Any group of people, living or working together, as a family or
community, in order to maintain a reasonably healthy and efficient
relationship and achieve success, needs to share responsibility and be
accountable to one another. Independence is truly an illusion.
Interdependence is reality and to achieve a healthy balance without
co-dependence should be our goal.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, June 23, 2008
A CLUE FROM GANDHI
A CLUE FROM GANDHI
by Keshavin Nair
We live in a society that emphasizes rights; the majority, minorities, employers, employees, victims, and criminals all remind us of their rights. Indeed, central to the social, political, and legal fabric of the United States is the Bill of Rights. The codification into law of fundamental human rights is an essential safeguard against the corrupting influences of power and human weakness as manifested in bigotry and prejudice. However, focusing on rights as the basis of conduct and policy is to create a society that is driven by advocacy, leading to a loss of community and reducing the motivation to work for the common good.
Perhaps we can learn from the philosophy of one of the world's greatest teachers of all time. Gandhi's life and teachings represent a different point of view - a focus on responsibilities, not rights. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is best known for leading hundreds of millions of his countrymen in India to independence from one of the greatest empires in history without the use of violence. A new generation of people around the world learned about his life of service, founded on truth and nonviolence, from the Academy Award winning movie bearing his name.
Gandhi spent more than 50 years in active public service and understood the need for legal safeguards to protect fundamental rights. However, he believed that a commitment to personal responsibility, not insistence on rights, should govern conduct and social policy.
H.G. Wells once asked for Gandhi's views on a document Wells had co-authored entitled ARights of Man. Gandhi did not agree with the documents emphasis on rights. He responded with a cable that said, I suggest the right way. “Begin with a charter of Duties of Man and I promise the rights will follow as spring follows winter.”
Gandhi asked us to remember that if our rights are inalienable, our responsibility is indisputable - given to us by every religion and culture - to treat others as ourselves. He focused on this most fundamental of human responsibilities. If we keep it as our ideal and try to move toward it, we reduce the emphasis on rights and bring personal responsibility to a higher level in guiding our thoughts and actions. In both the political and business arenas, commitment to responsibilities impacts individuals and groups to look for ways to produce benefits for all.
Leadership by Example
We are moving toward a knowledge-based society. In business, the importance of hierarchy is diminishing and there is interaction among all levels in a corporation. In this environment, leadership by example will have to become the dominant mode. It is based on the premise that the leader recognizes and meets his or her responsibilities.
Gandhi always led by example - everything he asked others to do, he did himself. Gandhi did not ask others to give up the practice of discrimination until he himself had lived among those that were discriminated against.
His commitment was to serve the poor and downtrodden - they were his customers. He walked among them, talked with them, understood their needs, lived among them, and ministered to them. His personal commitment was an example to others.
For a business to demonstrate a personal commitment to the customer. Interacting with clients, listening to their concerns, and making decisions based on their desires are some of the manifestations of leadership by example in a customer-focused company. Whether the goal is customer focus, cost reduction, or operational excellence, and regardless of your position - CEO, department head, or first-level supervisor - the principle remains the same: Meet your responsibilities before you ask others to meet theirs.
When leaders set an example, they inspire all of us to live up to our individual duties. The need for supervision is lessened, and there is greater efficiency and productivity.
Changing Roles
The central relationship between the corporation and the employee is employment. Historically, it was the obligation to the employer to offer long-term employment, and in return, the employee demonstrated loyalty. Recently this symmetry has been destroyed. The rates of change in technology, markets, consumer preferences, and geopolitical forces make it almost impossible for the corporation to meet long-term employment commitments. This can result in employee alienation, diminished loyalty and commitment, and lack of performance. Both the corporation and the employee should look toward creating a new set of responsibilities that fit the new environment. Insisting on old rights will only lead to increased alienation.
Corporate leaders have the responsibility to provide, based on their best judgement, truthful information about the future and the range of employment opportunities that are likely to exist. Employees should be given the chance to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to prepare for these opportunities. It is their responsibility to offer value to their employer by learning new skills and taking advantage of new opportunities.
We observe this happening in a variety of businesses. Global companies like GE and Coca-Cola provide opportunities for cross-functional and rotational assignments, giving employees the chance to move to where the work might be in the future. In a technology-driven company like Intel, the CEO has stated his responsibility, offering employees the training and education to be prepared for future job openings.
For the corporation to say to the employees, Amanage your own career, without providing training, or for the employee to demand long-term employment without taking the trouble to acquire knowledge, is to insist on rights without meeting responsibilities. Both the individual and the corporation benefit if there is a focus on responsibilities. There is cooperation and a sense of being in the same boat, resulting in increased motivation and heightened productivity.
The Broader Social Context
There are pragmatic reasons for all of us to focus on our responsibilities rather than our rights. A society driven by the former promotes service, tolerance, compromise, and progress, whereas a society driven by the latter is preoccupied with acquisition, confrontation, and advocacy. When we fail to meet our responsibilities to others, they are forced to insist on their rights.
The founders of the Unites States were not accountable to women by denying them the right to vote, nor did they meet their duties to African Americans by allowing slavery. Until recently, we did not meet our obligations to those with physical disabilities. Each of these groups had to struggle for its rights and get them made into law, and these struggles strained the fabric of society. If we meet our responsibility to treat others as ourselves, the fabric of society need not be damaged in the effort to achieve rights.
Gandhi took the concept one step further. He insisted that those being denied their rights also had to meet their responsibilities. Opponents were entitled to be treated as he would like to be treated - with courtesy and respect.
Even in the most intense phases of the struggles against the British, Gandhi was always respectful and courteous to the British as individuals. He sent then-Princess Elizabeth a wedding present - a tablecloth fashioned from yarn he had personally spun. He never forgot the human relationship in the political struggle. In today’s political environment, we see an escalation of personal attacks at all levels, creating a climate of animosity and distrust and making it difficult to work for the common good.
In the formation of social policy, debate often takes place on the basis of the rights of individuals and groups. This creates a climate of confrontation. Gandhi always believed in helping the less fortunate. This was a responsibility based on his fundamental belief that one should treat others as oneself. However, he insisted that those who needed assistance were obligated to help themselves.
This is illustrated in his approach to helping poor tenant farmers. He encouraged families to spin and weave cloth when they were not working in the fields. Doing work was their duty. He asked the rest of Indian society to live up to its end by giving up the more refined mill-made cloth and wearing the coarser hand-woven, hand-spun cloth made by the farmers as a way of helping them raise their economic status. Both parties were fulfilling their responsibilities; none were insisting on their rights.
Focusing on responsibilities removes the mind-set of giving something without return and of taking something without making a contribution. Both these attitudes are detrimental to the human spirit and create a society that is neither productive nor caring. The concept of meeting obligations because it is the right thing to do seems to be declining. We need to reverse this trend. When we direct our attention to our responsibilities, we are forced to look inward and ask what contribution can we make to create something better.
When Gandhi was asked about his message, he responded, my life is my message. This is true for each one of us - whether we like it or not - our life is our message. Meeting our responsibilities should be a way of life, not of gaining rewards. It should have its foundation in the family, where parents and elders are an example for their children, the leaders of the future.
Looking at the world through the lens of personal responsibility creates a landscape of hard work, high standards, commitment to service, and compassion. These values are as applicable to business and the public sector as they are to our personal lives.
Dr. Keshavin Nair is a management consultant, public speaker, and author of "A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi" and "Beyond Winning: The Handbook for the Leadership Revolution."
by Keshavin Nair
We live in a society that emphasizes rights; the majority, minorities, employers, employees, victims, and criminals all remind us of their rights. Indeed, central to the social, political, and legal fabric of the United States is the Bill of Rights. The codification into law of fundamental human rights is an essential safeguard against the corrupting influences of power and human weakness as manifested in bigotry and prejudice. However, focusing on rights as the basis of conduct and policy is to create a society that is driven by advocacy, leading to a loss of community and reducing the motivation to work for the common good.
Perhaps we can learn from the philosophy of one of the world's greatest teachers of all time. Gandhi's life and teachings represent a different point of view - a focus on responsibilities, not rights. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi is best known for leading hundreds of millions of his countrymen in India to independence from one of the greatest empires in history without the use of violence. A new generation of people around the world learned about his life of service, founded on truth and nonviolence, from the Academy Award winning movie bearing his name.
Gandhi spent more than 50 years in active public service and understood the need for legal safeguards to protect fundamental rights. However, he believed that a commitment to personal responsibility, not insistence on rights, should govern conduct and social policy.
H.G. Wells once asked for Gandhi's views on a document Wells had co-authored entitled ARights of Man. Gandhi did not agree with the documents emphasis on rights. He responded with a cable that said, I suggest the right way. “Begin with a charter of Duties of Man and I promise the rights will follow as spring follows winter.”
Gandhi asked us to remember that if our rights are inalienable, our responsibility is indisputable - given to us by every religion and culture - to treat others as ourselves. He focused on this most fundamental of human responsibilities. If we keep it as our ideal and try to move toward it, we reduce the emphasis on rights and bring personal responsibility to a higher level in guiding our thoughts and actions. In both the political and business arenas, commitment to responsibilities impacts individuals and groups to look for ways to produce benefits for all.
Leadership by Example
We are moving toward a knowledge-based society. In business, the importance of hierarchy is diminishing and there is interaction among all levels in a corporation. In this environment, leadership by example will have to become the dominant mode. It is based on the premise that the leader recognizes and meets his or her responsibilities.
Gandhi always led by example - everything he asked others to do, he did himself. Gandhi did not ask others to give up the practice of discrimination until he himself had lived among those that were discriminated against.
His commitment was to serve the poor and downtrodden - they were his customers. He walked among them, talked with them, understood their needs, lived among them, and ministered to them. His personal commitment was an example to others.
For a business to demonstrate a personal commitment to the customer. Interacting with clients, listening to their concerns, and making decisions based on their desires are some of the manifestations of leadership by example in a customer-focused company. Whether the goal is customer focus, cost reduction, or operational excellence, and regardless of your position - CEO, department head, or first-level supervisor - the principle remains the same: Meet your responsibilities before you ask others to meet theirs.
When leaders set an example, they inspire all of us to live up to our individual duties. The need for supervision is lessened, and there is greater efficiency and productivity.
Changing Roles
The central relationship between the corporation and the employee is employment. Historically, it was the obligation to the employer to offer long-term employment, and in return, the employee demonstrated loyalty. Recently this symmetry has been destroyed. The rates of change in technology, markets, consumer preferences, and geopolitical forces make it almost impossible for the corporation to meet long-term employment commitments. This can result in employee alienation, diminished loyalty and commitment, and lack of performance. Both the corporation and the employee should look toward creating a new set of responsibilities that fit the new environment. Insisting on old rights will only lead to increased alienation.
Corporate leaders have the responsibility to provide, based on their best judgement, truthful information about the future and the range of employment opportunities that are likely to exist. Employees should be given the chance to acquire the knowledge and skills necessary to prepare for these opportunities. It is their responsibility to offer value to their employer by learning new skills and taking advantage of new opportunities.
We observe this happening in a variety of businesses. Global companies like GE and Coca-Cola provide opportunities for cross-functional and rotational assignments, giving employees the chance to move to where the work might be in the future. In a technology-driven company like Intel, the CEO has stated his responsibility, offering employees the training and education to be prepared for future job openings.
For the corporation to say to the employees, Amanage your own career, without providing training, or for the employee to demand long-term employment without taking the trouble to acquire knowledge, is to insist on rights without meeting responsibilities. Both the individual and the corporation benefit if there is a focus on responsibilities. There is cooperation and a sense of being in the same boat, resulting in increased motivation and heightened productivity.
The Broader Social Context
There are pragmatic reasons for all of us to focus on our responsibilities rather than our rights. A society driven by the former promotes service, tolerance, compromise, and progress, whereas a society driven by the latter is preoccupied with acquisition, confrontation, and advocacy. When we fail to meet our responsibilities to others, they are forced to insist on their rights.
The founders of the Unites States were not accountable to women by denying them the right to vote, nor did they meet their duties to African Americans by allowing slavery. Until recently, we did not meet our obligations to those with physical disabilities. Each of these groups had to struggle for its rights and get them made into law, and these struggles strained the fabric of society. If we meet our responsibility to treat others as ourselves, the fabric of society need not be damaged in the effort to achieve rights.
Gandhi took the concept one step further. He insisted that those being denied their rights also had to meet their responsibilities. Opponents were entitled to be treated as he would like to be treated - with courtesy and respect.
Even in the most intense phases of the struggles against the British, Gandhi was always respectful and courteous to the British as individuals. He sent then-Princess Elizabeth a wedding present - a tablecloth fashioned from yarn he had personally spun. He never forgot the human relationship in the political struggle. In today’s political environment, we see an escalation of personal attacks at all levels, creating a climate of animosity and distrust and making it difficult to work for the common good.
In the formation of social policy, debate often takes place on the basis of the rights of individuals and groups. This creates a climate of confrontation. Gandhi always believed in helping the less fortunate. This was a responsibility based on his fundamental belief that one should treat others as oneself. However, he insisted that those who needed assistance were obligated to help themselves.
This is illustrated in his approach to helping poor tenant farmers. He encouraged families to spin and weave cloth when they were not working in the fields. Doing work was their duty. He asked the rest of Indian society to live up to its end by giving up the more refined mill-made cloth and wearing the coarser hand-woven, hand-spun cloth made by the farmers as a way of helping them raise their economic status. Both parties were fulfilling their responsibilities; none were insisting on their rights.
Focusing on responsibilities removes the mind-set of giving something without return and of taking something without making a contribution. Both these attitudes are detrimental to the human spirit and create a society that is neither productive nor caring. The concept of meeting obligations because it is the right thing to do seems to be declining. We need to reverse this trend. When we direct our attention to our responsibilities, we are forced to look inward and ask what contribution can we make to create something better.
When Gandhi was asked about his message, he responded, my life is my message. This is true for each one of us - whether we like it or not - our life is our message. Meeting our responsibilities should be a way of life, not of gaining rewards. It should have its foundation in the family, where parents and elders are an example for their children, the leaders of the future.
Looking at the world through the lens of personal responsibility creates a landscape of hard work, high standards, commitment to service, and compassion. These values are as applicable to business and the public sector as they are to our personal lives.
Dr. Keshavin Nair is a management consultant, public speaker, and author of "A Higher Standard of Leadership: Lessons from the Life of Gandhi" and "Beyond Winning: The Handbook for the Leadership Revolution."
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
When collaboration fails and it's just time for advocacy
As much as possible, be careful not to burn bridges. Hopefully you will want to try again for some level of collaboration in the future.
When nothing else works, then it may simply be time for education. The question then becomes, who do we need to educate and how.
There are many venues for education.
Community meetings, the internet, letter writing campaigns, mass media and various forms of public protest are all ways that can be used to educate.
Please tell us what you have found to be productive.
When nothing else works, then it may simply be time for education. The question then becomes, who do we need to educate and how.
There are many venues for education.
Community meetings, the internet, letter writing campaigns, mass media and various forms of public protest are all ways that can be used to educate.
Please tell us what you have found to be productive.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Be Careful What You Ask For
Years ago, decades actually, I was very interested in empowerment and was doing a great deal of research on the subject. During my research I came across a very interesting article on an empowerment program that had been instituted in an inner city housing complex.
Someone or a committee in a government agency had determined that it would be a good idea to encourage and empower the people living there to take more responsibility for the complex and make more of the decisions. This worked very well for a while until the people living in the complex started making decisions that the agency did not agree with and started advocating for things that did not “fit” the agenda of the agency. The whole program came tumbling apart. In a short time, the people living there were feeling more helpless and hopeless, less empowered and more disenfranchised than ever.
There are a few lessons from this experience.
1. As I have mentioned many times in the past, be clear about the level of authority and limit of choices when you are trying to empower or build consensus. If you are trying to build full collaboration there should be few if any limits imposed by you. There are always limits, but you may not know all the options or have all the information. Solutions may arise that you would have never dreamt of on your own.
2. Expect the unexpected. If you go into this with the idea that you know what the other individual or group will want, then you may be hit with a big surprise. Do not have the idea that because it is “this” individual or group, they will have a particular agenda or concerns. Be open to what they will have to share, their concerns and issues. Listen and avoid prejudgments. Perhaps if you understood them as well as you think you do, there wouldn’t be any void or a need for a special program, committee or meeting.
3. Be careful what you ask for. If you want someone to speak up, be prepared that they just might do that and even say something that you are uncomfortable with. If you ask someone to take more responsibility, they may take actions they believe are in their own best interests but out of your control.
Independence, empowerment and free-agency can be funny things. You may lose some control over someone else, while they may be strengthened, become more self-efficacious, independent, productive, and a greater contributor to the world around them. You may even find that as a collaborator with this other group or individual your own capacity has actually increased, like theirs, rather than having been diminished.
Additional information about self-efficacy can be found at Emory University.
My experience has often been that those who need to control the lives of others, have little control over their own. If empowerment of others is uncomfortable for you, perhaps you need to look inward. Is part of the issue driven from your own fears? There is a great book well worth the reading, over and over again. I would recommend it to anyone whether you believe this to be a personal issue or not. The book is Love Is Letting Go Of Fear.
Remember that more real good can be accomplished from real collaboration. Yes, it can be a scary thing but well worth the effort if the goal is the benefit of all.
However;
Sometimes, and unfortunately, after the very best efforts that you are able to muster at the time, you may have to walk away with hopes of a better dialogue another day.
Someone or a committee in a government agency had determined that it would be a good idea to encourage and empower the people living there to take more responsibility for the complex and make more of the decisions. This worked very well for a while until the people living in the complex started making decisions that the agency did not agree with and started advocating for things that did not “fit” the agenda of the agency. The whole program came tumbling apart. In a short time, the people living there were feeling more helpless and hopeless, less empowered and more disenfranchised than ever.
There are a few lessons from this experience.
1. As I have mentioned many times in the past, be clear about the level of authority and limit of choices when you are trying to empower or build consensus. If you are trying to build full collaboration there should be few if any limits imposed by you. There are always limits, but you may not know all the options or have all the information. Solutions may arise that you would have never dreamt of on your own.
2. Expect the unexpected. If you go into this with the idea that you know what the other individual or group will want, then you may be hit with a big surprise. Do not have the idea that because it is “this” individual or group, they will have a particular agenda or concerns. Be open to what they will have to share, their concerns and issues. Listen and avoid prejudgments. Perhaps if you understood them as well as you think you do, there wouldn’t be any void or a need for a special program, committee or meeting.
3. Be careful what you ask for. If you want someone to speak up, be prepared that they just might do that and even say something that you are uncomfortable with. If you ask someone to take more responsibility, they may take actions they believe are in their own best interests but out of your control.
Independence, empowerment and free-agency can be funny things. You may lose some control over someone else, while they may be strengthened, become more self-efficacious, independent, productive, and a greater contributor to the world around them. You may even find that as a collaborator with this other group or individual your own capacity has actually increased, like theirs, rather than having been diminished.
Additional information about self-efficacy can be found at Emory University.My experience has often been that those who need to control the lives of others, have little control over their own. If empowerment of others is uncomfortable for you, perhaps you need to look inward. Is part of the issue driven from your own fears? There is a great book well worth the reading, over and over again. I would recommend it to anyone whether you believe this to be a personal issue or not. The book is Love Is Letting Go Of Fear.
Remember that more real good can be accomplished from real collaboration. Yes, it can be a scary thing but well worth the effort if the goal is the benefit of all.
However;
Sometimes, and unfortunately, after the very best efforts that you are able to muster at the time, you may have to walk away with hopes of a better dialogue another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)