Sorry Gallup....people don't really quit their bosses (despite what they tell you)

This is a continuation of my earlier post about why people leave their jobs. As you'll read in that note, I had stated that people leave their jobs as the equation between self-worth and net-worth goes south. From the comments that people left on the post, people seem to believe Gallup's finding that "People leave their managers, not companies".

I disagree.

Some people depend too much on their manager...for both self-worth and net worth. That is what I believe to be true. It's of course, true that one's manager is an important player. However, as I argue below, there are other sources of self-worth and net-worth, and most people would do well to find their true source of joy and wealth.

What brings joy... and satisfaction? You might get your jollies from any of the following people -your colleagues, your family, your community, clients your manager. If you have a bad manager you can just as well defocus from the manager and focus on your clients, for example. Treat the manager as an interesting (and irritating) side-show, and nothing more.

What adds to self-worth? Depending on your personality, your sense of self-worth could depend on your work, your social environment, your ideas (the ecosystem inside your head), and your moods. Maybe you like to engage people in stimulating conversation. Maybe you like to work hard and play hard. There are many things in this list, and the manager is just one of these items.

What adds to your net-worth? There are many ways in which your networth can increase- through your salary, your bonuses, your investments, and even "gifts" from other people. If you are too dependent on your company (and therefore your manager) for your networth, then you will be more sensitive to your manager. On the other hand, if your net-worth increases are not too dependent on your manager's largesse, you may as well not worry about how happy your manager is with your work.

The real question is...How much are you dependent on your manager for your sense of self-worth, and your increases in net-worth? If the dependence is high, you will have to figure out a way to reduce it, by adding other sources.

And now...the obligatory 2x2. Nuff said.

Conference haiku

Sales conferences can cajole unpredictable creativity. Here are my haiku notes:

"Do the math", speakers say
Symbols clash
The gong of predictability

--

Droning on forever, the speakers
Talk while I suppress
A yawn
--

Phone; it buzzes in my pocket
Bringing messages from far
I ignore it

--

Bringing stories of valour
The speakers come;
I vote

--

Around the round table
I sit quietly
Making poems

--

Sitting around a round table
I listen to the presenters
Time froze

--

Why people leave their jobs?

Like I noted earlier, the trickle of friends who have left my company seems to be turning into a torrent (perhaps it just feels that way). This leads me to wonder why people leave companies in the first place.

Like any good consultant, I will present this in the form of a two x two. All you MBAs can relax and feel at home reading this note! ;-)

You'll need to click once on the attached picture to see a larger (and clearer) picture.

My hypothesis is that there is a constant tussle between net-worth and self-worth.

Honeymoon phase: So when people are doing well in a company, and the job is financially rewarding, both net worth and self worth are growing. There's no real reason to leave. Self worth continues increasing as one's capabilities are utilized and extended, and one's social network continues to expand. Companies that give stock options, of course, give a nice little kicker to net-worth too.

"Love my job, the pay sucks" phase: This happens to people who are lucky enough to be in jobs that are intellectually and socially stimulating. You're, like, "I'm lucky that they pay me to do my job". The pay/stocks are in steep decline but, hey, you're learning so much and having so much fun that you don't care. After a while, if the difference between net-worth and self-worth becomes too large, one might consider "being in the market".

Golden Handcuffs phase: The job's a dog, but the money's too good to leave. You might know this tribe as the "retired on the job" brigade. Very popular in bureaucratic companies where incompetence and demotivation can be hidden away for long years. You're not employable elsewhere, and you're too bored to want to leave anyway.

The Dog ate my Job phase: The pay's bad, the stocks are under-water, you hate your colleagues, and you haven't learnt anything in years. You're probably too demotivated to leave, and your self esteem is lower than Radiohead doing "Creep" (lyrics: "I'm a creep, I'm a loser, What the hell am I doing here, I don't belong here." See what I'm saying?!)

Here's the story in the form of a line chart for the visual thinkers.

Many Me's

Personality is usually defined as a relatively enduring set of traits that make an individual unique and produces consistencies in thoughts and behavior. It is, by definition, a static concept. Once a person is known to have A personality, he is expected to show behavior consistent with that personality.

Needless to say, the fact that I am copying a Google definition in my opening paragraph means that I am going to refute it. How predictable, isn't it! ;-)

I think I have the potential to have multiple personalities. No, this isn't an invitation to sign me up for a 10-session-trial-program with a shrink. What I mean to say is that I can display consistent patterns of behavior under different conditions, such that the behavior is inconsistent with my own behavior under other circumstances. Heavy stuff, eh! Let me tell you more...I think all of us have the potential to have multiple stable personalities. Take that to the bank!

Allow me to clarify- Condition 1...sunny California. Condition 2...angry, hot Delhi. Imagine yourself driving down the freeway (or Ring Road, in Delhi), and this jerk in the white SUV cuts into your lane in the front. Under condition 1, I slow down my car, smile at the nice guy in front of me, and think about how the guy is probably in a hurry and needs to get ahead. Under condition 2, the Delhi sun is beating down the roof of the car, the car's puny airconditioning is barely able to keep up, and I am already bristling with anger at the slow pace of the traffic. Now, when this guy cuts ahead, I begin foaming with rage, my forehead prickles with sweat, choice vernacular "colored language" climbs up to the tip of my tongue, and I begin to honk at the insolence of this #$%. I am ready to drive over this guy now.

Same stimulus, different conditions...completely different response. Bay area guy, please meet Delhi guy.

So, in my book, a personality is a SET of consistent behaviors that are stable over time, and may not be at-all consistent with each other.

This is great news, Really! What that means is that if I am able to (1) identify my various personalities, and (2) control which state I am in right now, I will be able to do things far beyond what I do currently.

It's called method acting. Actors do this all the time - they channel completely different personalities by not faking it, but by really feeling the emotions that their characters are going through.

Politicians use this all the time. One time they will channel a benign, charming, baby-kissing personality. Another moment, they will unleash the fires of hell. Check out this photo of a Soviet premier banging his shoe on the UN table. Is that angry, or what?

So what are my stable personality types- let me count the ways. There's the kind and gentle me, the foaming-mad-Delhi-me, the brilliant-ideator-me, the-timid-mouse-me, the-teamplayer-me, the-world-citizen-me, the witty-silent-killer-me, the-kindly-friendly-smiley-me, the-yogi-gyani-me, the-lonely-depressive-me, and the-confused-jetlagged-me. Then there's the Mii I created on my Wii-game-console, but that's not even real!

Be aware, be very aware. I'm now going to be aware of who's playing me at any moment, and why I'm in that particular personality at the moment.

Watch and Think. Then I'm going to see which me would perform best in a given environment/situation. Going to Delhi, but don't want to be mad? Call the "kind and gentle" me. Going to a business meeting, and want to hold the upper hand in the negotiations? Avoid the "timid-mouse" me, and instead invoke the "witty-silent-killer" me.

Switch. Then I'm going to see if I can - through will power - command a different me to take over on demand. Just like snap.

Snap!

Hello there!

110

In case you're wondering about the title, the number 110 in hindi reads exodus.

The long instant
It seems like it has happened suddenly, but really, it has been building up quietly for some time now. Being a long timer in the same company means that one by one all the old timers start to leave to do their own thing. I didn't notice it at first, but it seems like of late there's been a rush to the exit doors. A sudden exodus of departing friends.

Why do we work?
Needless to say, we work for the money. Not really though. We work because it provides us a context to live in, and provides us with lasting relationships and a stream of external stimuli which informs our sense of self. In a sense, where we work defines who we are. Our network of relationships and the constant give and take of this network gives us the energy we need to bring us back into office everyday!

"Friend" shaped hole in my personality
I am defined (even to myself) by the context I operate in. My context is driven by the people around me, and the social web of relationships I have with them, and they have with each other. When an old friend (and one with whom you have had a long history of exchanges) leaves the network, his departure creates a hole in my immediate vicinity. This friend-shaped-hole then brings into question my own sense of self, my identity, and the meaning of my own existence. In other words, it bring out the question "why am I here", here in this company, here in this country, here with these people, here in this life, and here with this new network!

Company of strangers
Not to mention the stress of making friends with strangers, and making sense of this new network of relationships, and remaking my own personality in this new context.

Back to work!

Speed and severity...the fine art of corporate conversations

The downside of being a gentle mannered (though tall and menacing looking, etc) person is that meetings and conversations in the corporate world can happen on different time scales for different participants. Most times, it can be frustrating! Some times, it can be hilarious. Today was one such day...hence this post!

Versus: Person A (the other guy, basically) has the meeting in real-time, where he is expecting a rat-a-tat-a-tat of combative responses and engaging in a game of mind-numbing intensity. Person U (that is, you) is expecting this to be a game played over several meetings, and is therefore not interested in countering any argument in this very meeting - what's the rush, after all this isn't getting solved in a single meeting! Therefore, the meeting looks more like a sitcom situation, with one guy moving at videogame pace, and the other at an elaborate game of strategy - doing a lot of sparring in his mind (cue blurb on the screen) or after the meeting is over (cue meeting flashback and responses from Person U). Twitch speed Versus Chess. Rabbit Versus Tortoise. Twitch Game Versus Turn-based-strategy games.

Culture clash: In an aggressive - and increasingly - alpha male corporate culture, niceness is seen as sign of weakness. In other - more influence oriented - corporate cultures, niceness is celebrated as being a "measured response" and the true signs of an influential leader. Neither is right or wrong, in themselves, but the perspectives and utilities of these responses greatly differs.

Mr. Nice Guy: In my case, my preferred style is the nice-guy style, though I like to come in first! Now, I am increasingly faced with a situation where twitch speed matters more than strategy. Question is, can I fake it or, alternately, add a new personality to my repertoire?

Not just speed, also severity: The issue is not just about speed, but also the severity of response. Being a multi-player game, any response must be measured to have the desired impact on the other party. Now Mr. Nice guy would try to couch things in a way that seeks to maintain the ego of the other party, and look for a synthesis of ideas.

Mr. Twitch, on the other hand, is looking for gains on every transaction, and is therefore looking for one up on every situation. It doesn't matter if the other guy is right - just counter with a severity that the other person cannot comprehend, and is therefore forced to back off. There, another point to Mr. Twitch. Screw you, other guy!

Personality: Of course, tit-for-tat is a great strategy (and apparently the best strategy in iterated prisoners' dilemma type games), but it requires a certain type of personality - one that seems more arrogant, more selfish (or less altruistic), zero sum, and less interested in synthesis, "convergence" and "emergence".

Question is, can I fake the twitching, while keeping the nice guy interior? That's the fine art of corporate conversations that I have to master!

Spring wuz here!

Here's a few photos of spring flowers at home!