• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

S. Ramachander

The modern organisation sets great store by individual achievement. Where does that leave team spirit?

Musing is the operative word of this column. So it is perhaps appropriate that we turn to an issue I have mulled over for years. There seems to be an underlying and persistent tension in organisations, between the highly individualistic styles of working, on the one hand, and the need to bring people together to work in harmony, on the other. To do this without losing sight of the organisation's purpose, while retaining the individual's motivation, is the perennial challenge to managers everywhere. This dynamic tension seems to be true in many parts of the industrial world, particularly where societies have been built on individualism. This applies even to non-profit organisations and religious bodies. This conflict between expectation and action has been little remarked upon by writers of management bestsellers. Often it may be taken for granted as a fact of life that we can do nothing about.

Yet it is clearly an in-built paradox. The secret of good management (including leadership) is to combine people in a way that makes the whole not only holistic, but greater than the sum of its parts. Then you have real teams or task forces that work, not a motley assembly. We can all see clearly where the opposite happens — when there is too much divergence of interests and jostling for positions of advantage within a group, as in coalition politics.

Consider what we do to young entrants. In any reasonably well organised enterprise, at the time of induction, they are told about the broad goals of the company, its history, values, beliefs and the major do's and don'ts that govern behaviour in the organisation. The bigger the entity, the greater is the weight of the past and the tradition of "doing it our way". Naturally, therefore, the trainee gets a message of an absolute need for conformity and following a pattern.

In the majority of cases, newcomers want first of all to blend, to be accepted. Fairly soon, however, they also notice that all evaluations, feedback and recognition from the bosses are based on relative, individual performance. Thus, it is not enough to achieve one's target, but exceed it; most of all, one has to do better than the person sitting in the next cubicle in order to get ahead. Now, the entrants usually taken in a `batch' have been fed all the while on the need to look out for the team's interests and be team players, collaborating with others so that the departmental head looks good in the eyes of the management — again, in relative terms, compared to the other areas, units or departments. So one learns to live with three different types of expectations: compete for personal reward with the next person, collaborate with him at the same time for the team's benefit, and compete with the other functions or units for top management attention.

No wonder then that the young persons fairly soon exhibit a chameleon-like quality, and learn the art of hiding their thoughts and feelings. They are very circumspect in what they say, especially to `the competition' at meetings where many levels of the company are present. An important customer opinion survey reveals unpleasant facts about the company's service levels, or its attractiveness as an employer, and the first thing the young worker considers is how much to tell whom, and how. Much turmoil and struggle with one's conscience ensues if this person finds that the immediate superior wants it one way, and the next higher-up, another way. And few want the whole truth, let alone nothing but the truth.

Of course, as the years go by, seasoned players work out a balance of some sort, but the point is that the organisation does many things that are contrary to its espoused ideals: transparency, objectivity, professionalism, encouragement to think out of the box, differ with the mainstream view, and so on — all the nice words used when making a presentation to the outside world. It's the same here too — the firm is seen as one's team and the competition is the wider world outside.

Inherently, therefore, the world of organisations tends to foster competitive instincts and bring out the element of rivalry, rather than collaboration. This in itself is no bad thing. Yet, when combined with the attractiveness of substantial rewards attached to `success' it proves a tough combination. It is very easy to see why the kind of corporate wrongdoing that has come to light at the highest levels in international companies becomes `good strategy' so long as it works.

Greed is good and, within limits, actively encouraged and publicly acknowledged with prizes, stock options and many good things of life. So charity of thought or with money could be a weakness. Compassion is sissy, and fairness is all right if it works well for your bonus — not otherwise. The casualty is any attempt at optimising a larger `good' than one's immediate success. Virtues such as learning, innovation and thinking together require a readiness to give-and-take, regardless of whether one gives more or less than what one takes out of any situation or relationship. Therefore altruistic or self-effacing behaviour stands little chance.

This argument is by no means a defence of mediocrity. Striving for individual excellence is a great and laudable goal. The issue is what the implicit demands of the system do to the actual behaviour in getting there. If all personal career progression is strictly based on relative merit, then it follows that one must do everything to put some distance between oneself and the rest of the field. Helping and sharing skills or information with a colleague would be tantamount to sleeping with the enemy! This way of thinking plays havoc with the working atmosphere in the office or factory in many subtle ways and contributes to the well-known phenomenon of burnout and stress. After reaffirming the need to perform individually, it is difficult for any superior to enforce bonding, team building and a sense of belonging.

It is not surprising that increasingly one hears the same refrain from HR managers across industries: young, professionally qualified people work as if they were entrepreneurs selling their time and skills to the highest bidder. "These days young people do not want careers; three years is all they are willing to wait for a substantial progression; otherwise they up and leave. They are only interested in themselves." The younger people actually agree, and see nothing wrong with it.

Perhaps all this is inevitable. It might well be that against a background of widespread scepticism about the value of the firm itself, outsourcing, part-time employment, short careers, double careers — all of these tend to go against the idea of working for anyone other than oneself.

To exaggerate a little, it looks as though we are heading towards a stage where every job and skill will have a price tag on it, and put on the market to the highest bidder. In such a scenario, negotiations and transactions would rule everything. The organisation based on building a suitable work culture would gradually fade into a non-issue. But will this give us a utopia of winners all and no losers?

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Fragrant and unforgettable

Copyright © 2004, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line