, he has misled his team. Going back to the olden era, one can recall the time when Prince Arjuna is on the battlefield all geared for the fight. And then he loses heart after seeing family members in the enemy army. He drops his weapons and tells his friend and charioteer, Krishna, "I cannot do this. I am now going to retreat to the forests renouncing the world." What does Krishna say to him? Here is a severe moment of appraisal. He says, "You are a warrior by birth and profession. The state is in your care; there are duties you owe to the country. Your duty is to fight." And Krishna blasts Arjuna for his unprofessional behaviour. His points of reference are not the enemy or the army but simply Arjuna and his duty. Appraisal is about the individual. Next: The CEO says we cannot have so many Os, hence prune the excesses. People are not a negotiable instrument that you can stretch, like Rs 1,000 can one day buy 10 kg of soda or potash, and in better times, may bring home 11 kg. When a leader chooses not to give employees their dues, he is stretching them to work for less. Also, are you rewarding for the year gone by or incentivising the year to come? Reward and compensation are different. But see how the line managers have used it to ‘judge' their subordinates, while the MD is using it as a budget tool. Appraisal is a serious moment for development; not for making a gift of a rating. The MD either does not understand this or failed to explain to his LM that ratings will have little bearing on how the MD will reward. For reward can be more for a ‘ME' manager in a department that is deeply distressed and less for an ‘O' elsewhere.  Student: And employees will pay for this? Vineetji: "Pay for this" is a part of the same system that shows the CEO and the line managers as wielding the power to reward. Then again, when Parmeet says, "I am doing what I am supposed to", he is admitting to only ‘Meeting Expectations'. Reward is earned, not demanded like baksheesh! When you ‘meet expectations' you get a salary. You get rewarded when you accomplish more. The system is flawed and the CEO must take ownership and apologise for a poorly designed appraisal system. Student: How can a CEO apologise! He will be sacked and lose his million-dollar salary. I have not heard any CEO apologise. Satyam's Raju admitted to defrauding but did not apologise. He only said, "I am now prepared to subject myself to the laws of the land and face the consequences." Neither did Harshad Mehta, nor the Telgi scamster; nor the Hawala scamster politicians; nor the Commomwealth Games fraudsters. They all looked for loopholes to escape punishment.  Vineetji: The quality of good leadership is the ability to grieve for a mistake made and apologise. Kings should have the ability to say sorry, to cry with the people, to celebrate with them. Kings and leaders, must remain human. They pointlessly don the garb of a god, but they are human. A system that allows apologies actually helps people to introspect and reform.  Vallabh: Does apologising lead to a solution? If anything, won't employees be angry? Then there is bad press and media chatter! Vineetji: Why would employees be angry? You are already appraising and rewarding punishment using that same yardstick. The king is human — can err. But operational mistakes are not immoral, especially if he owns up to erring and corrects it. King Dashrath was a terrific value-led king. He overplayed his innate skill for being able to shoot blindfolded and in the process he shot a young lad who was fetching water for his blind parents. Bending at the knees before the lad's parents a stunned, broken Dashrath said, "Unknowingly and unexpectedly your son was killed by me. Please command me." break-page-break A lesson in ethical management bursts forth from the boy's father, "A killing brought about by a warrior premeditatedly (especially upon an elder) would expel even Indra from his post." By warrior he means one whose job is to lead and protect. For us it can be a CEO, a line manager. ‘Premeditatedly' also includes abandonment of opportunity to think before acting. One thing a leader cannot abdicate is meditated action. Hence ‘I did not think' does not work. If after thinking, he errs, then it is a mistake. But if he does not even think about his actions, then he must be de-throned for mindless management. Did your CEO think about the appraisal system? When a person accepts the leadership of a CEO, minister or teacher, he is assured that his interests will be taken care of in a fair manner — that the leader will act in a value-based manner, putting employees' interest above his own; that the leader will do what is to be done in a manner in which it is to be done. In your example, the leader has erred in not communicating the purporse of an appraisal to employees. Now, they are agitated. This has happened because he acted hastily. He must now apologise and graciously allow it to be corrected. Mistakes do happen. How can we be so severe and say CEOs, kings, parents, grandparents cannot make mistakes? Do people become infallible once they cross the age of 35? If the CEO is sincerely sorry, employees have to acquiesce. The word is actually ‘abide'. An employee's duty is to abide by the CEO, stand by him. Student: Wow, how can you simplify all this? An errant leader must go. Not forgiven. Vineetji: Again, you are linking appraisal to punishment. Both are separate issues. One, you appraise; two, you reward or punish. The appraisal is a verdict. The reward and punishment will depend on the intensity of the person's acts upon the organisation. The leader can be declared wrong, but the leader need not go. Does your matrix allow for that? Now let me tell you about ‘abidance'. The younger four Pandav brothers bore unconditional obedience to the eldest, Yudhishthir, who they considered not just their elder brother but also head of the kingdom, and their leader. I must add that, abidance was ingrained in them by their mother right from their young days. So during every decision, even if it was not to their liking, including in the dice game, including in declaring war on the cousins, we see their abidance. Likewise recall when Dhritarashtra calls Yudhishthir for a dice game, he agrees because for him Dhritarashtra is king first and then also father-like (pitaa-samaan). The four younger brothers dissuade him; they dislike the idea, but they stand by Yudhishthir. In the privacy of their homes, they dissented and debated. But when they had to present the face of the organisation, they stood united, abiding by the eldest's law. They trusted his wisdom. Obedience in olden India was based also on these values. Unlike today — when you can simply defect to another party because today the stake is ‘my gains'. Then it was ‘kingdom's gains'. So adherence is vital in an employee-employer relationship. If there is faith, there is trust and that is reciprocated with honesty and integrity, then abidance follows. Do organisations inspire faith? Student: Were there appraisals, ratings? Vineetji: The system of being graded ‘best' was there in the Vedic period but mostly for skills and talents — like oratory, archery and music. Today, in business, everyone works in a team. This is where the idea of leadership comes. It is the efforts of a leader that coordinate many people, functions and departments; make space for knowledge-sharing; raise motivation, and harmonise teamwork. This integrates collective organisation effort. Amrita: So, there was no benchmarking? You'd say competition was with the self? Vineetji: Duryodhan and Bhim were both stellar in the art of wielding the mace. But Duryodhan was never asked to be like Bhim in the art. Guru Drona told Duryodhan that his prowess will not reach its full potential as long as his mind was clouded by competitive anger or hatred. Competition with self implies performing better than you did yesterday. So benchmarking was with reference to yourself, your last performance.   Student: Like Kamsa's contest of brave wrestlers was organised to trap Krishna and Balram. And when they won, he sent in an intoxicated elephant — like the forced ranking method, where you have an axe to grind and use intoxicated elephants like the bell curve! Vineetji: That would be a bitter message to take. Understand the essence. Corporate agendas should not always be considered vested and biased. They often represent strategic priorities at a point in time and are subject to change. People working in priority areas have to deal with more challenges than those who are in the relatively safer zone. For example, in FMCG companies, marketing may be perceived as higher in priority. In the defence services, the same rank gets more remuneration in hard field and less in a peace posting. The practices of unethical, corrupt governments like Kamsa's cannot be standards; their actions are based on self-perpetuity. Standards are set by noble leaders, leaders with the courage to be honest, leaders who work for greater good. Student: Are you saying forced ranking is good for the organisation? Vineetji: Resources, especially financial, are never unlimited. Organisations have budgets, profits and costs, which vary depending on the corporation's performance, and also sometimes due to global forces like recession. So, while many will work well, only some can be rewarded. Strategic priorities will decide who is critical to the fortunes of the company at a point in time. This is good for the organisation. Vallabh: What about the employee standpoint? How can we accept being rated first as ‘Outstanding' and then as ‘Meets Expectations'? People are real, not like machines, which they can choose to depreciate at 20 per cent in a year where they want to reduce profits and revise rates to 15 per cent in bad years so that they can show profits! Vineetji: This man versus machine thought comes from an individualistic and a ‘me–them' mind set. When we do not have a sense of ownership with the organisation, we only worry about ‘my gain'. In reality, all work is accomplished through the combined efforts of five factors: a fit mind and body (adhisthana, the essential physical framework); motivation to work (karta); the cooperation of others, hence a yagnya attitude or say team work that uses collective strategies, tactics, skills, competence and creativity (cesatah); the right physical environment, hence light, ventilation, air, moderate temperature (karana); and finally synchronicity (daivam) or universal capability or intelligence to coordinate all the above sub-systems to achieve order and equitability. break-page-break This synchronicity is the final decisive factor. It is not a given but we assume that these sub-systems are intelligent and will automatically enable the equitable participation of all of them at the right time to deliver the desired result. But actually not! There is an enabling quantity that brings these five together at the same time, and it is then that an event takes place successfully! Hahaha! I see those looks on your faces and I know how you feel. But isn't this a factor we give a miss? Nothing happens by accident. Understand all of life is governed by the unmistakeable laws of physics and luck is just a four letter word for what we cannot explain. Ananya: Wowww... then what is luck? Vineetji: Scientifically, luck is the concurrence of all the sub-systems at the same time allowing them all to deliver their fruit at the same time, despite some of the sub-systems seeming to be inadequate to obtain the end result. Ignoring or misusing any of the five causes, leads to sub-optimal work outcomes — what we call failure. A common mistake is to give too much importance to the mind, body, senses and ego and ignore the remaining three factors! Amrita: Tell me, if that is so, then it stands to reason that every occurrence is a success? Because it has been delivered by the five sub-systems coming together? <table style="width: 200px;" align="right" border="0" cellpadding="10" cellspacing="10"> <tbody> <tr> <td><img src="/businessworld/system/files/vedic-management-case2-mdm.jpg" style="float: right; margin: 10px;" width="200" height="200"></td> </tr> <tr> <td>(Illustration: Mala Singh)</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> That being so, why is it that one feels dissatisfied with the appraisal? After all, the five sub-systems came together and delivered what you can call success. Vineetji: Simple. The inputs from these five sub-systems were not commensurate with the original goal. I want to be a doctor, but my strategy or my skills at studying or my physicality or the climate was less than commensurate with the planned goal. So, in this case, the dissatisfaction would not have arisen had the leadership understood the difference between appraisal and reward. To my mind, an appraisal lets employees know how they have performed and this information is to be used for identifying training needs or job re-fitment. As for reward, the moderation or ‘force fitting' as you have been told, was the second iteration where the shortlisted are examined against more variables. It's like in a beauty paegent — you may be Ms Pune, but at the all-India level, you may drop to tenth rank. Student: That means there will be subjectivity in rewarding? Vineetji: What is subjectivity? Wisdom plus experience plus judgement. The right to apply subjectivity can be only with the leader. Is there no subjectivity in a judge's judgement? In the case of one person, he grants bail, but in another case, he refuses bail on grounds that the person had a good opportunity in life to stay on the path of right, to be value-led, especially because the person was a public figure, and in governance the spotlight being on you, you carry the onus of good conduct. This is where faith comes in. Amrita: Ah! But faith can co-exist only with honesty, is that not so? Why would I be faithful to you if you are dishonest with me? Vineetji: Very nice. So we come back full circle to honesty in leadership. If the leader is consistently honest, even if employees do not understand the reasons for a decision, they will abide like the Pandavas. Because they have faith in an honest leadership. Amrita: The problem is that reward is considered only in terms of the limited resource — money and designation (power). Both are limited resources, which we all vie for and hence forced rating. In the ancient days, what were those rewards that men found equal joy in, even if money and power did not come to them? Vineetji: The reward of knowing they were doing their duty...!    Classroom Discussion Even in our products today, in the chase for the ‘what' we have left behind the ‘how to'. To be continued... casestudymeera(at)gmail(dot)com (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 19-12-2011)