How much to Promise & Deliver

Recently, I had the good fortune of attending a half-day leadership motivation workshop for a large organization. The primary aim of the workshop was to bring about a change in the mindsets of the management and employees of the organization. So that they work better together as a team. A high-performance team.

(I am an outsider to the organization, but was present, in a different capacity).

A well-known personality was given the mandate of motivating this group, of reigniting the latent leader in them. And the person did speak very well. I learned and re-learned quite a few things from his inspiring speech. I was impressed.

Until when he shared one "success tip", which completely shocked and disturbed me. It seemed to me that the entire purpose of the workshop was being defeated by this one single-line tip. 

This fatal tip was (and is): "Under-promise and over-deliver".

The speaker seemed to have offered this advice as a clever way of 'managing' superiors' expectations.

However, a closer examination would reveal to us that...

1) This is not a sustainable approach. If we consistently over-deliver, it would necessarily bring to light that we purposefully under-promise. This could then force us to promise higher and higher, thus reducing more and more our ability to over-deliver. Till a point reaches where we cannot under-promise. Or over-deliver.

The advice has a short life-span in this sense; this however is fine. Which brings us to a more important issue...

2) The situation will play out as above only if the superior is sufficiently smart, discerning and has sufficiently intimate knowledge of his/her subordinates' work. Otherwise, the subordinate might find it convenient to keep under-promising and over-delivering relative to the 'under-promise', while he/she could have promised as well as delivered much more! Leaving the superior under the illusion that his/her subordinate has over-delivered. Thus creating sustainable illusions of performance and hidden non-performance.

But this situation would arise only when some human actors involved have wrong intentions. There is an even bigger reason why this advice is wrong....

3) And that is what makes this advice fatal. Especially so in an organizational context. 

As discussed in an earlier post, there is a host of factors which hinder the free flow of ideas in an organization. And hinder organizational performance. Dominant among them is the basic human fear of making a mistake. Of failure. And hence the tendency to aim low. Often very low.

On top of this innate tendency, if all employees begin to consciously under-promise, organizational growth would be dampened by a huge extent. Nothing could perhaps be a bigger innovation killer! This is more so in an organizational context because:

• Under-promises have a diminishing cascade effect as they travel upwards. If A1 under-promises to his/her boss A2, the promise that A2 makes to A3 based on that would be even smaller! And so on!!! This way, the promises that reach the top management could very well be very modest indeed!
• Delivery demands allocation of resources. If promises made are modest, allocation of resources would be made accordingly. Further, the natural tendency is to be conservative when allocating resources. The modest allocation of resources in response to the 'under-promise' makes it that much more challenging to deliver even what was 'under-promised'. 
• The organization performs best when everyone is on the same page. When there is a shared aspiration and a common understanding of goals and the ways to attain them. The mechanics of this advice goes against this, by creating artificial barriers between people regarding promises and deliverables.
• The ensuing failure to aim high, to extend the horizon of the possible, could thus be fatal to the organization. It would be failing spectacularly in realizing its potential.

I found the advice to be particularly disturbing because the organization in question was a typical 'traditional' organization, plagued by very low aims, risk avoidance, aversion to making mistakes and conformism. This advice was hence the very opposite of the wisdom the management and employees of such an organization needed. A license to aim low in the delusional hope of 'over-delivering' relative to a low standard.

[Being an outsider, I could not publicly question the speaker about the wisdom of his advice (I wanted to, for the benefit of the audience). However, I approached him in private afterward; on advancing my reasons, he admitted his fault, though subtly.]

So, let us keep it straight and simple. Promise. And Deliver. 

PS: Here is a totally different perspective on the issue, leading interestingly to the same conclusion. :)

The Flow of Ideas in an Organization: Part II - The Blockages

In an earlier post, we explored how arithmetic and hierarchy conspire to hinder the flow of ideas in a 'traditional' organization. As we would recall, the result is often incredible! And criminal! And actively detrimental to the future of the organization.

Let us now look at why the flow of ideas is often less - much less - than desirable. In other words, let us look at some of the blockages that hinder the free flow of ideas.

1. "Yes Sir/Madam". 
• A desire to conform. Often in the hope of real or perceived personal rewards.
• A tendency to conform. Even when no desire exists! Often due to the invisible force of the system and the default human nature to conserve - rather than question - the present. 
• Sheer laziness. To do anything different. Or differently. 
• A very short view of time. Conformance is almost always the more convenient option, more attractive in the short term, though with fatal consequences in the long term. But of course, death can wait! Or so we feel.
2. "Ideas? Are you asking me? Really?"
• Most employees in many organizations do not ever think that they can give any worthwhile ideas for organizational growth and development.
• Organizational and social hierarchies play a huge part in this conditioning. 
• And so does our prejudicial and disrespectful treatment of others.
3. "It's not my job. What's in it for me?"
• Organizational disconnect. An attitude that I will just do the work that is given to me, and be content. An acceptance of mediocrity. And a sense of apathy and thoughtlessness for the larger interests of the organization.
4. "You do your job. I do mine"
• Rigid work boundaries. Rigid on paper, or in people's minds. Either way, an attitude that each one is supposed to work strictly within these boundaries. A belief that idea generation is to be left to top or middle management alone. 
• This thus reduces the opportunity for cross-fertilization of ideas - mix and match - to a large extent.
5. "I might look stupid"
• A fear of failure. The unwillingness to experiment. To get out of one's comfort zone.
• A false sense of personal pride. That attaches inordinate value to one's own ego rather than the larger good of the organization or society.
• A false notion that equates worth of the idea with one's own worth. 
• Perfectionism. A wrong notion that an idea has to be perfect as proposed.
6. "It is of no use"
• Lack of trust. That the idea will be listened to; or that if listened to, shall be given a due consideration.
7. "The boss might be offended"
• A belief that questioning of status quo amounts to disrespect.
• A belief that the boss shares this belief.
8. "No one asks me. Why should I care?"
• A failure on the part of managers/bosses to explicitly seek and encourage ideas and feedback.
• Yes, ideas do not flow, they remain suppressed, often simply because people rarely ASK! For ideas, for honest feedback. Especially from juniors.
9. "I am new to the system, what value can I possibly add?"
• Underestimating oneself. This is very unfortunate, especially so since what might be most critically required in many situations can be nothing but a fresh perspective. Uncoloured by the traditional norms and boundaries.
• Overestimating one's superiors. Everyone has something to learn from everyone else. But we tend to assume that our superiors are omniscient beings, needing nothing whatsoever!
10. "Not the right time and/or place"
• Let me wait. This is not the time, or the place. Or the forum. 
11. "He/she shall share/steal the credit of my idea"
• Lack of trust. And an unwillingness to give, take and share credit.
12. "That is not how we do things here"
• The absence of a precedent. Indeed, this could be the very opportunity to establish one.
13. "We don't do this here"
• The justification that the proposal is beyond the mandate of the organization. 
• Could instead be used as an opportunity to enlarge the scope and redefine the mandate.
14. "Don't know to whom I can take this idea"
• An ignorance of the channel(s) that the organization accepts as legitimate
15. Once bitten, twice or forever shy 
• Past experience can be a particularly strong deterrent to the flow of ideas. Creating a vicious cycle of ever-increasing hindrances and ever-decreasing flow of ideas.

It may be noted that some of the patterns of thought and action highlighted above are exhibited by 'subordinates' in relation to their 'superiors'. However, a little reflection would reveal to us that both subordinates and superiors have a strong role in the flow of ideas. Indeed, so does organizational culture and systems, of which they are all a part.

We shall continue this discussion, and explore solutions - known as well as novel - soon.

But before that, did I miss any blockage? Please feel free - and do feel! - to add. Thank you.

The Power of Power

Power is fundamental to our lives. Both our daily life and the history of human existence and evolution are punctuated and shaped by 'power play'. And vice versa.

The word 'power' evokes different emotions in different people in different situations. Some situations make one distrust that power completely. Situations such as the self-serving and criminal non-performance of a lot many bureaucrats (so-called public servants). They make us believe in the words of Lord Acton: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." On the other hand, other exemplary public servants who put people first, inspire trust in their power.

Similarly, the unconditional love of a mother towards her baby makes one celebrate the beauty of the near-absolute power the mother wields over her child. And the cruelty of an unloving mother who sells her child, leads us to lament the power that was bestowed on her.

Thus, where there is trust, power is perceived as a force for good; on the other hand, where distrust rules the roost, power is perceived as evil. And indeed, the perceptions mirror reality to a large extent.

This reveals to us the essential nature of power. Its two-sided nature. Power by itself is neither good nor bad. The power of power lies in the capability of the individual or group that wields the power to use it for 'good' or for 'bad'. For you or for me (or both, or neither).

Thus, real power originates from variability. And from the resulting uncertainty regarding its exercise.

As Aristotle says, "What it lies in our power to do, it lies in our power not to do".

In this sense, a public servant or leader who can be unconditionally trusted to act in the interests of the people allows himself to become powerless in front of the people as a whole. And an incorrigibly corrupt public servant too actually tends to become powerless in front of the people as a whole. (Note that for any given individual/group, the servant can remain powerful as the effects of his actions are different for each individual/group.)

Similarly, a mother who loves her child unconditionally allows herself to become powerless (which is precisely why the child tends to take her for granted). The same applies to a cruel mother too; interestingly, her child tends to become indifferent or vengeful in time, because of the same reason - her tendency to become powerless!

Let me close with the following food for thought for each one of us:

1. What powers do/can we wield in different spheres of our lives?
2. How variable are we in the exercise of these powers?
3. Are we using our variability and untrustworthiness to wield this power for ourselves? 
4. Or are we making continuous efforts to make us trustworthy to those who we say we serve, thereby allowing ourselves to become powerless, and making others powerful?

1. Which people, institutions and ideas exercise power on us?
2. (Leaving the remaining three corresponding questions (mirroring the set above) to you).

Wishing all of us perennial and ever-increasing powerlessness in selfless service - the one and only way to eternal and true power! The power to empower others! Thank you for listening.

The Challenge of Reasoning Reasonably

"I think, therefore I am"  - Rene Descartes.

The ability to think and reason is fundamental to human existence and progress. The method of reasoning (as opposed to a dictatorial method) is now accepted and used as a vital input to decision-making in a wide variety of personal and social settings. Especially so in democratic organizations - whether it be a family, society or nation.

The reasoning process followed thus becomes very critical to the attainment of the 'best' possible conclusion/outcome. Indeed, a lot has been written on reasoning errors (example). However, all of us continue to make errors of reasoning, thus hindering our growth and progress.

Below are a few thoughts that may make us more aware of our fallibility, and help us reason and conclude better.

1. I used to think that thoughts lead to words, words to actions. In 2003, when I shared this with one of my best friends, he replied that he often finds just the reverse. People do what they wish to do, then justify by their words what they have done, and even make themselves believe that what they have done and said is right!
2. Daniel Kahneman, the only non-economist to have won the Nobel Prize in Economics, explains (in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow) that often, we form opinions not because we find the reasons 'logical' or 'rational', but because we hear them from a trustworthy source. 
3. Recently, I was presented with a very simple and beautiful application of Kahneman's theory. I was discussing geography with my cousin's 9-year old son. In response to his statement that the earth is round, I asked him how he knows/thinks that. His reply: "Amma (mother) told me so". This was a big learning experience for me.

Let us hence make a conscious effort to be aware of and acknowledge this phenomenon. And thereby reason better. Let us remember that, we might often be making up reasons to support the conclusion we like or believe in, rather than reasoning dispassionately without being biased towards any particular conclusion.

Wish you (and me) better reasons, arguments and conclusions. :)

The Flow of Ideas in an Organization: Part I - The Flow

The Flow of Ideas in an Organization: Understanding the Flow

The Power of an Idea! We experience it everyday. Sadly though, many organizations struggle to utilize this power adequately. Especially established ones! Indeed, many of them find it very difficult to be even open to new ideas. 

Let's dig a little deeper into this general situation.

Let us start with a typical 'traditional' organization. Where hierarchy rules. Rules abound. Conformism is rewarded. Dissent is discouraged or even punished. And so on. You get the picture. 

Let us consider how easy or difficult it is for such an organization to learn, innovate, adapt and grow.  Consider just the above one factor - a very crucial factor nevertheless - that influences organizational growth and innovation: the flow of new ideas within the organization.

Suppose 10% of the ideas suggested by an employee A1 to his/her immediate superior A2 are taken forward by A2 to his/her immediate superior A3. (The same applies to all levels in the hierarchy).

Let there be five levels (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5) between the Head/CEO (A5) of the organization and the employees at the lowest level (A1).

Given this, with some simple arithmetic, we find that, the proportion of ideas proposed by a junior-most employee that even reaches the Head of the organization is as low as one out of 10,000!!! 

Let us now ask ourselves the following questions:

1. What would happen to the flow of ideas if the employees of such an organization realize this tyranny of arithmetic and hierarchy?
2. What can be done to improve or fundamentally alter the situation?
3. How much better can the organization potentially perform if it is able to tap into the minefield of the ideas generated by its employees?

Please note that the model employed above was a simplified one. We shall gradually refine it as we go along. Kindly watch this space for more. And do share your invaluable ideas! Thank you.

Why we are here

Dear Friend,

Thank you for stopping by. Hoping that you can derive some value from my humble thoughts. And I from your presence and participation. And others from our interactions.

Below, I attempt to explain the why and how of this blog. 

Mission

To help build India. And her people. 

It is my firm belief that every citizen has the potential to transform India (and the world). It is a holy and noble calling, a responsibility and a right. It is not the preserve of our political, corporate and other leaders. Indeed, they need our help. Our best foot - and hands, mind and heart - forward. Hope and pray that this humble blog be one of the many ways to do this.

(Keeping this in mind, we may take the liberty to converse or share our knowledge/ignorance on any subject that aligns with this mission. It may not necessarily be 'new' or novel. :) )

The Way

Democratic conversations on diverse subjects that concern India. And her people. 

It is my firm belief that a rich and meaningful democratic discourse lies at the heart of democracy. And hence at the heart of a brighter future for world's largest democracy. Inspired by this belief, "The Deep Servant" would seek to nurture & enrich democratic conversations and hence Indian democracy. By discussing diverse issues of public service, governance and much else.

Vision

To grow and evolve into an idea factory for India in general and the Government of India in particular. A factory that produces ideas & conversations fit to be taken forward and transformed into actions that improve governance and public service in India.

"The Deep Servant" thus aspires to become a platform to moot ideas, with particular focus on India. A forum where governance and public service are mooted – freely, respectfully & positively. A forum for informed and meaningful dialogue on issues that matter to the people of India and to public service. A meeting place where ideas can not only be generated and refined, but also thereafter be taken forward, and moulded into transformative action.

The author being by profession a servant of the people, it is my humble hope that public servants like me would be able to draw inspiration from these conversations. And live up to what we profess we are. And be equipped with a better inspiration and direction to go ahead and transform public service.

Jai Hind.

Postscript

A continuous effort would be made to refine & redefine the above, to let them evolve. Your thoughts are most welcome in this regard. Thank you, and welcome once again.