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.

Frustrated by "Operational Issues"

In another post (The Power of "What Else?") I had alluded to young HR Executives being frustrated by having to deal with "operational issues" almost the whole time. Frustration arising out of having to deal with "operational issues" is not confined to young HR Executives. Many people who start their career, or in the early stages of their careers, are victims of such a frustration. While in the earlier post I pleaded for having as clear an answer to the question "What else, if not this?" as possible, there is another dimension to the "operational issues." I am a bit puzzled about what makes some activities or tasks "operational?" For example, is my typing this post an "operational" matter? Or when my wife cuts vegetables and cooks our dinner, is she engaged in "operational" matters? By definition, when anyone does something, that person is performing an operation. Even if the head of a company is negotiating a large sales deal he is doing something, thus performing an operation. Shouldn't, then, every issue on which one takes actions be considered an "operational" issue? I suggest that the frustration arises out of not the issue itself that one handles, but out of the meaning that one has attached to that which is "operational." And by 'meaning' I refer to a whole world of thoughts, emotions and predispositions one creates about "operational". And such a meaning is only a conversation, not the real stuff! To handle this frustration, what one needs is to get in touch with:

1. the frustration is a result of the meaning one has attached to "operations"


2. the meaning arises only in a conversation


3. one can give another empowering meaning to "operation" by altering the conversation one has about "operations"

Fundamentally, "operational issues" do not exist by themselves - they exist only in a conversation. When I recognise that I am the author of my conversation, I can author an altered conversation that can energise me, or at least leave me not frustrated.

The Power of "What Else?"

Many of us find ourselves in situations that we don't want to be in. And, these days, such situations seem to be more frequent to more of us. The other day I was in a meeting with young HR Executives. Many of them were frustrated that day after day they were spending almost their entire time at work on 'operational issues.' They were not ok with that. They could not express their frustration to their bosses (heads of business units they were 'handling' the 'HR' of.) I also come across many women employees who were unable to manage work-life balance - they had to work too many hours, leaving little time for their family. Or software engineers who don't want to do the jobs they are assigned (like maintenance, testing etc.) And there are these software project managers who hate managing people in their teams. Add to this teachers who have to teach subjects they are not equipped to or unwilling to teach. This list can go on and on. Interestingly, few of these (frustrated souls who are in situations they don't want to be in) find it extremely hard to answer the question, "If not this, what else?" Maybe, they have not even considered the "what else" - at least not seriously enough or deep enough. All that they seem to know is "not this" but have, if at all, a very vague idea of "what else?" Just imagine that someone comes to you and says, "I don't like what I am doing." And you genuinely want to support that person and ask, "Ok, if you don't want to do this, what else would you like to do?" The person does not have a clear answer to give you. Where do you go now? How will you ever get to support her? If you are that person who knows "not this" but has little clue of the "what else?" How can any one support you? A question that comes to mind is this: Why would people not be able to articulate the "what else?" Is it that they don't know the options? Is it that they don't want to take the rersponsibility for the answer they may come up with? Or is it that they are stuck in the 'doing' instead of focusing on the results they are after? Or is it just that they are not accustomed to even ask the very powerful question, 'What else?"