Ironical - Humanities Given A Short Shrift In Human Resources!

It is really ironical, isn't it, that the whole range of subjects under Humanities are given a short shrift in the functions of Human Resources and Organisation Development?  HR and OD draw significantly from fields like Psychology, Sociology and Social Psychology.  Have you ever come across HR and OD professionals applying subjects that get classified as 'Humanities' - philosophy, literature, religion, art, music, history and language - in their work?  Forget about using, these 'professions' - that deal with human beings - don't seem to even consider how Humanities can be useful in impacting human behavior!

I wonder why!  Is it because fields like Psychology, Sociology and Social Psychology are considered to be 'sciences' while Humanities-subjects are not?  Even if it is so, how scientific are these 'sciences'?  And why should HR and OD that deal with human beings lay such an overwhelming emphasis on behavioral 'science' knowledge and skills?

I believe that it is high time that the fields of HR and OD include study and application of Humanities, that too consciously, visibly and vocally.  We can't afford to miss utilising what humanities offer -  understanding, processing and documenting human experiences.

Interestingly, there are people who bring subjects of Humanities to bear on HR and OD - philosophy, performing arts, and linguistics to name a few.  But these are more in the realm of 'nice to do' rather than mainstream.  Dallies with Humanities in HR and OD are more from romanticism rather than serious affairs!

Here's inviting folks from both sides (HR and OD on the one hand and Humanities on the other) to extend their respective arms with a commitment to blend?  Can we have some real and serious conversations to include Humanities in training and developing HR and OD professionals?

Acknowledgment - An Act That Can Move You And The Other

When someone does a good deed, we do either or both of these: praise and thank. Praise is saying, "You did a good job!" Thanks is saying, "Thank you for doing the good job." Often we confuse acknowledgment with these two.

Here's a view of looking at what acknowledgment is: Acknowledgment is expressing gratitude for what what the other person did do to you! That's a confusing mouthful? Let me deconstruct this.

• Assume that someone did something good.
• This good deed impacted you in a positive way.
• You are grateful to this person.
• And you express your gratitude.

Here's the twist: what you are grateful for is not for the person doing the good deed, but to the impact that this good deed had on you.

While acknowledging, you express your gratitude to the person for causing the positive impact on you through the good deed she/he did.

An important aspect of this view of acknowledgment is for you to be conscious of the positive impact it had on you. The critical dimension of the positive impact is on your emotions. Usually, we don't attend to this dimension of impact. For, I suspect, our emotion-vocabulary is quite limited. And we are socialised into keeping a check on our emotions right from our childhood, thereby blunting our awareness of, nay even feeling, emotions.

The other two aspects of acknowledgment are (a) being authentic about the gratitude you express and (b) explicitly stating the impact (including the impact on your emotions) the good deed had on you. When you do that, I assure you, not only will you be moved, but you will leave the other person also moved - with probably a drop of tear at the corner of her eye...What more can you ask for to strengthen your bonding with people!

So, thank you so much for reading this post - your reading made my day! I am left fulfilled. I will be moved when you practise ackowledgment as I have presented and share your experience through comments to this blogpost!

Be happy, move and get moved, deepen relationships with acknowledging!

Self-"Non-disclosure!": Interpersonal Trust At A Premium?

The other day I administered Udai Pareek's Personal Effectiveness Scale to 19 participants of a management development program. Over a half of them (11) scored 'Low' on the dimension 'self-disclosure' - self-disclosure, as Udai defined, is "sharing with others what others do not seem to know about you." The previous day, 7 out of 11 scored low on self-disclosure - again over 60%! I went back to some old database I preserved and found that 170 out 264 managers scored low on self-disclosure! I recalled similar results in many administrations of the instrument. At the risk of gross generalisation, it looks like more than 60% of managers are low in self-disclosure.

What does this imply? Udai states - and I agree with this - that when people are low in self-disclosure, their potential to be effective, despite other capabilities, is likely to be low. People who have a low propensity to make themselves transparent are either low performers, or as more likely is to be the case, they are under-performing. Thus, there is a huge and highly avoidable wastage of potential - performance and contribution (read "wealth/value creation"!)

Why are so many people hesitant to make themselves visible? The root of this must be found in their distrust of others. If I don't trust you, I will be extremely wary of letting a lot of me be known to you. Simple: I don't trust you, so I don't share about myself; the little I will show of myself is also likely to be what you already know of me, most probably the 'professional' side of me that is non-vulnerable.

According to the Great Places to Work For formulation, trust is one of the critical elements of making an organisation great. Also, if you don't trust me, I am unlikely to trust you too. Further, if you are not trusting, you are not likely to be credible, you are not likely to respect me and you not likely to treat me fairly. May be, when over 60% of managers are not trusting, more than 60% of employees are likely to have more than 60% of their concentration on outside their current organisations!

"There is no budget." Or Is Something Else Not There?

Understandably, when a company's profit is under pressure, the company will think a hundred times before incurring any cost. Even if some expenses were sanctioned earlier when budget decisions were taken, companies will 'strongly advise' against spending. Or, they may ask people to reduce costs by certain percentage. Companies may even cut down the sanctioned expenses. These are all a part of the game of running a business.

When such things happen, it is common for people - particularly those in the support functions (like HR, Facilities, Quality and IT) - to lament, "There is no budget!" The lament may be valid. Or is it, at least always? Is this an excuse to hide something else which is not there - other than budget? Let me share an incident.

The other day I went to a company and heard that they were celebrating "Kids Day." (Predictably of course, it was an 'HR initiative' and a part of 'employee engagement' activities!) Employees were encouraged to bring their children to the office and some events for the children were organised. I saw a couple of young ladies at the lobby, and they were on their knees starting to draw a rangoli. They had drawn a flower and had started filling it with colors. I suggested to them that they create pictures of cartoon characters (like Mickey or Donald) that the kids will love. They looked at one another and one of them said, "Ma'am asked us to draw a rangoli."

I met "Ma'am"and repeated my suggestion. I was completely floored by what she said, "Sir, we don't have budget." I told her, "We are anyway spending on the rangoli color powders, and the time required for the rangoli. Instead of making a rangoli of flower, I am suggesting that we make some pictures that the kids will love." She said, "Good idea!" and left me to mind my business.

When I went to the lobby after an hour or so, the rangoli was done - it was the same flower that I saw the ladies on their knees starting. I have no idea about how much the kids who came for "Their" Day loved it.

(Rangoli is typically Indian. It is a picture drawn with hand on the floor. While originally rice flour was used, these days any white powder - chemicals and even chalk powder - is used to draw the outlines. The insides are filled with various colors. Pictures are usually geometric patterns of straightlines or curves, almost invariably symmetric. Nowadays, non-geometric patterns are also drawn. What can be drawn as a rangoli is limited only by one's creativitive imagination. Search for "rangoli" in Google Images and you will land up in tons of these!)

Employee Champ: A Champion Among Employees

One way of looking at the term "employee champion" is as what Dave Ulrich mentioned: champion for employees - HR professionals vigorously representing employees' concerns to senior management and at the same time working to increase employees' contribution (see Harvard Business Review, Jan 1988, pp. 124-134.) This a valid view and I have no issues with this view.

I can also think of another view of employee champion: champion among employees - the best among employees! Like a Roger Federer being a champion among the tennis players in a tournament.

As a champion among employees, a HR professional is the best among the employees. If an organisation has "The Best Employee Award," this award is won by a HR professional every time! For, the HR professional epitomises what the organisation wants its employees to be, to do and to contribute. She is an ideal example for being an employee. She is a role model every employee yearns to follow. Borrowing from Katz and Kahn, the HR professional shows the highest form of membership behaviors, role related behaviors and extra-role related behaviors. She is deeply engaged at work (i.e., delighted with the job, team and organisation) and produces the highest contribution in her role, to her team and to the organisation.

How about considering the term "employee champion" as meaning "champion among employees?" What all will become possible when HR professionals are unquestionably the champions among employees!

What Coaching Is: My Point Of View

Sanchita, an MBA student who is interning with my company (Symphony Services Corporation), met me yesterday to discuss some aspects of her summer project on 'coaching quotient.' During this discussion, I found myself creating the following in response to her question on 'performance coaching.' I acknowledge Sanchita for triggering these thoughts in me:

All coaching is for about and about only performance - performance at work and outside work, in any and every aspect of one's life. Therefore, the word 'performance' in 'performance coaching' is redundant. Conversely, if performance is not the focus of 'coaching' then it is not coaching.

'Coaching' is not very clearly distinguished from other forms of learning-support activities like mentoring, training, counselling, advising etc.

The distinguishing features of coaching can be understood from what a coach does. These are:

1. Coaches commit themselves to the coachees meeting their aimed-for performance - they declare themselves to be an unquestionable stand for the coachees to win



2. Coaches observe the coachees when they are actually performing, 'on the court' so to say, and assess what needs to be brought forth by the coachees to up their performance



3. Coaches decide what the coachees now need to do to impact their performance



4. Coaches instruct the coachees to do (and/or not to do) this, that and the other



5. Coaches observe the coachees as they are carrying out the instructions as above



6. Coaches correct the coachees - often on the spot - based on such observations



7. Coaches do everything and anything that is required to have the coachees perform as aimed for - including teaching including domenstrating, encouraging by providing positive strokes, and even admonishing when needed.

Why Not "What Else?"

Continuing my earlier post on "The Power of "What Else?"", I was wondering about why people will not think of "what else?" There could be several reasons, and I want to suggest that almost all of them are superficial reasons. Deeper - and perhaps the true - ones will be one or a combination of these:

resignation

cynicism

skeptisism

avoiding looking bad

looking good

lack of commitment

lack of passion

lack of authenticity

We will come up with the question "what else?" and may be a plethora of answers when we are authentically committed to the result/s of the actions we need to take. When we constitute ourselves as "No matter what, I will produce the result/s," we will come up with alternatives other than giving up! I invite readers to read an amazing paper on "Managing Breakthroughs in Productivity" available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=655822 in which the role of authentic commitment in dealing with breakdowns is discussed.