Training Future Leaders

When we were setting up Punjab Micro Circuits and Research Laboratories (PMCRL) one thing that was uppermost in my mind was that we could not afford to fail. Failure was not an option not only because no one sets out to achieve that goal but also because I had already messed up two earlier projects. It was, I felt, my last chance. All three promoters of the Company were FGEs (First generation entrepreneurs) and not one was a management graduate. This was a good thing and a bad thing but mostly a good thing. It was a good thing because we were not bound by any academic constraints or restricting management principles, and bad because we spent too much time in unstructured discussions and lost vital time. Many a time I wondered if our great effort will one day be likened to the exploits of the three musketeers tilting at wind mills. So I can understand exactly what Google co-founder Larry Page meant when he said in a recent 'Fortune' interview, "You have this fear of failing and of doing something new, which is very natural. In order to do stuff that matters, you need to overcome that."

There are so many areas to work on when you are building an organization from a scratch. There were a dozen government and financial Organisations to liaise with, a deadline to be met, and fifteen odd employees- who will grow to over a hundred by the time the project is implemented- to be coordinated into a cohesive team when all you have by way of an office is the boot of your car. The car, more often than not, also doubled as the conference room, office and even bedroom. You need to be creative at such times not only when it comes to creating new ways of getting work done but also to find solutions to day to day challenges and improve performance both at work and at home. Our experience proved that creativity suffers when people are shackled with fear while the only way to overcome fear is action.

The lessons we learnt while setting up the company laid the foundation of our organizational policy designed to support integration of work and personal life. Executing the project we were all very stressed and excited at the same time but no one was scared of doing new things because no one, feared being reprimanded. Absence of fear was the result of trust that was slowly built in that motley team. Every one knew that all of us were focused on successful implementation of the project and whatever decision anyone took was with the intention of achieving our goal. We all made our share of mistakes but no one doubted anyone's intentions or commitment to the project. We followed the epithet, 'do what ever it takes to insure success as long as it is ethical.'
When I look back and think I feel we were able to maintain a better work-life balance back then, when we had no systematic organizational policy designed to support integration of work and personal life, than now- twenty eight years later- despite a persistent well meaning HR team to inspire employees to take advantage of it. The reason in all likelihood was that we were all absolutely clear about what we had to achieve and there was deadline to meet. The team was not only aware of the collective goal which was to start commercial production by a set deadline but everyone was aware of the responsibilities of other team members. Communication was the key. Everyone was 'Listening' to everyone else and information flew up, down and laterally and more often than not more than once. Each one was willing to help the other. No one took a chance or assumed anything. There were, in the beginning, no rules about reporting at a given time or spot. There was no starting time no closing time and no office building. If we did not see someone for a week we knew he was as busy as a beaver trying to meet a deadline or is taking time off with his family having finished his allotted work for that period. We beat the final deadline for starting trial run by two weeks and partied like Rockstars.
Over time I noticed we slowly relapsed in a more structured less productive phase where most people were more conscious about the right amount of time spent at office than showing results despite a very liberal HR policy in place promoting work life balance and self regulation. I am certainly not suggesting that enhanced structuring always leads to less productivity. But it is intriguing and worth an enquiring why don't more employees use the resources offered by their companies, as we did, to enjoy a better more joyous time with their families or friends? What stops them from playing a more active role in their communities and organise their own social do's despite encouragement from policies? One reason I found was the lack of trust between the team leaders and their team, between managers and other employees. The other was sheer laziness on part of managers in trying more liberal attitudes in allowing employees to take decisions on matters that concern their work life balance. It was easier to be strict.

Don't throw the baby out with the water
Whenever I have run a company- and I have run a few and some successfully too- I have experimented with flexible work arrangement because of the fruitful experience I had while setting up PMCRL. People were free to leave after finishing their work for the day and work after hours if there was work unfinished. Yet people would finish their work and keep sitting idle in office but refused to go back home, perhaps because they were afraid they will be identified as not committed to the company if they did not dedicate the requisite "face time" that tradition demands; Some simply feared their boss would say "no" to their going despite clear company policy not to retain anyone after their work for the day was finished. Of course there were cases where some employees misused the facility and would leave despite pending work. But such people were few and such cases far between. They were normally not tough to discipline. Yet there were instances when our managers took too harsh a view too quickly and withdrew the facility from everyone in their department. This created confusion between departments following the rule and others that did not. Confusion is one of the toughest things to work with. The problem was that such managers followed a whim rather than the principle. A desirable long term goal was given up for short term convenience. It was easier to be strict and conventional.
Mostly department heads withdrew the concession rather than take on the onerous task of effectively communicating to their departments the responsibility that went along with the facility. Managers and leaders in the organisation must not grudge the facility employees are allowed. Once the facility is allowed it is their right not a privilege as long as they earn it- every day. This means they understand the responsibility every privilege or right entails. The act of the Managers who take the easier way out and withdraw the facility is akin to throwing the baby out with the water. Change takes time. It takes patience and it takes a big heart on the part of the leader.

Helping employees overcome suspicion
On the other end of the spectrum the un-policed employees suddenly treated with a lot of respect feel suspicious and sometimes even guilty. They think why are they being treated so well? What have they done to be treated with so much respect and trust? In the absence of similar experience of being treated with dignity and trust at work, school or college, they are a bit bewildered and could ask themselves, ' Is there a trap here? Why do we deserve this increased flexibility and discretion?'. The impatient managers who ideally should be the agents of change, feeling the policy is too quixotic give up before trust is built and before giving change a chance. The result is that nothing changes. We need to give change a chance. Trust building is a process and can sometimes take a bit longer to build . We need to be patient and give it time.

Relevance in Business Schools - Helping students overcome fear
Relevance of helping students overcome the fear of trying something new cannot be overemphasized. Years of cognitive study and spoon feeding at schools colleges and other cram shops has numbed their curiosity and dampened their appetite for initiative. They seem all set to become programmed answering machines. Any attempt to treat them as responsible adults and thinking young men and women confuses them. Sadly, there is unbelievable disbelief in their response when treated with respect and dignity. Their body language suggests they do not expect that treatment. They seem to ask, "Are we really being encouraged to be completely responsible for our actions and behaviour? Does this teacher really want us to be independent and fearless and own our own lives? You mean I can actually take my own decisions on my strengths and weaknesses and design my own strategy to improve myself? I don't believe this. Is there a trap here?” That is the bad news. The good news is they do begin to come around after an year or so of trust and confidence building. Slowly they begin to realise that they have to take responsibility and be independent and proactive to succeed not only while at the business school but also in life. The main job of the faculty is to help these youngsters make the transition from being dependent to becoming independent. Only an independent proactive person can contribute positively and fit into an interdependent flat world.
We need to begin to treat management students like responsible and independent adults for them to have a chance to become efficient managers who are capable of managing change and achieving significant goals. Management school faculty has a special responsibility in achieving this desirable goal. Their responsibility is not restricted to delivering lectures, marking papers and generating reports. Their involvement will have to extends much beyond that if we have to turn out managers and leaders who can play a decisive role in bringing about the intrinsic socioeconomic change which is essential if India has to play a dominant role in the future world order. That will requires a long term vision, a well thought out strategy and patient execution of a dynamic plan. It is also essential that the faculty and administrative staff share and communicate the vision with all stake holders. The faculty has to take the lead and the efforts of the administrative staff have to be synergistic. All effort of the administrative staff has to be to assist the faculty to achieve desired results. Yet in most business schools and professional colleges the faculty is seen to take the backseat. Is it because it is easy to take the back seat and easier to be strict?