Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Divisive Minds and Integrative Personalities
Discusses how from childhood we are taught to be classificatory and divisive. This is what is preventing India from growing with speed. What is needed for India's grwoth is integrating minds than divisive pesonalties. Lists personal experiences of the author on how divisiveness blocks growth..
Use and Misusue of 360 Degree feedback
Discusses the origin of the 360 feedback ethodology at IIMA by Prof. T. V. Rao in mid eighties and underlines the way it should be used and should not be used. It should be used to develop leadership not for rewards and retrenchments.
Use and Misuse of 360 Degree Feedback
Use and Misuse of 360 Degree Feedback
The first program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology was initiated at IIMA in 1986as soon as I returned from XLRI after setting up the HRD Centre at XLRI and started the NHRDN I wanted to start a program to help Indian managers to get an insight into their styles. Dr. Udai Pareek and my studies at the National Institute of Health Administration has sponsored by the Indian council of Medical Research in late sixties and early seventies established that most teachers are not aware of their classroom behaviour styles (Directive or Non-directive). A few of them who thought that they are directive turned out be non-directive and in a few cases the reverse. The studies also showed that non–directive teachers encouraged initiative and produced children who were more adjusted to the school and directive teachers produced children who were high in studied (a theme touched very well in the film 3 idiots). My work with David McClelland (Harvard Psychologist) and Abigail Stewart (now at the University of Michigan) indicated that Indian managers exhibited three styles: Benevolent or paternalistic, critical or theory X type and Developmental or what I called as HRD style. As I started participating in ISABS programs and facilitated its work using T-Group methodology I started questioning why we feel shy of collecting known person and attach such high credibility to feedback from strangers in the T-Groups. In addition both at IIMA and at XLRI whenever we conducted programs using instruments like FIRO-B or leadership styles questionnaires mangers sued to comment how wonderful it would be if they also get assessed by others who know them. It is these four types of experiences that have influenced me to start an innovative program on “leadership styles and Organizational effectiveness” When I submitted this proposal to OB area in IIMA, my colleagues encouraged me to launch this program. In fact Prof. Pradip Khandwalla whose Management Styles questionnaire extensively sued in Canada was getting popular in India also showed his interest in working with me as team member and J. P. Singh also volunteered tos rudy decision making styles. A couple of years latter Prof. Rmnarayan joined. The program was announced three months in advance. Participants were expected to register several weeks in advance and also give us a list of 15 to 20 people who worked with them and whose feedback they value. These are to be drawn from juniors, seniors, colleagues etc. We limited the participation to top level managers. In the first program we had people like K. L. Chug, Mahendra Agarwal, Anil Sachdeva, H. N. Arora etc. It was big success. We had about sixty participants but as we had to collect and process lot of data we took only a third of them and kept the remaining for the subsequent programs. That is how the first Leadership development program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology began.
In early nineties we came to know that what we have been doing at IIMA was christened as 360 Degree feedback. Since then we have been using this term. Seeing the results we got I have started promoting this methodology intensely since the time started TVRLS. My colleagues at IIMA also continued to sue this. Now it is very popular.
I think that 360 DF should not be used as an appraisal tool. It should not be sued as an administrative tool t all. I have continuously professed and even refused to take up assignments where the top management desired to have access to individual data from us. We have maintained that the primary and even the sole owner of the 360 feedback should be the candidate himself and not the HR department.
However I find that some HR managers are violating this rule. Some consultants also violate this rule. I strongly believe that designing and providing 360 feedback should be done by Behavioural scientists. It needs a lot of psychological insights. You need to prepare both the assessor and the assessee. The assessor needs to be assured of anonymity the assessee needs to know that it a feedback of the chemistry. We in fact caution every candidate that goes through 360 as follows:
All assessments of people by other people are subjective. Hence, 360-degree feedback can be as subjective as any other assessment. However, it is the aggregate feedback and consistency in feedback that tends to make it more objective.
360 DF should be used as indicative and reflected upon.
360 DF could also be provocative. The candidate should use this for review, reflection and action.
The action plans worked out as an outcome of the feedback, should primarily be directed at empowering self and changing oneself where necessary.
Even if one has to change others, it requires change in oneself: ones approach, attitude, communication etc.
360 DF should be used to empower the self and used the enhanced awareness to become a more effective leader.
(As given in the manual for Leadership development through 360 Degree Feedback by TVRLS)
The misuse of 360 tools to reward people and to place people etc. is likely to lead in Indians settings to devaluation of this tool. This in my view is likely damage the image and credibility of the HR Managers and department. It is because the moment it is used for promotions and high rewards the users get tempted to use it for personal furtherance. In one of the gulf countries when I went to lecture I was confronted with by a group of senior managers who said that certain consultants in that country conducted 360 Degree Feedback and passed on the data to the top management. The top management sued the same to terminate the services of some of their employees. I think it is the inexperienced, commercially driven and immature consultants and HR Managers who are likely to resort to such misuse and do damage to the profession.
Blog by Prof. T. V. Rao
The first program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology was initiated at IIMA in 1986as soon as I returned from XLRI after setting up the HRD Centre at XLRI and started the NHRDN I wanted to start a program to help Indian managers to get an insight into their styles. Dr. Udai Pareek and my studies at the National Institute of Health Administration has sponsored by the Indian council of Medical Research in late sixties and early seventies established that most teachers are not aware of their classroom behaviour styles (Directive or Non-directive). A few of them who thought that they are directive turned out be non-directive and in a few cases the reverse. The studies also showed that non–directive teachers encouraged initiative and produced children who were more adjusted to the school and directive teachers produced children who were high in studied (a theme touched very well in the film 3 idiots). My work with David McClelland (Harvard Psychologist) and Abigail Stewart (now at the University of Michigan) indicated that Indian managers exhibited three styles: Benevolent or paternalistic, critical or theory X type and Developmental or what I called as HRD style. As I started participating in ISABS programs and facilitated its work using T-Group methodology I started questioning why we feel shy of collecting known person and attach such high credibility to feedback from strangers in the T-Groups. In addition both at IIMA and at XLRI whenever we conducted programs using instruments like FIRO-B or leadership styles questionnaires mangers sued to comment how wonderful it would be if they also get assessed by others who know them. It is these four types of experiences that have influenced me to start an innovative program on “leadership styles and Organizational effectiveness” When I submitted this proposal to OB area in IIMA, my colleagues encouraged me to launch this program. In fact Prof. Pradip Khandwalla whose Management Styles questionnaire extensively sued in Canada was getting popular in India also showed his interest in working with me as team member and J. P. Singh also volunteered tos rudy decision making styles. A couple of years latter Prof. Rmnarayan joined. The program was announced three months in advance. Participants were expected to register several weeks in advance and also give us a list of 15 to 20 people who worked with them and whose feedback they value. These are to be drawn from juniors, seniors, colleagues etc. We limited the participation to top level managers. In the first program we had people like K. L. Chug, Mahendra Agarwal, Anil Sachdeva, H. N. Arora etc. It was big success. We had about sixty participants but as we had to collect and process lot of data we took only a third of them and kept the remaining for the subsequent programs. That is how the first Leadership development program using 360 Degree Feedback methodology began.
In early nineties we came to know that what we have been doing at IIMA was christened as 360 Degree feedback. Since then we have been using this term. Seeing the results we got I have started promoting this methodology intensely since the time started TVRLS. My colleagues at IIMA also continued to sue this. Now it is very popular.
I think that 360 DF should not be used as an appraisal tool. It should not be sued as an administrative tool t all. I have continuously professed and even refused to take up assignments where the top management desired to have access to individual data from us. We have maintained that the primary and even the sole owner of the 360 feedback should be the candidate himself and not the HR department.
However I find that some HR managers are violating this rule. Some consultants also violate this rule. I strongly believe that designing and providing 360 feedback should be done by Behavioural scientists. It needs a lot of psychological insights. You need to prepare both the assessor and the assessee. The assessor needs to be assured of anonymity the assessee needs to know that it a feedback of the chemistry. We in fact caution every candidate that goes through 360 as follows:
All assessments of people by other people are subjective. Hence, 360-degree feedback can be as subjective as any other assessment. However, it is the aggregate feedback and consistency in feedback that tends to make it more objective.
360 DF should be used as indicative and reflected upon.
360 DF could also be provocative. The candidate should use this for review, reflection and action.
The action plans worked out as an outcome of the feedback, should primarily be directed at empowering self and changing oneself where necessary.
Even if one has to change others, it requires change in oneself: ones approach, attitude, communication etc.
360 DF should be used to empower the self and used the enhanced awareness to become a more effective leader.
(As given in the manual for Leadership development through 360 Degree Feedback by TVRLS)
The misuse of 360 tools to reward people and to place people etc. is likely to lead in Indians settings to devaluation of this tool. This in my view is likely damage the image and credibility of the HR Managers and department. It is because the moment it is used for promotions and high rewards the users get tempted to use it for personal furtherance. In one of the gulf countries when I went to lecture I was confronted with by a group of senior managers who said that certain consultants in that country conducted 360 Degree Feedback and passed on the data to the top management. The top management sued the same to terminate the services of some of their employees. I think it is the inexperienced, commercially driven and immature consultants and HR Managers who are likely to resort to such misuse and do damage to the profession.
Blog by Prof. T. V. Rao
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Divisive Minds
Divisive Mind
To divide means to separate into parts. It also means to make people disagree or the existence of disagreement or difference or between two or more groups. Division is the act of dividing people into groups.
Divisive mind is a tendency or mind set a person has to assign to self or other people, quickly, a group identity (example caste, community, linguistic, professional, occupational, cultural, social, batch, national etc.) and anchor subsequent behaviors and decisions on the basis of such identity.
Individuals with Divisive mind set may be called divisive people just like people with Internal Locus of Control are called as Internals. Divisive individuals often differentiate and attribute group characteristics to divide people into groups that cause disagreement and competition against one another. By nature division has the potential to create competition and conflict than collaboration. Collaboration does not require divisiveness. It is a mind set. All of us perhaps have this mind set. I have it you have it. It is perhaps our nature. However some live on it, promote it and others are either beneficiaries of it or victims of it. The sum of results arising out of divisiveness is likely to be less than those that could be obtained without it or with integrative mind sets. While divisiveness in the short term benefits some people in the long run it hinders overall growth and consumes a lot of resources and increases overheads or transaction costs or process costs.
Integrative personality
To integrate means to combine parts into a whole. It also means to make some one accepted within a group.
Integrative personality is intended to depict a constellation of behaviors that strive towards inclusion, integration, cooperation, emphasis on the whole and benefits to larger groups of people or entities including humanity at large. A divisive mind gives importance to parts or small groups while an integrative mind focuses on the whole and strives to build the whole and use the strengths of the whole.
The term “Integrative Personality” is preferred here to “Integrative Mind” to communicate the desirability of developing constellations of qualities that promote integration in the society. Divisive mind is a mind set that can be changed while Integrative personality is a personality trait that can be developed with consciousness and training.
In my view Dr Vikram Sarabhai and Ravi Matthai are two great Integrative personalities. Dr. Sarabhai built a number of institutions in different fields including space and management. Ravi Matthai saw Management as promoted the mission of professionalizing management in all sectors of life and actively demonstrated by his own life and example how management should go to all sectors. Their design of the institutions they were associated with speaks for their integrative mind. Mahatma Gandhi of course is an embodiment of integration. His passion for one India is unparalleled. All corporate working for uplifting their local communities where they are located without being asked to do so are also indicating a high degree of Integrative tendencies. Any inclusive mind leads to the development of Integrative personality.
A divisive mind is a mind that shows tendencies to constantly divide people into smaller groups and use the groups for decision making and various other purposes. Integrative personality is a personality that always gives importance to the whole than the parts. The integrative personality thinks of larger goals and larger society while a divisive mind looks after the short term interests of self or small group with which it is associated.
A group of faculty of a University or an Institution opposing the allocation of resources or blocking the growth of another department because it is growing out or proportion is an outcome of divisive mind set. The divisive mind always sees the benefits to a part and often ignores the benefits to a larger community. In this case the clients served, number of people benefited due to services rendered by the fast growing department etc. are ignored and only the benefits availed by the fast growing department are highlighted and issues of equity and fairness are brought in. This largely rises out of divisive mind set. A group of Faculty of one Institution blocking the collaboration between two institutions as it may bring the second institution fame though together they may be doing a great service to the country is also an example of divisiveness. Divisiveness involves differentiation in terms of “I” and “You” and “Ours” and “Theirs”. The term “We” is interpreted narrowly and boundaries are put and maintained strictly. Jealousy, Mistrust Insecurity, Intolerance, narrow mindedness etc. are perhaps the root causes of divisive mind sets. Sacrifice, Trust, Strong Spiritualistic orientation, Self Confidence, Respect for each other, Empathy, vision and long term thinking are perhaps associated with Integrative personality.
There are a number of stories including Panchatantra stories that tell us a lot of the consequences of divisiveness and the utility of staying together or united. The story of five bulls fighting a lion when they stand united or the story of how a group of birds flew away along with the net and escape from the bird hunter are all stories that aim at promoting integration.
What Causes Divisiveness
We are taught from childhood to be divisive. It happens culturally. In some of the Asian cultures divisiveness is high. All Asian Cultures have enough reasons or parameters to be divisive. Some of them are more divisive and others less.
A few years ago I was working in Indonesia as a USAID Consultant to the Ministry of Health. As a part of my work I had to take a group of Doctors on field trips to teach them Task Analysis a technique we introduced to bring more professionalism in the management of health services in Indonesia. Whenever I asked the team to choose a Health Center for filed work, they would talk among themselves and in five minutes time come up with their proposal and it was always unanimous. I was amazed at the team work and remarked about the same with appreciation to the participants who were Doctors. One of the lady Doctors narrated me the following in response to my complements. I reconstruct this from my memory:
“Professor Rao, I agree that we in Indonesia work like a team. We care for each other and respect each other. There is a lot of sharing that takes place. I also agree that it should strike you as an important part of our culture as I believe that your country which taught us a lot at one time has this one aspect very much lacking in them. I am sorry to say this as I had only one experience which I like to narrate”.
She continued... “Professor, A few months ago I was attending a meeting of UNFPA in Bangkok and it was attended by participants from various countries. Each country had two or more delegates. We had delegated from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan and India etc. One thing I noticed was, whenever a Pakistani spoke something about his country his colleague supported it. Whenever a Bangladeshi spoke about his country his colleague from another department supported it. Whether it is a Sri Lankan or, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi or Malaysian, or a Singaporean, they supported each other in their presentations. However whenever an Indian spoke the second or third Indian contradicted him and said what my colleague said is true in his state (Tamil Nadu) as he comes from Tamil Nadu but the situation is different in my state (UP) as I come from UP and the third person gave a third story. The convention was filled with contradictions by Indians. Surprisingly the contradictions extended even to fights. We found that by the fourth day the Indian delegates were even staying at different places and coming at different times to the conference. So I understand that in your country team work is difficult as every Indian seem to differentiate themselves a lot more than integrate unlike other countries. We are an integrating nation and we help each other”
This episode left strong impressions in my mind about how much a divided nation we are. I am deeply pained to see that we are not learning lessons from our own past and from others and are pursuing policies that divide the nation more than integrate the same.
Divided Nation: Inherited Divisiveness
We are a divided nation. Our minds are divisive as we are taught from birth to view each other in terms of the caste, and sub caste or gothra, community, religious affiliation, language, regional affiliation, etc. various variables. Because we are taught from the early child hood to view each other in terms of these variables our self concept and behavior towards each other is determined by the classification we hold of each other. When we judge the other person by virtue of his/her affiliations, we undermine or overestimate the capability of the other person as per the stereotypes we hold. When such stereotypes are shown towards us by others we spend time fighting such stereo types if they are to our disadvantage. When we discover that the other person does not believe in our internal capability and is attributing to us competencies by virtue of his stereotypes he holds about us and not by virtue of our real capabilities, it hurts and we engage ourselves to prove what we really are capable. The result is always fights and fights to prove or disprove. As a result a lot of psychological energies are spent on proving and disproving. This results in enormous energies wasted in unproductive transactions.
The amount of wastage of Nation’s time in inter-state time wasted in water disputes, communal riots and their aftermath, caste wars are all drags on the nation. It affects economic development. Our policy makers should be sensitive to this and should engage the nation in more productive issues than in such transactional issues. They should aim building integrative minds rather than perpetuating the divisiveness in our country. What we need today is an integrative minds for nation building and not those who are dividing the nation further. People and politicians and policy makers who are capable of working towards projecting an integrated India and Indians as one is the need of the hour.
I am happy the modern youth is fighting and arguing for the abolition of the caste system.
It is high time the caste system is abolished from our country and every one is treated with same dignity and every one is given equal opportunity to bring out the merit is him/her. Not only the caste any form of divisiveness by virtue of religion, caste community etc. should be minimized and national Integration needs to be promoted. It is high time that we direct our attention to build integrative minds. The divisive mind set is evident even in the best of the corporation where team work is difficult and Indians are known to be poor team workers. Our policies seem to perpetuate the divisive mind and a lot of time of our nation is being engaged in fighting divisiveness created by our policies.
Integration and Diversity
Having made the above observations I would like to say that there is perhaps a lot in Ancient India that promoted integration and tolerance. We need to discover the same. On the positive side it is amazing that a country so divided as ours still runs well as a democracy. The current Indian leadership is an indication of the tolerance for diversity. However the unfortunate part is perhaps we are not using this diversity adequately and divisive policies are taking over and overwhelming impact on integrative personalities. Divisiveness is normally intensive and has a larger emotional appeal than integration. Integration becomes philosophy while divisiveness becomes a reality. Divisiveness serves short term interests of certain vocal sections of people and therefore is paid attention. Long term interests are postponed and integrative personalities get frustrated.
Academy of Human Resources Development (AHRD) and National HRD Network (NHRDN)
A number of my observations have been derived from my experiences with the NHRDN and AHRD.
The NHRDN is a professional body started about 20 years ago. In the last 20 years, NHRDN has grown vastly. The seeds for its growth were sown and foundation lay in the first three years. The principle agenda of learning from each other continues. The annual or biannual conferences and the chapter meetings for learning from each other and networking continue. The chapters have grown in number. The culture of publishing papers to be distributed during conference continues.
The first ten years were institution building years. This was done well by all those associated with NHRDN and the initial leaders MRR Nair as the second President and Udai Pareek as the third President led the organization to stability/ Dissemination of knowledge through publications became a major USP of NHRDN. The educational programmes like the HRD facilitators programme initiated through NHRDN were later continued by AHRD. Among the major accomplishments of NHRDN are:
1. Its publications – about 20 books by now.
2. Post Graduate programme with MDI, Gurgaon
3. Academy of HRD
4. Regular publication of Newsletter
5. Setting new standards in conference Management
6. Getting global scholars to India
7. Providing a forum for exchange of young HR Professionals (Delhi chapter set new standards in this)
8. Enhanced membership with regular meetings (Hyderabad chapter showed the way for it).
9. Networking to learn from each other and collaborating with other forums (Bangalore chapter showed the way)
10. CII-NHRDN competency model
11. Code of conduct and values for HRD professionals and the list goes on.
AHRD
Origins: National HRD Network (NHRDN) in a Mission-Vision workshop held at Chennai on September 11,1990 conceived a Center for Research and Education in NHRD to set up to further the objectives of NHRDN. This workshop was facilitated by Anil Sachdeva and V S Mahesh. MRR Nair (MD Bokaro Steel and Second President NHRDN), Udai Pareek (President), T V Rao (Founder President), Fr. E. Abraham (Founder Secretary), Keith D’Souza (XLRI, Secretary and Editor Newsletter) and Rakesh Kumar Associate Secretary, NHRDN) Office bearers of NHRDN meet at Bokaro and decide to name it as the Academy of Human Resources Development
AHRD Contributed a great deal so far to Human Capital Formation among HRD Professionals in India as summarized below:
Accomplishments: innovative Practices
1) Diploma Program Design in Distance Education: Assignments and Newsletter
a. Diploma Newsletter (12 issues published)
b. Catch up Newsletter of Fellow Program Students. (Discontinued since 2000)
2) Round Table Conferences
3) NGO Network started at Ahmedabad
a. NGO Networking Facilitated through ORENGODA project.
b. Renewal Journal for NGOs
4) Education
a. 23 Doctorates and many other helped
b. About 1000 diploma holders (First three years, AIMA, SCMHRD, IIPS, TAPMI etc.)
c. Several students benefited from AHRD
5) Professional Development
a. About 200 trained through HRD Facilitators program
b. About 300 trained in IOAC who can conduct Assessment centers
6) Research and Publications
a. 12 books, 4 working papers, five monographs and several articles written by AHRD staff
b. Publications in Organizational climate and Round Tables etc. available for HRD professionals
7) Social Sector
a. New methodologies of LSIP and Future Search made available for several NGOs and Facilitators. Most of them are using
b. Over 200 NGOs exposed to Renewal methodologies
c. Over a 100 NGO facilitators developed in HRD
8) Assisted NHRDN in the first decade by housing its secretariat, publishing newsletters, editing conference papers and managing HRD Awards process.
WHERE NHRDN and AHRD could have done a lot more:
Setting standards for HRD profession and creating curricula and accreditation methodologies
Creating assessment tools and rating methods in HRD for corporations (like CRISIL’s ratings)
Building AHRD as NHRDN’s own institution (within a few years of its setting up AHRD became a very prominent contributor.
The following are the specific activities AHRD could have been engaged in by now and made a mark:
Had its own small campus with state of the art facilities for research and visiting scholars
A recognized regular Doctoral programme by itself or with other institutions like XLRI, IGNOU, MDI, BITS, DDIT etc.
A post graduate programme with a 100 students who make a difference to organization through their HR knowledge and skills.
Publishing of research journals and occasional papers
Assisting NHRDN in setting standard for HR Profession, formulating code of conduct, evaluating HR curricula of other schools.
Conducting faculty development programmes for faculty
Patented a few of its products and innovations like IOAC
Become a Research, Training and Consulting Center with a network of scholars
These are just a few. On each one of the above, some effort has been made and each one of these, other organizations have better success stories to report than AHRD.
Soon the Indian mind set of classification and ownership became. Political issues started interfering with professional issues. How to share the fee, who gets credit, why two bodies with same objectives, who owns AHRD? Why AHRD and why not XLRI or IIML or MDI etc. became issue than how to support AHRD as our body. How to build it up? How to get good faculty? How to popularize and use its services and products? At times it appeared as though there are rivals rather than one giving birth to the other and the second servicing the first. AHRD was too identified with Founders. When the founders withdrew and left it to be managed by new leaders who were young, it took time to stabilize . Weak moments lead to criticism than support and investments on alternative institutions. Thus building AHRD is a failure of NHRDN but attributed as failure of leaders and at times founders. It is also a failure on the part of AHRD leadership to integrate into NHRDN and promote its cause. The structural requirements of registering it as a separate institution, mobilizing its own funds and having its own Board further created difficulties in integrating and strengthening to the desirable level.
United we stand, run and win the race. Divided we sit, relax and glorify ourselves or fight and win over our own fellows.
There was a lot of scope for AHRD to have made an excellent impact. By today, AHRD could have been a globally recognized institution and would have been considered the only place to go or main place to go for scholars across the world. The great dream still remains a dream – the great dream was to have its own campus, data-bank, and library, residential accommodation furnished for scholars to visit, write, renew and disseminate their work. The relevance and need for such an institution still exists today. Its doctoral programme could have become a flagship programme and would have contributed a great deal to HRD Knowledge.
Some of the issues where divisive mind has won and Integrative personalities were weak in my experience are the following:
The case of Ph. D. program in Management in IGNOU
XLRI-AHRD Collaboration
One Year Program versus Two year program
Distance education Program in Fellowship
The tendency to divide extends from people to situations and objects also. For example the faculty of a reputed management School had a proposal to start a one year International management Program. The idea was floated by a Professor who taught at an Asian business school and saw a lot of opportunties for this business school to start a one year program for Asians. A task force was formed and the ask force surveyed the opportunties and strongly recommended. After a lot of work was done by the faculty group to start this program it was finally dropped because it will conflict with the already existing two year program and dilute the standards. The divisive mind looks at how the new program affects the existing program. While the integrative personality argues for how many numbered of Asians can be benefited and how much more the institution will be known in other parts of the region. The divisive mind looks at “How am I going to be affected?” The integrative personality looks at whoa re the others going to be affected. Thus divisive minds are short sighted and self centered. Integrative personalities are large hearted and look at benefits to others.
Distance Program versus Full Time Program
In another case the faculty of reputed management school in late eighties appointed committee to examine the feasibility to conduct a Doctoral program in management on distance education mode. The committee submitted its report and strongly recommended the starting of the same. When it went finally to be decided by the policy committee of the institute they decided not to go ahead with it because it will create a new category of Fellows in the Management world and would dilute the applicants to the already existing Full time fellow program. That the new program will bring a lot of richness into the current program by virtue of experienced joining and it will add to the family of teachers became secondary consideration and the impact of it on the current program became a primary consideration.
Divisiveness is a tendency to evaluate other individuals, situations and objects on the basis of narrow attributions and take decisions in way that are of advantage to smaller groups or serve limited causes but affect larger interests, larger communities and larger goals. Normally such tendencies work against the interests of larger communicates and goals.
Integrative personality is a chrematistic where the individual more frequently works for larger causes and larger communities and goals in mind and works for the same and is willing to sacrifice short term goals, narrow interests and small benefits for the sake of larger goals and larger communicates and their interests.
How Divisiveness Works in Organizations
Organizations have several forms of divisiveness. Divisiveness by hierarchies or levels; by roles and designations, and by departmentation and other forms of identities. Organizations need to have the roles identified ( Like Finance manager, Sales Manager, HR manager, Personnel Manager, Training Manager, IT Manager, Marketing Manager, etc.) Such role based assignments are necessary to communicate to the incumbent as well as to the outside world the broad areas o work responsibility or specialization of the individual. Similarly departrmentation also serves the same purpose. Every senior Manager in the hierarchy is supposed to perform integrating functions. However if HR and IT Managers report to Finance (Vice President) the Finance VP is expected to integrate and make the services of the three functions (HR, IT and Finance) available to the rest of the organization. A divisive mind performs this integrative role in ways that are dysfunctional to the organization and may unconsciously or consciously favor one or more of the functions or roles depending on his/her preferences to those groups. He needs to be extra cautious and careful in performing his integrative roles. He ahs to develop conscious and formal mechanisms of sharing, communication and integration. In the absence of it overheads go up and the company may suffer. For example he may use IT mainly to develop and MIS for Finance and neglect the rest of the organization like the production, materials, HR etc. He may be perceived as misusing the IT for exercising controls over the rest of the organization etc. The perceptions as well as facts together influence the functioning of the organization.
“This is not my Job” syndrome: Divisiveness into roles also creates a sense of identity to one own role or department. However along with identity to ones role or function it also erodes larger identity and may even prevent individuals from sacrificing larger or organizational interests for the sake of role related narrow interests.
A bank employee completing his work early because he has been assigned a particular role and that role did not demand as much of hard work and refusing to be working hard and have to stay late is in indication of such role bounded ness. In one Travel Agency spread all over the country, the employees are divided by the nature of heir work assistance to individual travels, versus group tours. Individual travel ahs been found be high in some months and groups in other months. Though sitting under the same roof and belonging to the same organization they were not even in talking terms with each other and did not help each other in peak performance periods. The group travel team is over worked in certain months and the individual tours teams in certain other months as both these are seasonal. When asked one of the groups said that they are paid less salaries and the other group’s gets high incentives why should they help them when free? The second groups said when they need the first group does into help then why should we help.
Asian cultures and particularly the Indian cultures seem to be either role bound or rule bound. They exhibit “it is not my job” syndrome. For them first level of importance is “self”. There is of course who go beyond the self and go for self-less service.
The most enjoyable time I had where I found work to be smooth and individual dignity is maintained from day one was at IIM, Ahmedabad. The symbols that differentiate people and communicate that you work for a team or group has been minimized. Every faculty member gets same size room and every faculty member irrespective of your designation share the same secretary and privileges. You charge the same consulting fee irrespective of the designation as per the norms of the institute. Irrespective of whether you are a professor or assistant professor you are addressed as professor. There are no departments and there are only areas. The term “Area” signifies a broad categorization. You may be member of more than one area or group or center. You may shift also your area. All these are organizational mechanisms to create a larger identity and bring down the overheads or transaction costs associated with management the system they contribute to growth of the organization.
However there could be other forms of divisiveness even in the best of the organizations. For example teaching staff versus program staff. The norms for teaching staff were different than those of the administrative staff. It ahs always been a sore point. However the administrative staff always took pride of the fact that they belonged to the IIM. The internal processes were so designed that they got dignity for the roles they are performing. For example the Activity Head depends a lot of the Program manager as he is an embodiment of experience and information. The program head keeps changing but he Program Head is a lot more permanent.
The IIMA experience indicates that it is possible to institute structural mechanisms to promote integrative tendencies. Integrative personality can be developed. Conscious effort and emphasis on super-ordinate goals helps in developing the same.
Win As Much As You Can
The behavior of most participants on this game is a good example of the Divisive mind set. In this game most often (Almost 90% of the time) I found it very easy develop mistrust. The moment a team is given a label like (A or Red or any other) they saw the other team as an adversary and worked for narrow interests. It is extremely rare to find a team interprets “We” as the totality of all the four teams. I have used this game hundreds of times in my career I have come across only one time when the groups interpreted “We” as the total team and started playing win-win. Even in this group it only required four attempts for one of them to play mischief and once the trust was breached by any one party it never returned back. I still remember in occasion an Army officer trying his best to convince his team to play a win win game failing which he started crying. This is integrative personality. The overall score of the group went up but he was very upset that the groups behaved in a divided way. He saw this happening his country.
What do I conclude from all these Experiences
Divisiveness is the order of the day. It is the easiest thing to divide people. The divisive personality operates perhaps in all of us. We are perhaps socialized in a country like India to be divisive from childhood. Caste identities, community identities, linguistic identities, social identities and groups make us develop affinity to select groups and deny a larger identity as Indians perhaps as people. While grouping or dividing people into groups and labeling serves some purpose some times, it has an inherent danger of increasing conflicts, decreasing trust, and affecting individual, team, organizational as well as national and global productivity and improvements in quality of life. Divisiveness or labeling needs to be done extremely cautiously. Indian society is filled with such divisive tendencies.
The good news is that post liberalization it is changing as organizations are becoming less hierarchical, more flexible and competency based rather than group based. Group based interventions though well intended will promote the growth of some groups but inherently at the cost of some other groups and the whole (nation or organization). The development oriented dividedness needs to be very careful orchestrated. A lot of education is needed to take care of the negative side effects of divisiveness. Integrative personalities are needed at the helm of affairs whether it is in an organization or in an institution or in a country.
Integrative personality can be developed and identified. We need to develop more and more integrative personalities. Integrative personality is a way of life. Integrative personality always thinks long term, thinks bring and sacrifices and enables people to sacrifice short term interests and small group interests I favor of long term interests and larger group interests. Such long term and larger group interests benefit also all those who made sacrifices or postpone immediate gratification for the sake of long term gratification. Nation building and organization building today requires such integrative personalizes more than before as there are more opportunties for growth and avenues for growth.
In drawing these conclusions I have used my own experiences as a base. I may have made some observations which may not exactly be in the direction of their liking by some groups or individuals or institutions. The intention is to point out a phenomenon and build theory and not to offend or displease any one. Al my observations are based on my personal experiences and reflections of these experiences. I request to be excused if any comments make any one of the readers uncomfortable or displeased.
To divide means to separate into parts. It also means to make people disagree or the existence of disagreement or difference or between two or more groups. Division is the act of dividing people into groups.
Divisive mind is a tendency or mind set a person has to assign to self or other people, quickly, a group identity (example caste, community, linguistic, professional, occupational, cultural, social, batch, national etc.) and anchor subsequent behaviors and decisions on the basis of such identity.
Individuals with Divisive mind set may be called divisive people just like people with Internal Locus of Control are called as Internals. Divisive individuals often differentiate and attribute group characteristics to divide people into groups that cause disagreement and competition against one another. By nature division has the potential to create competition and conflict than collaboration. Collaboration does not require divisiveness. It is a mind set. All of us perhaps have this mind set. I have it you have it. It is perhaps our nature. However some live on it, promote it and others are either beneficiaries of it or victims of it. The sum of results arising out of divisiveness is likely to be less than those that could be obtained without it or with integrative mind sets. While divisiveness in the short term benefits some people in the long run it hinders overall growth and consumes a lot of resources and increases overheads or transaction costs or process costs.
Integrative personality
To integrate means to combine parts into a whole. It also means to make some one accepted within a group.
Integrative personality is intended to depict a constellation of behaviors that strive towards inclusion, integration, cooperation, emphasis on the whole and benefits to larger groups of people or entities including humanity at large. A divisive mind gives importance to parts or small groups while an integrative mind focuses on the whole and strives to build the whole and use the strengths of the whole.
The term “Integrative Personality” is preferred here to “Integrative Mind” to communicate the desirability of developing constellations of qualities that promote integration in the society. Divisive mind is a mind set that can be changed while Integrative personality is a personality trait that can be developed with consciousness and training.
In my view Dr Vikram Sarabhai and Ravi Matthai are two great Integrative personalities. Dr. Sarabhai built a number of institutions in different fields including space and management. Ravi Matthai saw Management as promoted the mission of professionalizing management in all sectors of life and actively demonstrated by his own life and example how management should go to all sectors. Their design of the institutions they were associated with speaks for their integrative mind. Mahatma Gandhi of course is an embodiment of integration. His passion for one India is unparalleled. All corporate working for uplifting their local communities where they are located without being asked to do so are also indicating a high degree of Integrative tendencies. Any inclusive mind leads to the development of Integrative personality.
A divisive mind is a mind that shows tendencies to constantly divide people into smaller groups and use the groups for decision making and various other purposes. Integrative personality is a personality that always gives importance to the whole than the parts. The integrative personality thinks of larger goals and larger society while a divisive mind looks after the short term interests of self or small group with which it is associated.
A group of faculty of a University or an Institution opposing the allocation of resources or blocking the growth of another department because it is growing out or proportion is an outcome of divisive mind set. The divisive mind always sees the benefits to a part and often ignores the benefits to a larger community. In this case the clients served, number of people benefited due to services rendered by the fast growing department etc. are ignored and only the benefits availed by the fast growing department are highlighted and issues of equity and fairness are brought in. This largely rises out of divisive mind set. A group of Faculty of one Institution blocking the collaboration between two institutions as it may bring the second institution fame though together they may be doing a great service to the country is also an example of divisiveness. Divisiveness involves differentiation in terms of “I” and “You” and “Ours” and “Theirs”. The term “We” is interpreted narrowly and boundaries are put and maintained strictly. Jealousy, Mistrust Insecurity, Intolerance, narrow mindedness etc. are perhaps the root causes of divisive mind sets. Sacrifice, Trust, Strong Spiritualistic orientation, Self Confidence, Respect for each other, Empathy, vision and long term thinking are perhaps associated with Integrative personality.
There are a number of stories including Panchatantra stories that tell us a lot of the consequences of divisiveness and the utility of staying together or united. The story of five bulls fighting a lion when they stand united or the story of how a group of birds flew away along with the net and escape from the bird hunter are all stories that aim at promoting integration.
What Causes Divisiveness
We are taught from childhood to be divisive. It happens culturally. In some of the Asian cultures divisiveness is high. All Asian Cultures have enough reasons or parameters to be divisive. Some of them are more divisive and others less.
A few years ago I was working in Indonesia as a USAID Consultant to the Ministry of Health. As a part of my work I had to take a group of Doctors on field trips to teach them Task Analysis a technique we introduced to bring more professionalism in the management of health services in Indonesia. Whenever I asked the team to choose a Health Center for filed work, they would talk among themselves and in five minutes time come up with their proposal and it was always unanimous. I was amazed at the team work and remarked about the same with appreciation to the participants who were Doctors. One of the lady Doctors narrated me the following in response to my complements. I reconstruct this from my memory:
“Professor Rao, I agree that we in Indonesia work like a team. We care for each other and respect each other. There is a lot of sharing that takes place. I also agree that it should strike you as an important part of our culture as I believe that your country which taught us a lot at one time has this one aspect very much lacking in them. I am sorry to say this as I had only one experience which I like to narrate”.
She continued... “Professor, A few months ago I was attending a meeting of UNFPA in Bangkok and it was attended by participants from various countries. Each country had two or more delegates. We had delegated from Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Philippines, Japan and India etc. One thing I noticed was, whenever a Pakistani spoke something about his country his colleague supported it. Whenever a Bangladeshi spoke about his country his colleague from another department supported it. Whether it is a Sri Lankan or, Pakistani, or Bangladeshi or Malaysian, or a Singaporean, they supported each other in their presentations. However whenever an Indian spoke the second or third Indian contradicted him and said what my colleague said is true in his state (Tamil Nadu) as he comes from Tamil Nadu but the situation is different in my state (UP) as I come from UP and the third person gave a third story. The convention was filled with contradictions by Indians. Surprisingly the contradictions extended even to fights. We found that by the fourth day the Indian delegates were even staying at different places and coming at different times to the conference. So I understand that in your country team work is difficult as every Indian seem to differentiate themselves a lot more than integrate unlike other countries. We are an integrating nation and we help each other”
This episode left strong impressions in my mind about how much a divided nation we are. I am deeply pained to see that we are not learning lessons from our own past and from others and are pursuing policies that divide the nation more than integrate the same.
Divided Nation: Inherited Divisiveness
We are a divided nation. Our minds are divisive as we are taught from birth to view each other in terms of the caste, and sub caste or gothra, community, religious affiliation, language, regional affiliation, etc. various variables. Because we are taught from the early child hood to view each other in terms of these variables our self concept and behavior towards each other is determined by the classification we hold of each other. When we judge the other person by virtue of his/her affiliations, we undermine or overestimate the capability of the other person as per the stereotypes we hold. When such stereotypes are shown towards us by others we spend time fighting such stereo types if they are to our disadvantage. When we discover that the other person does not believe in our internal capability and is attributing to us competencies by virtue of his stereotypes he holds about us and not by virtue of our real capabilities, it hurts and we engage ourselves to prove what we really are capable. The result is always fights and fights to prove or disprove. As a result a lot of psychological energies are spent on proving and disproving. This results in enormous energies wasted in unproductive transactions.
The amount of wastage of Nation’s time in inter-state time wasted in water disputes, communal riots and their aftermath, caste wars are all drags on the nation. It affects economic development. Our policy makers should be sensitive to this and should engage the nation in more productive issues than in such transactional issues. They should aim building integrative minds rather than perpetuating the divisiveness in our country. What we need today is an integrative minds for nation building and not those who are dividing the nation further. People and politicians and policy makers who are capable of working towards projecting an integrated India and Indians as one is the need of the hour.
I am happy the modern youth is fighting and arguing for the abolition of the caste system.
It is high time the caste system is abolished from our country and every one is treated with same dignity and every one is given equal opportunity to bring out the merit is him/her. Not only the caste any form of divisiveness by virtue of religion, caste community etc. should be minimized and national Integration needs to be promoted. It is high time that we direct our attention to build integrative minds. The divisive mind set is evident even in the best of the corporation where team work is difficult and Indians are known to be poor team workers. Our policies seem to perpetuate the divisive mind and a lot of time of our nation is being engaged in fighting divisiveness created by our policies.
Integration and Diversity
Having made the above observations I would like to say that there is perhaps a lot in Ancient India that promoted integration and tolerance. We need to discover the same. On the positive side it is amazing that a country so divided as ours still runs well as a democracy. The current Indian leadership is an indication of the tolerance for diversity. However the unfortunate part is perhaps we are not using this diversity adequately and divisive policies are taking over and overwhelming impact on integrative personalities. Divisiveness is normally intensive and has a larger emotional appeal than integration. Integration becomes philosophy while divisiveness becomes a reality. Divisiveness serves short term interests of certain vocal sections of people and therefore is paid attention. Long term interests are postponed and integrative personalities get frustrated.
Academy of Human Resources Development (AHRD) and National HRD Network (NHRDN)
A number of my observations have been derived from my experiences with the NHRDN and AHRD.
The NHRDN is a professional body started about 20 years ago. In the last 20 years, NHRDN has grown vastly. The seeds for its growth were sown and foundation lay in the first three years. The principle agenda of learning from each other continues. The annual or biannual conferences and the chapter meetings for learning from each other and networking continue. The chapters have grown in number. The culture of publishing papers to be distributed during conference continues.
The first ten years were institution building years. This was done well by all those associated with NHRDN and the initial leaders MRR Nair as the second President and Udai Pareek as the third President led the organization to stability/ Dissemination of knowledge through publications became a major USP of NHRDN. The educational programmes like the HRD facilitators programme initiated through NHRDN were later continued by AHRD. Among the major accomplishments of NHRDN are:
1. Its publications – about 20 books by now.
2. Post Graduate programme with MDI, Gurgaon
3. Academy of HRD
4. Regular publication of Newsletter
5. Setting new standards in conference Management
6. Getting global scholars to India
7. Providing a forum for exchange of young HR Professionals (Delhi chapter set new standards in this)
8. Enhanced membership with regular meetings (Hyderabad chapter showed the way for it).
9. Networking to learn from each other and collaborating with other forums (Bangalore chapter showed the way)
10. CII-NHRDN competency model
11. Code of conduct and values for HRD professionals and the list goes on.
AHRD
Origins: National HRD Network (NHRDN) in a Mission-Vision workshop held at Chennai on September 11,1990 conceived a Center for Research and Education in NHRD to set up to further the objectives of NHRDN. This workshop was facilitated by Anil Sachdeva and V S Mahesh. MRR Nair (MD Bokaro Steel and Second President NHRDN), Udai Pareek (President), T V Rao (Founder President), Fr. E. Abraham (Founder Secretary), Keith D’Souza (XLRI, Secretary and Editor Newsletter) and Rakesh Kumar Associate Secretary, NHRDN) Office bearers of NHRDN meet at Bokaro and decide to name it as the Academy of Human Resources Development
AHRD Contributed a great deal so far to Human Capital Formation among HRD Professionals in India as summarized below:
Accomplishments: innovative Practices
1) Diploma Program Design in Distance Education: Assignments and Newsletter
a. Diploma Newsletter (12 issues published)
b. Catch up Newsletter of Fellow Program Students. (Discontinued since 2000)
2) Round Table Conferences
3) NGO Network started at Ahmedabad
a. NGO Networking Facilitated through ORENGODA project.
b. Renewal Journal for NGOs
4) Education
a. 23 Doctorates and many other helped
b. About 1000 diploma holders (First three years, AIMA, SCMHRD, IIPS, TAPMI etc.)
c. Several students benefited from AHRD
5) Professional Development
a. About 200 trained through HRD Facilitators program
b. About 300 trained in IOAC who can conduct Assessment centers
6) Research and Publications
a. 12 books, 4 working papers, five monographs and several articles written by AHRD staff
b. Publications in Organizational climate and Round Tables etc. available for HRD professionals
7) Social Sector
a. New methodologies of LSIP and Future Search made available for several NGOs and Facilitators. Most of them are using
b. Over 200 NGOs exposed to Renewal methodologies
c. Over a 100 NGO facilitators developed in HRD
8) Assisted NHRDN in the first decade by housing its secretariat, publishing newsletters, editing conference papers and managing HRD Awards process.
WHERE NHRDN and AHRD could have done a lot more:
Setting standards for HRD profession and creating curricula and accreditation methodologies
Creating assessment tools and rating methods in HRD for corporations (like CRISIL’s ratings)
Building AHRD as NHRDN’s own institution (within a few years of its setting up AHRD became a very prominent contributor.
The following are the specific activities AHRD could have been engaged in by now and made a mark:
Had its own small campus with state of the art facilities for research and visiting scholars
A recognized regular Doctoral programme by itself or with other institutions like XLRI, IGNOU, MDI, BITS, DDIT etc.
A post graduate programme with a 100 students who make a difference to organization through their HR knowledge and skills.
Publishing of research journals and occasional papers
Assisting NHRDN in setting standard for HR Profession, formulating code of conduct, evaluating HR curricula of other schools.
Conducting faculty development programmes for faculty
Patented a few of its products and innovations like IOAC
Become a Research, Training and Consulting Center with a network of scholars
These are just a few. On each one of the above, some effort has been made and each one of these, other organizations have better success stories to report than AHRD.
Soon the Indian mind set of classification and ownership became. Political issues started interfering with professional issues. How to share the fee, who gets credit, why two bodies with same objectives, who owns AHRD? Why AHRD and why not XLRI or IIML or MDI etc. became issue than how to support AHRD as our body. How to build it up? How to get good faculty? How to popularize and use its services and products? At times it appeared as though there are rivals rather than one giving birth to the other and the second servicing the first. AHRD was too identified with Founders. When the founders withdrew and left it to be managed by new leaders who were young, it took time to stabilize . Weak moments lead to criticism than support and investments on alternative institutions. Thus building AHRD is a failure of NHRDN but attributed as failure of leaders and at times founders. It is also a failure on the part of AHRD leadership to integrate into NHRDN and promote its cause. The structural requirements of registering it as a separate institution, mobilizing its own funds and having its own Board further created difficulties in integrating and strengthening to the desirable level.
United we stand, run and win the race. Divided we sit, relax and glorify ourselves or fight and win over our own fellows.
There was a lot of scope for AHRD to have made an excellent impact. By today, AHRD could have been a globally recognized institution and would have been considered the only place to go or main place to go for scholars across the world. The great dream still remains a dream – the great dream was to have its own campus, data-bank, and library, residential accommodation furnished for scholars to visit, write, renew and disseminate their work. The relevance and need for such an institution still exists today. Its doctoral programme could have become a flagship programme and would have contributed a great deal to HRD Knowledge.
Some of the issues where divisive mind has won and Integrative personalities were weak in my experience are the following:
The case of Ph. D. program in Management in IGNOU
XLRI-AHRD Collaboration
One Year Program versus Two year program
Distance education Program in Fellowship
The tendency to divide extends from people to situations and objects also. For example the faculty of a reputed management School had a proposal to start a one year International management Program. The idea was floated by a Professor who taught at an Asian business school and saw a lot of opportunties for this business school to start a one year program for Asians. A task force was formed and the ask force surveyed the opportunties and strongly recommended. After a lot of work was done by the faculty group to start this program it was finally dropped because it will conflict with the already existing two year program and dilute the standards. The divisive mind looks at how the new program affects the existing program. While the integrative personality argues for how many numbered of Asians can be benefited and how much more the institution will be known in other parts of the region. The divisive mind looks at “How am I going to be affected?” The integrative personality looks at whoa re the others going to be affected. Thus divisive minds are short sighted and self centered. Integrative personalities are large hearted and look at benefits to others.
Distance Program versus Full Time Program
In another case the faculty of reputed management school in late eighties appointed committee to examine the feasibility to conduct a Doctoral program in management on distance education mode. The committee submitted its report and strongly recommended the starting of the same. When it went finally to be decided by the policy committee of the institute they decided not to go ahead with it because it will create a new category of Fellows in the Management world and would dilute the applicants to the already existing Full time fellow program. That the new program will bring a lot of richness into the current program by virtue of experienced joining and it will add to the family of teachers became secondary consideration and the impact of it on the current program became a primary consideration.
Divisiveness is a tendency to evaluate other individuals, situations and objects on the basis of narrow attributions and take decisions in way that are of advantage to smaller groups or serve limited causes but affect larger interests, larger communities and larger goals. Normally such tendencies work against the interests of larger communicates and goals.
Integrative personality is a chrematistic where the individual more frequently works for larger causes and larger communities and goals in mind and works for the same and is willing to sacrifice short term goals, narrow interests and small benefits for the sake of larger goals and larger communicates and their interests.
How Divisiveness Works in Organizations
Organizations have several forms of divisiveness. Divisiveness by hierarchies or levels; by roles and designations, and by departmentation and other forms of identities. Organizations need to have the roles identified ( Like Finance manager, Sales Manager, HR manager, Personnel Manager, Training Manager, IT Manager, Marketing Manager, etc.) Such role based assignments are necessary to communicate to the incumbent as well as to the outside world the broad areas o work responsibility or specialization of the individual. Similarly departrmentation also serves the same purpose. Every senior Manager in the hierarchy is supposed to perform integrating functions. However if HR and IT Managers report to Finance (Vice President) the Finance VP is expected to integrate and make the services of the three functions (HR, IT and Finance) available to the rest of the organization. A divisive mind performs this integrative role in ways that are dysfunctional to the organization and may unconsciously or consciously favor one or more of the functions or roles depending on his/her preferences to those groups. He needs to be extra cautious and careful in performing his integrative roles. He ahs to develop conscious and formal mechanisms of sharing, communication and integration. In the absence of it overheads go up and the company may suffer. For example he may use IT mainly to develop and MIS for Finance and neglect the rest of the organization like the production, materials, HR etc. He may be perceived as misusing the IT for exercising controls over the rest of the organization etc. The perceptions as well as facts together influence the functioning of the organization.
“This is not my Job” syndrome: Divisiveness into roles also creates a sense of identity to one own role or department. However along with identity to ones role or function it also erodes larger identity and may even prevent individuals from sacrificing larger or organizational interests for the sake of role related narrow interests.
A bank employee completing his work early because he has been assigned a particular role and that role did not demand as much of hard work and refusing to be working hard and have to stay late is in indication of such role bounded ness. In one Travel Agency spread all over the country, the employees are divided by the nature of heir work assistance to individual travels, versus group tours. Individual travel ahs been found be high in some months and groups in other months. Though sitting under the same roof and belonging to the same organization they were not even in talking terms with each other and did not help each other in peak performance periods. The group travel team is over worked in certain months and the individual tours teams in certain other months as both these are seasonal. When asked one of the groups said that they are paid less salaries and the other group’s gets high incentives why should they help them when free? The second groups said when they need the first group does into help then why should we help.
Asian cultures and particularly the Indian cultures seem to be either role bound or rule bound. They exhibit “it is not my job” syndrome. For them first level of importance is “self”. There is of course who go beyond the self and go for self-less service.
The most enjoyable time I had where I found work to be smooth and individual dignity is maintained from day one was at IIM, Ahmedabad. The symbols that differentiate people and communicate that you work for a team or group has been minimized. Every faculty member gets same size room and every faculty member irrespective of your designation share the same secretary and privileges. You charge the same consulting fee irrespective of the designation as per the norms of the institute. Irrespective of whether you are a professor or assistant professor you are addressed as professor. There are no departments and there are only areas. The term “Area” signifies a broad categorization. You may be member of more than one area or group or center. You may shift also your area. All these are organizational mechanisms to create a larger identity and bring down the overheads or transaction costs associated with management the system they contribute to growth of the organization.
However there could be other forms of divisiveness even in the best of the organizations. For example teaching staff versus program staff. The norms for teaching staff were different than those of the administrative staff. It ahs always been a sore point. However the administrative staff always took pride of the fact that they belonged to the IIM. The internal processes were so designed that they got dignity for the roles they are performing. For example the Activity Head depends a lot of the Program manager as he is an embodiment of experience and information. The program head keeps changing but he Program Head is a lot more permanent.
The IIMA experience indicates that it is possible to institute structural mechanisms to promote integrative tendencies. Integrative personality can be developed. Conscious effort and emphasis on super-ordinate goals helps in developing the same.
Win As Much As You Can
The behavior of most participants on this game is a good example of the Divisive mind set. In this game most often (Almost 90% of the time) I found it very easy develop mistrust. The moment a team is given a label like (A or Red or any other) they saw the other team as an adversary and worked for narrow interests. It is extremely rare to find a team interprets “We” as the totality of all the four teams. I have used this game hundreds of times in my career I have come across only one time when the groups interpreted “We” as the total team and started playing win-win. Even in this group it only required four attempts for one of them to play mischief and once the trust was breached by any one party it never returned back. I still remember in occasion an Army officer trying his best to convince his team to play a win win game failing which he started crying. This is integrative personality. The overall score of the group went up but he was very upset that the groups behaved in a divided way. He saw this happening his country.
What do I conclude from all these Experiences
Divisiveness is the order of the day. It is the easiest thing to divide people. The divisive personality operates perhaps in all of us. We are perhaps socialized in a country like India to be divisive from childhood. Caste identities, community identities, linguistic identities, social identities and groups make us develop affinity to select groups and deny a larger identity as Indians perhaps as people. While grouping or dividing people into groups and labeling serves some purpose some times, it has an inherent danger of increasing conflicts, decreasing trust, and affecting individual, team, organizational as well as national and global productivity and improvements in quality of life. Divisiveness or labeling needs to be done extremely cautiously. Indian society is filled with such divisive tendencies.
The good news is that post liberalization it is changing as organizations are becoming less hierarchical, more flexible and competency based rather than group based. Group based interventions though well intended will promote the growth of some groups but inherently at the cost of some other groups and the whole (nation or organization). The development oriented dividedness needs to be very careful orchestrated. A lot of education is needed to take care of the negative side effects of divisiveness. Integrative personalities are needed at the helm of affairs whether it is in an organization or in an institution or in a country.
Integrative personality can be developed and identified. We need to develop more and more integrative personalities. Integrative personality is a way of life. Integrative personality always thinks long term, thinks bring and sacrifices and enables people to sacrifice short term interests and small group interests I favor of long term interests and larger group interests. Such long term and larger group interests benefit also all those who made sacrifices or postpone immediate gratification for the sake of long term gratification. Nation building and organization building today requires such integrative personalizes more than before as there are more opportunties for growth and avenues for growth.
In drawing these conclusions I have used my own experiences as a base. I may have made some observations which may not exactly be in the direction of their liking by some groups or individuals or institutions. The intention is to point out a phenomenon and build theory and not to offend or displease any one. Al my observations are based on my personal experiences and reflections of these experiences. I request to be excused if any comments make any one of the readers uncomfortable or displeased.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
