Organizations have got it wrong. Their entire Manager – Team Member relationship is built around the concept “Manager does the managing, the team member is a passive recipient of the same. They have literally and figuratively installed one large table, on one side of which is the giver and on the other side is the recipient of some largesse which no one really can put a finger on. This, in turn, has created a big I vs (S)he chasm in a one to one adult relationship, which when taken in the macro context of the organization becomes one large I Vs They paradigm that needs to shift big time if the modern, collaborative workplace is to emerge from the shadows of 19th century command and control structures. This is a huge ask because more often than not, this counter-productive setup is part of the organizational design!

The greatest distance between I and We is They
“They” happens to be one of the most unfortunate words in the organizations' lexicon. They don’t share Vision. They don’t live the Values. They don’t engage people. They don’t bring clarity. Who is this they? Are they living and breathing amongst us? Once you take the people out of the organization, all that is left is walls, doors, windows, and silence. Silence can’t be they. Am I then, in reality, they?

The greatest distance between I and We is They. They spread toxicity. They make all conversations about negotiation, not collaboration. They must be eliminated at all cost. It is I’s job to eliminate They.

What organizations need to do is to eliminate “They” practices that have been cultivated over time. Skip level meetings to fix managers; Engagement surveys pitting team members against managers, employees against leadership, and fixers against the fixed; Communication platforms where employees passively receive, instead of participating and conceive.

It is everyone’s responsibility to fix what is broken. Very seldom does someone deliberately break it, so stop looking for who broke it, start looking for who can fix it. In most instances, an “I” by taking ownership, displaying accountability and staying the distance can fix it.

Excessive study and implementation of classical conditioning made Pavlov’s Dog out of thinking, feeling human beings. Excessive reliance on operant conditioning led performance measures, made Skinners Rat out of values-driven, integrity-led, intrinsically motivated human beings. All of these led to dysfunctional survival instinct in organizations when the primary instinct should have been of joyful abandon and unconditional sisterhood with which children operate before myopic world view takes over.

Win-Win is not a compromise, its unlocking Value

Management by consensus is like proving David wrong by weighing him against Goliath. What if David, the lone, feeble, barely heard voice was right? What if the arrogant, over the top, solitary figure was right?

True winning is our ability to weigh in opposite voices and then choose what is the most appropriate course of action, not necessarily the most convenient or the least disruptive. Conflicts in the workplace take place on account of opposing principles fighting each other out. Great. Some of the loveliest outcomes have been on account of the opposites fighting it out without giving an inch. The Indian Sub-continent and the Asian mainland refused to give an inch to each other to form the Himalayas.

It is therefore important to create an environment where one can enjoy conflict. Discomfort in the face of conflict is a misplaced sentiment. Enjoyment is the more appropriate one. Once enjoyment happens, the brains ability to hold conflicting thoughts in close proximity increases and that is when true solutions emerge.

Resume Vs Stories

As individuals, we chase the construction of our resumes way too much. Yet, the Kaavad storytellers of Rajasthan, the Baul singers of Bengal, the Villupattu singers of Kerala/Tamil Nadu, the Kapalik-Pandvani singers of Madhya Pradesh and the Bhand Pether performers of Kashmir hardly ever talk about people’s resume. Instead, they tell stories. Stories of individual brilliance, and that of collective wisdom; stories of courage, and that of morality; stories of passion, and that of integrity; Stories of certainty, and that of uncertainty. The individual gets to write and set right her resume, but her stories are written by others based on her living. We must teach our people to chase the construction of their stories through their way of living.
An important aspect of this construct is the power of giving. When everyone is in the receiving mode, no one receives because no one was giving. Whereas, if everyone is in the giving mode, everyone receives. 

Values and Intellectual honesty come first
When we look to become “talent”, we focus on becoming the perfect match to Job descriptions. Education, experience, proof of performance and longevity are the main talking points. What we seldom offer is a values match.

Do we subscribe to the organizations' values? Do we bring in a set of individual values so that we contribute to the creation of a values-driven organization, not a selfish, self-aggrandizing machine?

Intellectual honesty is all about giving the situation at hand a hard look, not superficially applying a template based solution because it worked in the past and looks similar. No, I am not talking about reinventing the wheel. I am talking about intellectually stimulating oneself all the time before deciding whether an existing solution will work or a new approach is required.

Our behavior is in our control
We must stop externalizing. Our focus has been too much on what is wrong with the world. I believe that as human beings we must focus on “net-positive contribution”. This means that we must ensure that we give more than we take from the world in whatever context we are operating in. How will this manifest in organizations? In simplest terms, having taken a salary, which the shareholder, standing last in line to take his share of profitability, has conceded to you, you are honor bound to deliver your best. The right question cannot be “Who has motivated me to perform?”. The right question always is “What right do I have to take 100% salary and make 80% effort in performance?”

There has to be an individual driven, intrinsically motivated code of honour. I perform because I promised to perform. I perform because I set out to perform. I perform because I was born to perform. I perform because I am a performer. I don’t perform because of external circumstances; I perform irrespective of them. I am the soldier who dies fighting for his country. I am the mountaineer who dies fighting for his glory. I am the farmer with the gnarled hands and sinewy feet. Motivation is a state of my own mind. I perform because I see any other way as dishonest and disgraceful to my being. We perform because I perform.

“To every man upon this earth, Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better, Than facing fearful odds
For the ashes of his fathers, And the temples of his gods.
And for the tender mother, Who dandled him to rest,
And for the wife who nurses, His baby at her breast…”

-Thomas Babington, Lord Macaulay, Horatius at the Bridge.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in the article above are those of the authors' and do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of this publishing house