I post some points at random for a change. Yet they are from recent experience. Do post comments if you take the time to read this.
1.
Performance witch-hunts: I recently
co-facilitated a World Café for SHRM India’s Knowledge Advisory group. When I
heard the unadulterated vehemence with which seasoned Chief Learning Officers
opined the destructive potential of Performance Management systems, I knew that
short-termism had a thrill component for the few, for whom many pay the price
today.
Capitalists are out for their pound of dough – their professional managements had invented the performance appraisal process to track down pliable culprits. Thousands and may be millions of employees get neither golden handshakes, nor any word of comfort to satisfy their bosses’ bell-curves whose depiction in board-rooms begs for more of such whistles. According to the latest Glassdoor ratings, only 20% of employees of such companies in India approve of their chief executives. Performance itself has no credibility, never mind the wizards and witches who summon its effects.
Capitalists are out for their pound of dough – their professional managements had invented the performance appraisal process to track down pliable culprits. Thousands and may be millions of employees get neither golden handshakes, nor any word of comfort to satisfy their bosses’ bell-curves whose depiction in board-rooms begs for more of such whistles. According to the latest Glassdoor ratings, only 20% of employees of such companies in India approve of their chief executives. Performance itself has no credibility, never mind the wizards and witches who summon its effects.
2.
Whole-person engagement: When the word ‘human’ is mentioned, its embodiment
is often a mystery. To be human is to err. To be human is to suffer. To be
human is to be humble. The word ‘resource’ on the other hand signifies means to
an end. Resources produce value. They defy simple arithmetic and leap to
geometric progression. Resources are expendable, as they are limited. Human
resources are therefore to my mind a wonderful contradiction. Getting the best
of both words is like getting to know the depths of each connotation. The ‘whole’
person needs to immerse in the experience of knowing the other. Apparently
idealistic, several who walk this planet cannot even hope to conceive of the
feat that Felix Baumgartner did with his taming of claustrophobia to personally
whizz past the speed of sound.
3.
Inconsistencies in leadership thinking : Leadership is often construed as a way in
which some unequal force will sway over or influence many others to do what
they would not consider doing by themselves. What follows is that there is a
certainty of followership. I am seriously beginning to wonder if what
followership is – is a consequence of leadership itself. Confused? Well, put in
another way, a construct such as leadership may be so conceived that
other attributes of close association may in fact be so overlooked that we develop a myth in favor of a select few who subsume power that we
need never have given them. What then, if this was not leadership, but the charity of the followers' perspectives? And if it were not charity, what if it were a spontaneous trust in the idea than the person(s) who communicate(s) it?
4.
Purpose Rising above Polarities : If
the American presidential debate season in 2012 was something to go by, I saw a
President tired from office, than tired of it. In his ascendancy in 2008, Barack
Obama had a higher purpose coalesced from the fusion of Reagonomics AND Social Justice. Today, he finds it difficult
to raise the level of the debate.
Office has ruined clarity in his perceptions. It has locked his perceptual field. A more ‘perfect' Union may still be underway, but the script belied the process in 2012. He may have done better by taking time to engage with the 4 Independents in the fray to keep the electorate hopeful for a fresh bout of his term. Having had to appear the ‘confrontationist’, the debate lay low and perhaps made the electorate less mindful of issues that needed intimate engagement.
Office has ruined clarity in his perceptions. It has locked his perceptual field. A more ‘perfect' Union may still be underway, but the script belied the process in 2012. He may have done better by taking time to engage with the 4 Independents in the fray to keep the electorate hopeful for a fresh bout of his term. Having had to appear the ‘confrontationist’, the debate lay low and perhaps made the electorate less mindful of issues that needed intimate engagement.
Well, what do you think?
The New Yorker provides a view to Obama's candidacy and is surely more rooted in context than my views of random nature.Catch the full article here http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/10/29/121029taco_talk_editors .
ReplyDelete