Creating alignment in an organisation is never easy. It is difficult enough to have the entire organisation aligned to hard targets and objectives and much more challenging to do so with the relatively "softer" aspect of values.Unfortunately, "organisation values" is sometimes an initiative suggested by a management consultant, the communications department or the HR department, and it sounds like a "good thing to do". But if done hastily, without enough management time and attention, there is no buy-in and common understanding among large sections of the organisation. Not surprisingly, in such cases, it never gets farther than some power-point presentations, and posters and honourable mentions in the induction programme. Even more dangerous, it can actually create cynicism when the senior leadership is not seen to be living up to and abiding by the values of the organisation.But let us say that we are in an organisation where the top management actually has a common set of values and it wants the same values reflected in its ways of working. Red Dot certainly appears to be in this category, which is laudable. Mahir has created a team, which has the same values of fair play and mutual trust as he does. This is the first step in creating an organisation that not only has common values, but actually lives by them. However, it is not clear if the values at Red Dot have been defined clearly in the organisation and shared with employees, vendors and partners; this would have then enabled a path for Indira to discuss with HeadsUp, and she should have. An organisation, which is committed to its values should look at the following aspects:Start with the top team and ensure buy in: Values, which drive culture, have to be led from the top. The leadership team has to be cohesive in what it truly believes in. Sometimes, the leadership team may be a disparate set of people with different value systems. It is worthwhile for the top team to spend time together, to arrive at what they are willing to sign up for as a team. When there is a new recruit into the top team, the alignment with these values should be a crucial determinant in the selection process.Keep it simple: three-four key values — defined well in terms of what they mean, how does it manifest in behaviour, what behaviours will not be tolerated — is the next step. This is not a laundry list of all worthwhile values but the crucial few that is most important for the organisation for its long-term sustainability and growth.Some organisations make this a part of their "business principles" or part of their mission statement. What is important is to provide clarity on what we stand for and what we will not tolerate — in our employees and in our partners.Communicate the values to employees and all stakeholders: This can be done at a wide variety of interfaces and contact-points — induction, appraisals, contracts, employer and organisation branding, etc.Leaders should look-out for ‘critical incidents': This is, by far, the most important part of the process. If employees have to weave the organisation's values into the way they work, this needs more than the mandatory mention in the induction programme. It is important to remember that employees not only watch what top management pays attention to: they watch even more carefully what the leadership team does not pay attention to! If the management ignores a key violation of its espoused values by an employee (sometimes a star employee!) or it takes a business decision, which is seen as contradicting a stated value, it takes almost no time for the employees to figure out that these are merely words on paper. It is here that Jatin, however well meaning, has made a serious mistake. Not following through on a customer complaint is a way of ensuring that employees conduct business by their individual value systems and not necessarily what the organisation wants to live by. Indeed, an organisation's response to complaints — whether by customers or other stakeholders is one of the most powerful means of communicating what it really stands for. Mahir's mention of the Richard Branson example is a case in point. Good leaders always look out for such ‘critical incidents' to reinforce the values of the organisation. When a critical incident occurs, it should not only be addressed by the leader, but the actions taken must also be communicated to all stakeholders. Mahir should also follow up with Jatin on his lack-of-sufficient action over the issue. He may be doing Jatin a favour. On the other hand, if he realises that HeadsUp works on a different value system, which contradicts the very essence of what he would like Red Dot to stand for, he must use this as a ‘critical incident' opportunity to demonstrate the same. Going forward though, it would be judicious to make the "terms of engagement" clear in all partner contracts to ensure that there are no misunderstandings later.Priya Gopalakrishnan, an IIM-A graduate, is the HR Director at ING Vysya Life Insurance. The views expressed here are personal. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2009)
Read More
Let me state my stand clearly upfront. I see nothing surprising in Ojas's or Vishesh's behaviour. Ojas is a junior sales guy; Vishesh sounds like a mid-level manager; both are doing what they are trained to do — get results in the short-term. The two people to blame for this soured relationship are where the buck must always stop — the two CEOs. Mahir is incredibly idealistic and naive. There is a shocking disparity between his initial reaction to Ojas's "bad behaviour" and the ease with which he eventually signs the renewal contract for HeadsUp. Mahir needs to walk the talk, or be prepared to have his credibility suffer.Jatin is incredibly hands-off, has not built a consistent and sustainable culture within HeadsUp, and his business will suffer in the long term. Every organisation needs a few things to succeed — a clear long-term vision, ambitious objectives, a strategy, resources, and so on. It's not intuitively obvious why values are important to organisational success. Values provide the guiding light to what's right and what's not in the pursuit of organisational success. Values enable every individual to make daily decisions on their own, and others', actions. When I say values, I don't necessarily mean good values. I just mean a clear set of principles which individuals can use consistently to decide what's OK and what's not. Don Corleone's Italian mob had a clear and consistent set of values. And cutting off a prize stallion's head and stuffing it under the Godfather's enemy's bedclothes was perfectly justified by those values!Without exception, the CEO is responsible for defining the organisation's values, and for propagating them so that they are understood and consistently applied. In this case, both Mahir and Jatin fall short, though for different reasons. Jatin's failure is easier to explain. It appears he built a good business in the beginning. The fact that Red Dot had been customers of HeadsUp for eight years is testimony to this. As is the fact that Mahir openly and willingly recommended HeadsUp to others. It's a different matter that I don't think highly of a business, which keeps its relationships with customers "free of excessive human interface". Hardly a good way to build stickiness into customer relationships. But it is clear that Jatin grew distant from his business over time. He may have been "decent, sober, polite" at Ferguson College, but he's now a Blackberry-toting executive flying from Frankfurt to Chicago, without the sense to directly intervene and preserve an eight-year-old relationship with an important customer. How else do you explain Vishesh's somewhat arrogant, shrug-his-shoulders attitude? I am a notoriously hands-on manager; I would have called Mahir from Frankfurt airport, and would have come back and visited personally. Ojas would have been put on notice never to repeat his overtures to Amanda (or anyone else at important customers) and Vishesh would have been under no illusions about "who deals with interpersonal issues". On certain issues, there can be no doubts about who is the boss. And "values/principles of doing business" is one such issue on which the boss' word should be the last.So, while Jatin claims that "HeadsUp stands for much more", once again he doesn't walk the talk! Values cannot be proclaimed by an absentee CEO; they have to be enforced. When needed, they have to be enforced brutally so that everyone gets the message. Jatin is just not engaged enough any longer. On the other hand, in my view Mahir falls short at clearly communicating a consistent set of values or principles of doing business. Had he been clear, Indira would not have choked on her tea and run to Mahir. She is the HR Director after all; she should have had a direct relationship with Jatin Kale. She should have called Ojas and discussed the issue with him. If that had not worked, she should have escalated the matter within HeadsUp. But it sounds like she wasn't clear about what Red Dot's stand would be. It certainly appears nobody was clear, given the parliamentary debate that erupted among Mahir, Uddhav and Kaushik and in, which Indira appears to have been a mere bystander.So, I have no sympathy for the long and impassioned speeches that Mahir indulged in, while he bemoaned the values of the younger generation of managers. And for all the strategic advice he got from his Chanakya, and the grandstanding that they did with Vishesh, all they got in response was a shrug of the shoulders and a casual "That is a call for you to take". And after all that Mahir decides to renew the contract with HeadsUp! Talk about a gap (more like a canyon) between values and actions.In the end, it is important to have organisational values. But there is no easy way. The CEO needs to state the values. And communicate them clearly. And live by them everyday. And do so constantly, and consistently. Nitin Gupta has held top executive positions across Unilever, GE, and MasterCard, and is currently an executive search consultant with Spencer Stuart. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 02-11-2009)
Read More
Indira Karnik choked on her tea as she caught sight of Ojas' reflection in the mirror on the pillar outside. Was that him or was she imagining things? Now this is getting too much, she thought. He was back again! Why? Ojas Moitra was a junior consultant at HeadsUp, a people interface firm, specialising in key business services including training, recruitment and placement. Red Dot Inc. had been customers of HeadsUp's recruitment division for many years, and recently had also signed up the training division to train its security guards and front office staff in etiquette and service. CEO Mahir Vikar had resorted to recruiting through HeadsUp at a time when his firm was two years old. Since both firms were located in Pune city, HeadsUp had become like an in-house facility.The relationship that operated with HeadsUp was minimum: HeadsUp hosted ads for Red Dot (web and print) and collected the CVs from the candidates. That kept the relationship between them free of unnecessary human interface, save 2-3 times a year when HeadsUp sent its annual gift hamper on diwali or the renewal contract. It is against the backdrop of such a relationship that Indira gagged on seeing Ojas's reflection. For this was the third time in two days and sixth time in nine days that she had seen him at Red Dot. Importantly, Indira, the HR head, was the point of contact for all dealings between Red Dot and HeadsUp and two days ago, when she had run into Ojas in the outer office, he had told her "I was just passing by, so thought I will check if there is anything I can do for you". When this repeated, Indira had first expressed pleasant surprise, then quiet gratitude, then irritation, and finally today it was doubt. Why was Ojas here so often?Picking up the interoffice phone she called Amanda, her assistant manager: "Is the HeadsUp fellow here for something?" And Amanda's voice came back singing, "Oh sure, be with you in a sec!" Indira stared at her phone worried. A minute ago she thought she was seeing things; now she was also hearing things."He was standing at my desk, hence I could not talk!" said Amanda laughing, as she entered. "He has been coming in often, on some pretext or another, each excuse quite inane. But two days ago he asked me if I wanted to work elsewhere at twice the salary. And I said ‘no way'… and he said, ‘aren't you going to ask where?' and I said I didn't care. Today he tells me, ‘Meet me for coffee and when you hear the name of the company you will drop dead!'"Indira's frown deepened. "Is he giving you the glad eye?" she asked. Amanda laughed, "Oh no, Indira, he is just trying to sell me a job, that's all. Now, I will be leaving at 3 pm, ok? Recall Thursdays are my half days… bye!" And she was gone. Amanda usually stayed with her thoughts; like today she was in deep thought about the short story she was writing for Women's Era. It was about a woman who discovered at 43 that she was dyslexic and not lazy as everyone in her family thought! Thursdays was when Amanda spent time researching. So, Ojas and all that did not occupy her mind. But Indira thought this was serious. She would need to tell Mahir. Red Dot took pride in looking after all its employees very well, the women a bit more as Mahir was very particular. Mahir was annoyed. "Tell the security guard JUST NOW, if that man comes again, he must be brought to me." Mahir was perturbed. That somebody should walk into his office, because he could as a vendor of services, and then misuse it made him very angry. Later that day, Mahir tried calling HeadsUp several times to speak to its CEO Jatin Kale, but his phone was out of range. Mahir then called Uddhav Dasmesh, Red Dot's strategic advisor. Mahir referred to Uddhav as his Chanakya, except that Uddhav neither believed in sowing dissension to win wars nor in using enticement to delude the enemy.As he himself told Mahir once, "You would be wrong if you try to make your client perceive you as you want to be perceived. What you need is to simply understand how the client perceives you. Then work from there — both in war and peace." And that is exactly what Mahir realised now. His vendor HeadsUp perceived him as either weak or not smart enough, or not worthy. Red Dot was not a Goliath, but Red Dot was no novice David either. "Now what would you suggest as the best course of action, since Jatin is not available on phone? I was planning to write to him," said Mahir."Capital!" said Uddhav. "Exactly my idea too. Write to him and tell him this is not nice. He is a decent guy, he will understand." Since his call was not returned for two days, Mahir wrote to HeadsUp's Jatin: I have great respect for your vision and Red Dot has been your customer for the last eight years. But now I am not sure if I want to renew our relationship and here is why: (and Mahir explained) You and I are both businessmen, and I think like me you too have grown your business from scratch. But your people do not seem to value your effort in building the organisation. They clearly don't have any respect for you, and you need to know this. As for me, I not only do not tolerate anyone harming my brand, I don't tolerate them harming my people. And yes, this is not nice. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } On the other end, Jatin read this mail on his Blackberry just before he boarded his flight from Frankfurt to Chicago. Promptly he called his associate Vishesh Vaidya, and told him to call Mahir and resolve the mess and also make sure no ill feelings remained. He then wrote to Mahir, "I am sorry things came to this pass. But trust me, HeadsUp stands for much more. My colleague Vishesh Vaidya will get in touch with you."Vishesh arrived later than appointed and after the initial pleasantries, said, "I understand there is a problem you have. Yes, Ojas was asking the lady if she would be interested in another job he had to offer. Nothing more. And nothing wrong with that, I suppose? It's the nature of our business, and we do look out for good people for all our clients".Uddhav whose stony clipped tones were legendary, said, "I wonder, does it strike you that that is wrong? Does it strike you that it is causing deep damage to your brand?" Vishesh shrugged and said, "Not wrong!"Uddhav: You know Vishesh, we do business based on some basic measures of morals, ethics, grace, etiquette and fair play. This may sound funny to you, but we allow that to guide us in how we treat our clients and more importantly, how our customers treat us. At first we thought Ojas is young, green behind the ears and flighty and HeadsUp will set the confused relationship right. But, now we are not so sure we want to renew our relationship with HeadsUp.Vishesh: (shrugging) That is a call you have to take. It's for you to decide.And he brought down both palms with a light but decisive thump on the arm rest of his sofa in a manner of signing off and looked from Uddhav to Mahir, both of whom were shocked. And as he stood up to leave and reached the door, Mahir said, "Say, have you spoken to Ojas about this before meeting us?" Vishesh turned around and said, "Yes I have, although briefly." Mahir: And has Jatin spoken to Ojas?Vishesh: Mr Kale? Oh no! Inter-personal issues are dealt with by me and my team.When he had left the room, Indira who was among the others present, said, "I wonder how this ‘quality' did not show up all these eight years!" Uddhav who was steaming by now, said, "They were growing then, you see? Now they have grown very big. Mahir, I am actually going to send a ‘thank you' note to Jatin Kale for a priceless lesson we have learnt at no cost. If a consultant had to be called to teach our people this, then we would be out of pocket by Rs 5 lakh.Mahir: Actually I am not amused Uddhav, I am hopping mad. Let this be the post script of your thank you note to Kale.Uddhav: I am thinking Mahir, you set up Red Dot nine years ago with barely any seed capital. As an entrepreneur who worked your way up, your attitude (as would be Jatin's too) to sanctity of spaces and minds must be quite contrary to that of young new employees today, no? Yet 15 years ago, I recall my elder brother quit Hindustan Lever to join one of those family-managed groups because they were mopping up fine managers from good companies after the post-liberalisation attrition to the Reeboks, Pepsis and Cokes began. Despite his degrees from the IIT, IIM and 17 years in HLL, and despite his phenomenal name in the market, he did not treat the FMC like baap ka maal'. In fact, family entrepreneurs then were closed and guarded so that professionals they hired, felt stifled unable to exercise their creativity. In fact, it was said that FMCs were clannish, narrow minded, and unable to retain professional managers. Cut to today, where we have ‘professional' entrepreneurs, who bring in own capital or venture capital, who are raring to invent and discover and build. And you are trusting and giving, and full of management hype because you believe India must grow. So much so that you even leave the family treasures lying on the coffee table and don't fear being looted! I wonder if that liberal and generous attitude is a mistake; I now see sense in why the FMCs keep such a strict guard on their business.And today I see this man Jatin has sent, and I am wondering. Incidentally, my sister was classmates with Jatin at Ferguson College. She says he is decent, polite, and is not the dandy sort or flighty. He was the sort you knew would go on to do something good in life. She in fact said, ‘He is very sober, the kind who your kids could call uncle!' Now when I hear all this, and see the likes of Ojas and Vishesh, I can't make sense.Indira: Jatin does not seem to be the problem in this transaction. It seems to me a case of careless hiring. But then all these men are MBAs. So, is the rush and haste resulting in class-3 type b-schools that skim the surface, ignore values and the relationship ends with collecting fees? Or do you end up hiring cheap?Mahir: There are two kinds of companies, which are created everyday in India. The first one with a lot of values, truly wanting to create a great company, not worried about competition, very good at what they do and stick to what they are good at, long-term growth strategies strong, creating value instead of volume, agile, people-oriented. Red Dot belongs to that category. The second one with the ‘IDEA' — develop a few strategic power points, hire some B-school graduates to deliver jargon-filled talk. These companies think they can grow 300 per cent in a year; obtain VC funding because their spouse have contacts in the investment circle; they can't see beyond the first few years; don't have a desire to stand on their own feet; page 3 obsessed, cannot give up their lifestyle; don't want to learn from failures, people are not valued, money is! var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } "I think the younger generation is in a big hurry. They think they can make a Silicon Valley in no time. Dig a little deep and they collapse, they want quick name and fame. They believe that their social networking and playing some dumb games is what constitutes smartness. Give them a broken kettle, they can't fix it. But yes, they can buy you a new one with their money."Today's colleges and schools rarely teach failure management. In India, everyone teaches only about success and how to become successful. When they fall they are not taught the art of getting up. Instead, they learn how to file an insurance claim or sue somebody. Indira is so right… many of the b-schools are not focusing on building and grooming good managers; just as schools caught in the CBSE chase, these b-schools come with an agenda to score…Kaushik Varman (Operations Head): You know, you are all talking about business ethics and all that. Tell me how come Vishesh says Jatin did not speak to Ojas-The Errant?Mahir: I would be surprised if he has not; he will, he will. But meanwhile, the matter has been shabbily treated. This is not how business is conducted. This is the way of the Fathers of Recession: roger the business then give employees a fat bonus and a paid weekend at a spa!This is in fact the malaise of the 2000s, the ‘I want to look good' syndrome, not ‘I want to be good'. So growing markets, increasing top line, being well known… all this is the packaging effect. Instead of going within and unravelling our potential and examining how much we can stretch it, we are going outward and doing a stupid circus. What we have within, we don't know or don't realise. I am amazed, Uddhav. I come from a small town — Barshi — and even today I feel my townsfolk are way ahead of the city tribe. Believe me. We innovate! We create! We dig deep! We don't skim the surface! If we go with this profit growth madness, then there is going to be NO innovation from urban areas. I think rural India, especially in tier-3 cities and villages are very innovative in their approach to practical problems. For a simple cough, the urban youth wants antibiotics. Arre! Take honey with warm water and heal yourself organically! That is called, ‘looking within' organic solutions!Uddhav: (Laughing) Yes… that too! There are many causes for all that we witness. In the case at hand, I personally think that Ojas, went beyond his brief. His task is to help the customer grow. And in the growth of the customer is the growth of his own company, and then his growth as an individual. He tried to jump straight to his own growth, without thinking of either his company or that of his customer. Second, Ojas used tactics and behaviour that are not considered normal. HeadsUp (and vendors in general), needs to train its team to be sensitive to customer feelings and always be alert to their emotions. I see the above as gaps in education, training, company guidelines, values and ethics and (consequent) personal evolution. What kind of a company are we dealing with? I won't look at the vendor representative and examine his behaviour. He is the symptom. The disease is in the company. Kaushik: Sorry, I disagree. A company can have a broad philosophy that should percolate to its people. By and large, companies are watchful and if they notice a bad egg, they weed him out quick. But to say that Ojas's conduct is symptomatic of the company's disease is one thing. But to say ‘the disease is the company' is alarming! But yet I wonder, does HeadsUp do a regular ethics audit with its customers, a kind of 360 on its account managers? If it did it would have spotted the fellow very early. Uddhav: Agree with you: you can't tar a company with the same brush you use for an errant individual or department or incident or product within the company. But examine the following which there are exceptions to this rule: HeadsUp did not have a regular accounts manager for Red Dot; that's the fundamental first stop for problem solving, troubleshooting and escalating issues. When Red Dot did bring it up, the person who turned up for the discussion was Big Brother of Ojas who was the problem. If you recall, Vishesh's words were, "inter-personal issues are dealt with by me and my team". Straight away you know this matter won't find place in Jatin's agenda. Vishesh's attitude was, "We don't care, do what you want." I feel it's a contagious disease that came down from Vishesh to Ojas. And deduce that Vishesh himself has imbibed this attitude from his environment! Kaushik: I don't know the guy, but am trying to imagine his position in a fair manner. I feel, companies like HeadsUp, who just got it right at the right time and place, will run to keep their leadership position. Mahir: You know greatness comes with responsibility! People such as Richard Branson, take customer feedback seriously. An Indian wrote to Branson about a bad experience on Virgin. Branson went and published it in the press! I think if you are taking the responsibility to run a company, then you must first come equipped with integrity and values. I have learnt that we must accept our mistake without fear (even if it means losing business), implement the learnings from your roots, and lastly that there is enough business for everyone. no need to be so desperate to win so that I compromise with what I hold dear! Somehow, everything today is edged with glamour so that people think running a business is also a reality show! A week later Indira met Uddhav on some workshop and told him, "Mahir plans to renew his contract with HeadsUp with a prayer in his head." Uddhav laughed. "Good, now we must get Mahir some Turkish worry beads... and he must place it on the table when he talks to clients, like Don Corleone would place his gun on the table! Yet I must talk to Mahir"."I understand you have decided to renew your HeadsUp contract anyway?" Uddhav asked Mahir as he entered his room later. Mahir did a dancing movement with his head and said, "I thought I shouldn't be emotional. then again I want to know what people do after they have messed up! It is a new learning for me! Have you watched Narnia? The kids enter the wardrobe knowing it was leading to a weird place... only if I stay on will I learn more about people, relationships, business, competition, greed…"Classroom/syndicate discussionDo values transfer just because they are recorded in the corporate credo?casestudymeera at gmail dot com var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') }
Read More
Society demands High character! of its teachers, soldiers and leaders. A protector of the nation is supposed to be one who is proud of his nation and one who represents the nation's spirit in his actions. School on the other hand, is the cradle where children learn the basics of integrity, decency and fairness. They also learn sensitivity and how to use the thinking process. This forms a bedrock for the future. The gurukula made it possible to think of a man above human failings and to put the children in its his care. It was hoped that the children, students would see the epitome of human behaviour and absorb the same. Today school is a collective, of teachers, students and parents. Human beings who work in schools have failings like all people. The army or any other institution or a profession is no exception - whether a doctor, nurse, accountant, manager, engineer, army officer, police officer, diplomat, film star or a professor. If we ask the following simple questions and think of the professionals mentioned above, we will note interesting responses in ourselves. Should one drink alcohol or not? In the army this is a non-issue. You are in trouble if you don't. Should one be seen in a pub? Should one smoke or not? again non issue in the army. Should one beat his child or not? Should an unmarried person have sex? Is it okay to fall in love with a married woman/man? The last decades of 20th century show an acceptance of things that were simply not acceptable a few decades ago. Live-in relationships, consensual sex are accepted in the melting pot of our cities. We have dilemmas, if at all, in this area only when it comes to our own children and families, brothers or sisters. The media portrayals of life have drawn attention to these questions in various ways, some times not very responsibly. It is true that social reprisals are heavy - in the 21st century people have been hunted and killed for marrying a person of another caste, talking to a girl. Banishment, punishment, rank denial, exclusion diminish a person. I agree that problems that occur or a change of decision needs to be reported. We need a basis for conduct. But are things black or white? Should our institutions take extreme positions and on what issues? The Brigadier's says that ‘civilian-like' behaviour is a danger to national defense. Are not human beings subject to same forces of emotion and thinking irrespective of where they work or what roles they hold? We all know that a person can and does fail. Poor judgement is not prerogative of any one group. We also know that our behaviour patterns have deep roots. Large organizations depend on a shared purpose, and people need to feel proud or convinced of the mission and methods employed. The gaze of history is tough and exerts a pressure. The age of information also makes defining arguments accessible to all. Digital answers such as the Brigadiers suggests will leave none standing. All unacceptable things would go underground - torture by American soldiers in Iraq, till one fine day it blows out of the cupboard. Or the Enrons and Satyams or Union Carbides. Human society is making a rickety and jerky journey to life long learning. It does not matter where one is or how old and what rank and designation he/she posses, one has to be in learning. Organisations are recognising this and the training man-days per employee give a number to this intention. The change from mere performance to performance + learning is a leap. However, in the work spaces, is there room for learning and growing, not just in skills but in other ways as well? Judgement and action flow from our inner conversations, often unconscious. Is there a recognition of these judgements and actions and a concern about values and their clarification for the individuals? Human beings are often caught in a time warp - practices and processes we were bred on have become objects of embarassment. What we hold in our blood and bones comes out under stress - and careful review, post mortem show how fallible we are. The paradox of a learning individual, a learning organization is that as individuals grow in thinking and perception, they can exert uncomfortable pressures on the organisation and its core purpose. Organisations will need to redefine their approach and sometimes even abandon their historical business or practices. Cigarettes is a classic example. Environment unfriendly practices are another. War machinery continues to be good business. America can't be without the right to carry guns. Multinational drug companies sell drugs banned in the West to Bangladesh, Africa and India. Organisations need to see that the ‘being' and the ‘becoming' are not that far apart? Investing in being means, deep concern that people understand themselves, and thus possibly understand their own limitations, and discover inner movement and new ways of relating. Thinking and understanding oneself may create basic questions. E.g. is having an army better than a good relationship with neighbors? Does preparing for war, not invite war? G.Gautama is an engineer by training and an educator by choice. As Director of The Chennai Education Centre of Krishnamurti Foundation India, he oversees The School KFI, Pathashaala residential school and the Outreach activities of the centre. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 06-12-2010)
Read More
The last few months have been worrying times. All one reads is about 'scams'. Sadly the Armed Forces too have been in the news for wrong reasons. Is the situation beyond redemption? Are we being too hasty in our judgment? Brigadier Muratza is right. He seems to have covered the ground. Why do I agree with his views? I have always believed that those of us who wear the uniform are different. True we come from the same society as everyone else. True that our values are naturally the same as that of the society, but this lasts only till we start our lives in the Uniform. From the day we join the system that 'builds men'. We are different. Once we commit to sacrifice our lives in the name of our duty, we leave the values of the 'outside world'. We have to believe that we are the elite group that works on different values irrespective of what happens to the outside world because 'fauji is not a civilian'. Men whose integrity and discipline is even slightly less than perfect will never deliver the result we expect from our combatants. Yes 'there are no half measures'. Those who have even an iota of doubt about this philosophy must stay away from the uniform. They are then free to join the societal value system and choose not to be different. The underlying anxiety surrounds the state of the civilian society, and the ‘natural' infiltration of civilian lifestyles and ethics into the forces, since we draw our resource pool from civilian society to begin with. Hence, can the recklessness of civilian lifestyles be deep behavioural influences? Therefore should the type of people we wish to see defending the country need to be even more carefully chosen? I decode that to, ‘How do we ensure that the Armed Forces retain the values and methods that ensure victory in war?' It starts at the very beginning i.e. selection process. Our selection process has stood the test of time. Incrementally we bring in newer methods of testing based on sound research. Our training we know is good. We have compared it with other Forces. If proof was required, international exercises and above all Kargil was proof enough! Then what is the problem? The top honchos will fix things quickly by insisting on 'no compromise' EVER. I am Bullish on this. Do we see a lowering of the bar in values, behaviour and ordinary conduct in the armed forces? We do need to reflect if the moral fibre of the armed forces has weakened to a worrying extent. While the screaming headlines may suggest otherwise, the situation is not so grim. Any corrective measure is extremely quick to apply in the forces. The process has began. We will hear of many Murtazas from now. Air Chief Marshal (Retd.) S. P. Tyagi is the former Chief of the Air Staff of the Indian Air Force. var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 06-12-2010)
Read More
The central issue is - the relative vs the absolute, with the relative being associated with flexibility and the absolute being with rigidity. Both 'the absolute' and 'the relative' defend their positions, out of the need for survival. The absolute imagines chaos if not persevered, the relative escapes becoming 'social dinosaurs'. The armoury of the absolute is values, the armoury of the relative is accommodation. Both use their armoury to wage an unnecessary battle, unnecessary because the battle they wage is not the real one. The real battle is between what I have learnt and lived v/s what I have let go, yet value. One side sees the future with the eyes of the past, the other is constantly at the cusp of change, and so the truth of yesterday converts to the predicament of tomorrow. If this is correct, then the battle is not a tug-of-war but a passing of the baton in a marathon relay. The evidence for evolution post Charles Darwin is now overwhelming, and much of the evidence is found in fossils. Hence the admiration for the retired senior is as natural as the wish to save the erring junior from harsh punishment, lest a valuable element of the specie is lost to natural section. The case is silent on what the lady officer felt, or for that matter the other officers at the party. Hence the context is highly selective, and therefore limited. Perhaps to bring focus? Would harsh discipline resolve the issue and re–instate ‘Fauj' values as expressed? Or, are these values being altered by the nature of society from which the ‘Fauj' is drawn? The example of another officer departing from pre–briefed procedures and processes, highlights "the top knows best" at a time when in every walk of institutional living, individual initiative is being expected and encouraged. Are the risk of doing so, greater or lesser than the risks of blind adherence to authority in the name of discipline, albeit for national safety? Then again, has national safety been compromised by the ever increasing breaches in discipline as expressed by the retired senior? We need to be careful not to hang our self–esteem on to labels that purport to support a bigger cause for which there is a little evidence i.e. as the nations honour being at stake. And yet there is a genuine sense of anguish in seeing cherished values under – mined by changing mores. This anguish has great value as the cauldron from which social behaviour emerges from which standards are set; the thesis gives birth to the anti–thesis, and then a new synthesis. For such is social geometry. All absolutes are but relatives, seen differently. At another level, the case is about choice. We know what we are going in for, and we know the discipline extraordinary expected. So often, we fail to be ourselves. And such failures or fissures or aberrations, open cracks in us towards a new and unbridled humanity, and/or to a loss of self and purpose. Any discipline which humiliates an individual, humiliates the society imposing it. And yet, in another sense, it is also about luck and being found out. "Bad luck, old chap"! But when luck holds out, the façade we build, is the façade that holds. "Woe becometh the man who knoweth not how to wear his mask - Pirandello." Finally, I must ask myself what would I do were I the senior of the erring officer? Perhaps, call him and ask him if he can live with himself and the expectations he had of himself when he enlisted. Based on his answer I would take my decision. Nawshir Khurody is former managing director of Voltas var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 06-12-2010)
Read More
There are two aspects to the case study. one, it is about sexual harassment at the work place, more specifically in the uniformed services. Two, there is a larger issue of what may constitute discipline in the armed forces, given a perceptible change in the social milieu in the country. We define sexual harassment as an unwelcome act that involves four things: "First, there must be an action, such as the actor putting his arms around the target, which can be physical, verbal or visual. Second, the action must be unwelcome or unwarranted in the target's view. Third, it must be sexual in nature and based on the target's gender. Fourth, there has to be a tangible economic impact on the target or a severely negative impact on the target's work performance or work environment." (Linda Gordon Howard: The Sexual Harassment Handbook). There are two types of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and those that create a hostile environment. In the first, sexual favour is sought in exchange of work-related benefits. In the second category, the behaviour alters the target's experience of the workplace, "causing the work environment to be a sexually charged, intimidating, or offensive place to be". Although his adjutant tells him it was a consensual relationship, Colonel Arjun Singh would need to see to the facts with speed and fairness: misconduct, the influence of alcohol, on-duty or off-duty, and one-off or recurrent in nature. The service record of the officer and a consequent loss to the system are dangerous distractions to the central questions — did or did not the target consider the move as ‘an unwelcome sexual advance', and did the act take place or not? The larger issue is of changing social mores and what they do to the idea of discipline in the armed forces. During Brigadier Murtaza Ali's time, a young officer had no way of viewing pornography on the Internet or the cell phone. Neither did he wake up to read newspapers about scams involving his superiors, and those who influence his promotions and even pin bravery medals on his chest. He did not witness a government system in which generals took away housing meant for war widows, and colluding politicians and bureaucrats make money from aircraft and armament procurement, purchase of snowmobiles, rum, ration and even coffins for slain soldiers. There was a time when the bad guy was in the minority. Today, he moves around in a red-beaconed convoy fluttering the tri-colour, which the soldier has to defend at the cost of his life. What does all this do to the man in olive green? Understand, the armed forces get their people from the civil society. The men and women in uniform marry into the civil society; their children are part of it; and after serving the nation, they return to the same civil society whose physical borders they must defend with their lives. If the moral fibre of that larger civil society is broken, it rapidly invades the uniformed services. The tragic reality is that there is no defence against the enemy within. We live in times of abandoned probity in public life. It is led from the front, with valour, by most politicians and supported by colluding bureaucrats. The size of their play is so large that the generals must fall in line. Look at the size of the defence outlay in 2010: Rs 147,344 crore, of which Rs 60,000 crore is capital expenditure alone! It is a booty that is renewed every year. The general sees the minister and the bureaucrat making money hand over fist, and asks himself why not me? Soon they want him as an accomplice. The reward for complicity is seemingly harmless like a piece of government land, an extended time at the army headquarters so the son can finish college, and sometimes even a bravery medal. So, the general does not flinch when he salutes the politician — he tells his conscience he is actually only saluting the office and not the person. Why should it matter? The power to defend a country is not in blazing guns. It is in the burning hearts of men and women behind those guns. It is a moral fire. Once morality is taken out, the fire dies. And the enemy notices it before anyone else does. There was a time when Indian service officers used to look down upon their Pakistani counterparts as the ones who swore by their religious beliefs but drank scotch, swam in land deals and womanised. Earlier, they had the better armament but we had the better people. Our sense of superiority came from moral armour. Now, our society and our government have taken away that armour. The conflict is no longer on the line of control. It has shifted within. Unfortunately, Colonel Arjun Singh needs to get his answers from the larger system that writes the code of conduct he must comply with. If the two are not aligned, the nation no longer needs an external enemy. Subroto Bagchi is co-founder of MindTree, gardener and vice-chairman of the Board var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 06-12-2010)
Read More
Since the concept of honour has remained unchanged over the years, so too must interventions that ensure appropriate behaviour from our men in uniform. The case study brings out an interesting existential reality of our modern times. On the one hand, we have a society that is becoming increasingly permissive and dismissive of existing societal norms while, on the other, our security environment has degraded drastically, demanding a higher state of alertness and professionalism from our uniformed forces. Under these conditions, the very concept of discipline is under stress. Yet, discipline needs to be enforced, no matter what the cost. There is bound to be some confusion in the minds of current military leaders. Should they be condoning today the behaviour that was unacceptable yesterday? We must remember that our expectations from our uniformed forces, military or para-military, have remained unchanged. These requirements have not changed a whit. If at all, the stakes have risen even higher. There is need for much greater vigilance and, therefore, discipline today than ever before, since terrorism hides behind civilian clothing. Danger lurks in the unlikeliest of places. We should not be concerned here with merely passing a value judgement on the errant officer's behaviour against the backdrop of how today's permissive society views it. Rather, we should be discussing whether time-tested tenets of military propriety continue to be valid in today's India. My belief is that they are and, due to the presence of a degraded internal security environment, these need to be enforced with an even greater sense of purpose and urgency. Specifically, if a couple — both being in the armed forces — breach military propriety and end up in a physical or emotional relationship, as brought out in the case, they are unlikely to succeed in maintaining the kind of ‘professional distance' required for effective functioning. This will ultimately be detrimental to the organisation entrusted with the nation's safety. As such, the touchstone ought not to be the act itself but the further effect of that act on military discipline and, by extension, the nation's security. Of course, times are changing and this will exacerbate recruitment and subsequent training problems. Youngsters will have to be drawn from a society that is a lot more permissive than earlier. The problem our Services face today is: the induction point or the raw human resource we receive today, has to be worked upon much more than before. Our selection process needs to acknowledge this, and the recruitment pitch must be appropriately calibrated. Given the reality of our existence this, per se, may not ensure the right type of human material needed by our Services. For a start, the nation must start looking up to the Services with pride, respect and compassion. This cannot, of course, be demanded or requested. We live in a media-driven society and, the media exerts a huge influence by its ability to sway public opinion. I feel that the time has come for the uniformed services to shed their traditional reticence and engage with the media intelligently and purposefully. The public needs to be informed of the reality that governs the existence of our armed and para-military forces — the hardships; the service conditions that adversely impact their family lives; the sacrifices that they are routinely called upon to make, etc. Once all of this gets into the public domain, our countrymen will start looking at the Services with renewed understanding. Empathy is bound to develop, followed by respect and gratitude. Internally, the fauj ought to revisit its training curriculum in this respect. It needs to employ perceptive and innovative training methodologies to reinforce the values cherished by them and create conditions that will make our officers and men proud to wear that uniform. Taken together, these interventions will inculcate a feeling of pride in new entrants. They must want to belong to that select group and be overwhelmed by a chest thumping kind of feeling that makes each of them say: "I want to be an officer or soldier/ airman/ sailor of the Indian Armed Forces!" Lastly, just as in our own families, the seniors in the fauj, too, need to set an example — walk their talk and lead from the front. It follows that the selection process for higher ranks needs to be transparent and ‘fail safe', thereby ensuring that those selected do not fall short of the nation's and the fauj's own expectations in this regard. In the Services, the uniform must end up making the man — or the woman! And so, behavioural norms that are okay for society at large cannot be okay for the fauj, which is required to protect the very same society. The stakes, I am afraid, are very much higher, and a failure in this domain cannot be an option for the likes of us — whether or not we continue to be in uniform. Rakesh Sharma (India's first man in space), has retired from active service. He is currently chairman of Automated Workflow Group, an IT firm based in Bangalore var intro = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#commenth4').text()) var page = jQuery.trim(jQuery('#storyPage').text()) if (page.indexOf(intro) < 0) { jQuery('#commenth4').attr('style', 'display:block;') } (This story was published in Businessworld Issue Dated 06-12-2010)
Read More
