Sam's dilemma

Sam has recently joined CBA (a cement manufacturer) as Head of Sales. He is quite excited, as for the first time, he will lead a team of twelve employees with three direct reports. “Finally,” Sam reflected, “I will get an opportunity to hone my leadership skills. I am confident that I shall be able to set an example for others to follow.”

In course of being introduced to the team members, Sam was pleasantly surprised to know that one of the direct reports – Satya – who had joined a couple of months earlier was from another business of his previous organization. The next day, Sam while having a casual conversation with Satya asked, “How do you find the culture of this organization?” “Differences there are, quite a few,” replied Satya. He continued further, “I observe information sharing in our team is a challenge. Everybody works in silos and I am bearing the brunt of it. Moreover, one the direct reports of yours, Amit, who is here for almost 16 years now, has been passing-on all pending work of my predecessor without trying to realize that being new to the system I too need time to settle down before starting to deliver. Do you know that he passed on the responsibility of preparing the annual sales budget to me without any brief. All he did was to send a mail stating, ‘As discussed, please do it.’ He always cribs that I shirk work. This is quite annoying.”

A few days later, after attending a few departmental meetings regarding preparation of the annual sales budget, Sam was trying to understand from Amit the reasons underlying too many gaps (in terms of logic and numbers) in preparing the budget. “Actually, Sam,” replied Amit, “Satya has been entrusted with the responsibility of driving this initiative. However, his involvement in work is questionable. I have shared with him last year’s approved budget. In ‘Remarks’ column all necessary assumptions are mentioned. If he has any doubt, I am always open for discussion. But he never approached me to seek clarity. You may be surprised to know, a GET with barely a year of experience was handling the same portfolio before he did. She was so prompt and efficient. We used to work as a team.”

“But,” interrupted Sam, “Let us try understand that Satya is very new in the system. He needs a little time to settle-down.  Am quite sure that the GET also did not start in full gear within a few months of joining.” “Settle-down?” Amit responded in a dismissive note, “Sorry to disagree with you Sir. If a GET with one-year experience can deliver so much, why cannot someone with eight years work experience fail to measure upto even that level of efficiency? During interview he claimed to have been engaged in similar activity with the previous organization. Moreover, he has already spent two months in the new system. How much more time does one require to adjust?”

Sam realized, pretty soon in his new role, the problem in-hand was not an easy one to resolve. The points of differences between Satya and Amit were diametrically opposite. “Well,” Sam reflected, “this is my first acid test as a leader. I must resolve it.”

So, after hearing the grievances of both, Sam felt the best option was to invite them together and settle the matter. The discussion started with Sam saying, “Well friends, we need to work as a team. I feel there is plenty of room for that. I have listened to your views regarding challenges in finalizing the annual sales budget.  I am sure we can plug-in the gaps.”

Unfortunately, the meeting soon spiraled out of control with each blaming the other. At one point of time an indignant Satya confronted Amit, “During my interview I was told that my sole responsibility will be preparing MIS and work on sales incentive dashboard. However, I have now been saddled with to many tasks about which there was mention during the interview process. I can either devote time driving what we had discussed about, or else I do other activities. I cannot do both.”

Amit and Sam were stumped. None anticipated such a blunt response. The latter was at his wits end.

Sam was in a state of dilemma. He wondered, “I am dependent on Amit as he, besides being one of the direct reports, is in CBA for 16 years. He had joined here as a Management Trainee and knows the culture inside out. At this juncture I need him more than he needs me. On the other hand, Satya holds a critical portfolio. How do I make him understand that being fixated with interview discussions is not the right attitude at work? How do I resolve this issue? Who can help me?”

Nish-karma Karm, or Nishkam Karm

Sometime back we were conducting a 3-day Workshop on Managerial Effectiveness for senior executives of a leading firm. One the sessions was on the ‘Art and Science of Work’ which is based on the concept of nishkam karm (Chapter 2, verse 47 of the Bhagwad Gita).

Our experience suggests that a handful of participants who attend such workshops come with a pre-conceived mindset. So, it was not surprising for us when a participant, while the concept was being explained, responded thus, “So, Art of and Science of Work is all about nish-karma karm (doing no work)?,” with an impish grin. A few others nodded their heads in the affirmative.

Such a perception about nishkam karm (detached involvement with work) is quite common. It is usually perceived to be other-worldly. Nishkam Karm (NK) is deemed conducive for renunciants and monks in the remote Himalayas. So, the question is: why is the true import of the concept of NK not understood properly?

One of the most popular arguments against NK is that by not expecting fruit (reward) in return of one’s work we shall lose motivation to work and thus, fail miserably to achieve professional excellence and success in life. “Do you expect us to leave our jobs and become sadhus?”. Prima facie this view seems apt. The underlying message is loud and clear. The NK approach to work is impractical and anathema to pursuit of material well-being.

The fundamental premise of NK is that any work will result in generation of reward (karma phal) by default. It is inevitable. For example, receiving a reward (like promotion, increment percentage, award, appreciation etc.) is dependent on variables beyond our control. If the reward is received as desired by us, we are joyous and feel ecstatic. But, on so many other occasions the reward eludes us, or is not delivered as per our expectations. Such a situation makes us feel dejected and disappointed. We feel demotivated in performing our assigned duties. We lose focus, the quality of work suffers and performance dips. Is this not the reality?

Actually, appreciation of the spirit of NK helps us to be more resilient and enable us to remain balanced amidst success and failure - samatwa. As a result, we are better equipped to handle reverses in our lives (professional/ personal) and thus, negate the impact of stress. Thus, NK is not about not doing anything. On the contrary, such an attitude towards work involves rigorous perseverance and development of will-power. A nish karma karmi does not fit into this scheme. A nishkam karmi approaches work with steely resolve by not entertaining constant mental calculations of getting, or not getting a reward. It prevents dissipation of psychological energy.

Employer mindset vs Employee mindset

Sometime back the debate around 72 and 90 hours work-week which had consumed the corporate India’s mind space has subsided now. On the one hand, many industry stalwarts advocated long work hours. They had a point. Their view was rooted in the belief that for India to be a developed nation it should derive maximum advantage out of its demographic dividend. Otherwise, it will be a case of lost opportunity. References were also drawn from economies like China, Japan, South Korea etc. to drive home the point. Such an approach to economic development resonated with many. However, on the other hand, a large section of the corporate employees held a different viewpoint. There were two broad arguments against longer work hours:

A) impact on work-life balance and

B) more work for no extra pay.

One may attribute the differing views to the differences in mindset of an employer and an employee. Let us elaborate a little more.

First, an employer who has built a business entity from scratch brick-by-brick, for him/ her work is viewed as an extension of the his/ her ‘self’. There is an emotional connect, not a transactional give-and-take relationship. Business for him/ her is raison d’etre. If the business is doing great, the employer feels ecstatic. If it is in trouble, the employer feels despondent.

For an employee, relationship with work is generally transactional give-and-take. He/ she always expects something in return. If professional aspiration(s) are not fulfilled he/ she can leave. Under circumstances, even the employer can ask him/ her to quit. These situations do not exist with respect to an employer. Naturally, an emotional connect that an employer has for the business cannot be expected of an employee. The big picture that excites an employer need not necessarily resonate with an employee. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an employee mindset because is how he/ she is conditioned to thinking.

Second, dovetailing business growth with India’s dream of becoming a developed nation resonate more with an employer than an employee for one more reason. The former realizes business opportunities that are going to unfold. An employer knows that a flourishing business will lead to proportionate increase of personal wealth as well. The truth is achievement of this goal is possible only if employees log-in extra time unless there is a technological breakthrough reducing hours of engagement at work. But that is unlikely to happen as more and more assignments shall then start pouring-in and targets will also become stiffer by the day. An employee shall obviously wonder: what is there in it for me? He/ she may feel cheated, “At the end of the day my annual pay rise will in any case be linked to a bell-curve which is barely inflation-beating. So, how is India’s prosperity going to make me prosper except working long hours and at what cost? I shall have even lesser time for myself and my family.” Such a reaction seems natural because an employee’s engagement with work is fundamentally different from an employer’s.

Thus, there is a world of difference between an employer and an employee. It is about their respective worldviews. The chasm can never be cemented unless each is appreciative of others way of thinking. Needless to add, there shall remain a minority of employees who shall indeed feel inspired with India becoming a developed nation by 2047 and be willing to work 72, or 90 hours per week. That is only possible if employees feel the need towards fulfilling a higher order goal beyond personal goal.