|
|
|
 |
10th August, 2015
This is an extract from a document that I wrote while trying to initiate more strategic conversations within an organization. The nature of work of the organization was consulting-oriented. The write-up was aimed at a set of junior team members who had been recently elevated to a semi-leadership role.
Conversation Starter
Following are a set of directional questions. You need not have coherent, correct, complete and logical answers to them. If you do, then it is scary because there are no such answers to these questions. For the simple reasons that the answers can (and ideally should) change at the end of every day depending on how the day went. Fortunately, the relevance of the questions doesn't changeSo, instead of, what you need to have is a distinct and an articulate impression of your answers as of date.
How will this help? Surely not in meeting this year's targets. Only the clients (and your bosses) can help you with that. However, when the day ends, and the perceptions, feelings, and impressions to these questions do drift, it [this exercise] will help you know a) in which direction the shift happen and b) what it entails for the give and take between you and the organization.
For those of you who are curious: what is the underlying logic of such a conversational exercise? It is based on the simple observable fact that: on a day to day basis, any thing is 'felt' stressful because of lack of clarity in reasoning. Once that chain of reasoning is clearer the 'stress' behind that point/issue ceases.
What is the single biggest error in reasoning? It is not being able to know and clearly articulate the hidden unconscious assumptions that are behind the responses we frame as solutions to the questions we come across. To compound matters, all hidden assumptions form the first set of links in our chain of reasoning. Just like, if the first set of slides in your presentation are off-target, it is an uphill task to salvage the rest of the presentation.
[On a lighter note, a clear implication of the above is that: it is a given that all of us are wrong about all things in life because our starting links of the chain are quite broken. The only allowance we can make is for the Buddha, Christ, Mohammed and their fraternity. To our good fortune we do not fall in that holy fraternity. Else we would be missing out on so much fun within the organization, and, hopefully, even more fun outside it. No sarcasm intended.]
The reason we can't latch at this reasoning is because it all happens under the surface. That is, our mind thinks so fast we can't simply keep pace with it. And, hence, we are all creatures of habit by definition: whether we like it or not. So to uncover and break this thought process requires a conscious effort. It is similar to the framework you apply when solving client problems. This is one about solving your problems, and without the aid of any fancy tool. It is only learning to ask some very basic questions to yourself consistently.
In weighty terms, such a conversational exercise is called self-reflection. Self-reflection is not an act of philosophical genius. It is a matter of practice and perseverance, both of which need time. In a set-up where you are measured largely by targets that you will meet at the end of the year, time for conscious self-reflection is something that is bound to be in short-supply.
I don't expect you to apply yourself as earnestly to this exercise as you do keeping a tab on your targets. Not that your intentions are not right but that you don't have that thing called 'time'. Nonethless, I do expect that you will apply yourselves with some seriouness. Accordingly, I would request that you take some time off from your target-chasing schedules to write your thoughts down in whatever shape and form they come to you. In fact, I would strongly urge to try not to edit or structure your responses after having written it down once. The closer your written down thoughts are to your instictive, impulsive and unconscious thoughts the better it is.
As a word of encouragement to you, this document has been written just in this manner: what came to mind first without trying to make it 'politically palatable'.
This will be a first but an important reference point in a set of more structured conversations with you going forward covering all aspects of your roles and responsibilities. This list of questions is by no means exhaustive but at this stage it more than suffices.
Please note that the thoughts you express as response to these questions are not treated as sacrosanct or final or used in a judgemental sense. They are merely raw material for further discussions and refinements.
Questions: Please proceed strictly in the order given below. Yours answers need not match the 'official version', if indeed there is an official version to any of these questions.
1. What in your opinion is the strategic objective of your organization?
2. What in your opinion is the strategic objective of the unit that you are handling?
3. How do you think is (2) aligned, if at all, to (1)?
4. Based on (2), what do you feel that YOU SINGLY (not your team) is accountable for? ['Accountability' means what one is answerable for. It is different from responsibility. Responsibility means what activities/actions fall in one's lap. We are all stressed out because we assume that we are accountable to more than what is actually necessary or demanded.]
5. Based on (1), what do you feel should be your accountability as an individual? Is it more or less similar to (4) when you are thinking largely with respect to your own team? OR, are there some additional points that cross your mind when you situate yourself under the overall context of the organization?
6. What do you feel about what you with your team are accountable for considering both (1) and (2)?
7. Do you clearly perceive a wide difference between (4), (5), and (6)? If yes, can you remark on the most important point of difference? [A positive answer to this question means that when you place yourself in different contexts you suddenly find different points for yourself to answer on. Most stress is created when you have to take-on different identities in different situations. It is like changing many hats on the same day without any change in the weather. Instead, if you have just one constant frame of reference, one anchor point, one definition of your position then it makes decision-making simpler and, more critically, consistent.]
8. How would you define your role based strictly on the day-to-day activities that you are engaged in today AND NOT on what has been handed to you in your KRAs or discussed orally with you?
9. Is this daily role really fulfilling your sense of accountability that you defined above?
10. Are you really 'acting' in line with your new 'accountability'? Or are you still wearing the March 2015 hat in August 2015? In simpler terms, if you are given a charge, are you able to use that charge [of course in a benevolent, compassionate, considerate, fair, unselfish yet stern and assertive manner] upwards and downwards, with the clients, and any other stakeholders to your own benefit? If not, then why? What holds you back? Sometimes playing a part with genuine conviction goes a long way than waiting for others to allow us to 'act'?
| |
|