Ownership Ensures A Good Night's Sleep

Ownership today has become the fad among young generation of employees. Before joining an Organization the first thing they would want to know is how much space is available for ownership to blossom. Gone are the days when employees would keep requiring running to their bosses and seniors for approval of every step they need to take, or every procedure they need to begin with. Gone are the days when there would be one man calling all the shots. For if somebody did that today, the employee would consume hardly any reaction time and next thing that would land up is a resignation and a brighter future elsewhere.

So why has ownership replaced all measures of motivating an employee to give in their best. Why it is today that money and incentives do not derive equal pleasure and ensure a good night’s sleep as much as ownership does?

Today every person is eyeing to be an entrepreneur by their own means in some way or the other. Every induction in an Organization when somebody from the top management ask, “How many of you see yourself as future CEO’s of an Organization” instantly 70% of the crowds have their hands shot out! Even if 20% of them do not really know what it may take to be there, 25% may halt their dreams out of securing job and realizing it’s not their cup of tea, 15% may begin with something but never finish it due to early setbacks and out of the rest 10%, hardly 3% end up as CEO’s! So why is there this horde of people wanting to be the man who has the power and influence to turn tables for an Organization?

It’s all about the ability to be given enough freedom to do what they love doing. It’s about getting that space of their own where they can invent, innovate, experience, jump in joy and lie low in setbacks. It’s about feeling these moments of life on a personal account basis. Why should they let somebody else rule their chances of growth and learning?

In times like this Organizations have evolved to be smarter species and many people have edged themselves one level up compared to the EQ status of their employees. Ownership yes is provided but a controlled one. Employees get their share of responsibilities and much beyond than the actual deal of Job Description for the profile. Of course enrichment of profile is something that makes an employee gloat in content, however a controlled ownership would mean: one being free to gather all resources on their own, work out measures and strategies of approaching the issue, study the repercussion of the procedure that would soon be implemented; but just before the employee can go ahead with the grand plans – he ought to tell his superior about it. Here is where all the clipping happens, strategies are realigned to the business goals and the grand plans are modified to the superiors’ line of thought. Plus a good enough reason/feedback is rarely or never given to the employee. Resultant – the very happy an employee some time back, is not so amused now. However convincing the clippings may sound, however at the end of the day one needs to keep getting back to the management / superior for approval on matters. We have an unhappy employee now, who feels his freedom of action is curbed and encroached upon. It won’t be long when he would be at loggerheads with his superior and the Organization as a whole. It won’t be long before he would begin detaching himself with the excitement about working on something. A slow deterioration in his efficiency and performance would be strong indicators of a likely hop.

So for all managers and superiors who have at certain times practiced controlled ownership, time to think whether they can trust the instincts of enthusiastic employees and believe in their capabilities? Of course clearly mentioning the goals of the Organization before hand and how they plan to achieve it, before all work is done and then people sit and decide whether the new model suits them. Or continue with the age old hierarchy system of reporting, process flow model and operations.

Recruit to Stagnate?

One of the major reasons why our companies face high level of attrition is because of the fact that their job profiles are not commensurate to their individual capabilities / qualifications they possess (This expression was made vocal by 994 respondents in a survey called ‘A Study On Engineering Students Expectations From Their Prospective Employers’, under the section ‘Top 5 Parameters Respondents Consider While Selecting Their Prospective Employers’). Either they join organizations at some point of time because they need a job in hand, to begin with something. Just like ‘A bird in hand is worth none’! Or they are qualified to do something else; however they are placed at completely unrelated departments with the bright promise that, one day they would surely be shifted there, under the mask of job rotation. Though one cannot fully discredit the job rotation process, since it’s a tried, tested and proved methodology of understanding each other’s business and deliverable schemes. However anything short of 2 weeks at a station spells disaster. Here comes the question in every new employee or existing employee’s mind – ‘Are we making a difference and doing meaningful roles for the organization?’ This dilemma was well defined in Gautam Ghosh’s ‘Recruit For a Cause Not a Role’.

Are recruiters just busy filling in the headcounts for a department and finishing their job, or do they bother to stop and think – does this guy belong in here? Problems are similar for both manufacturing and IT companies, each having a share of woes to such issues of an unsatisfied employer putting down the papers. People go for their 9 – 5 jobs, complete their responsibilities and by evening their CV’s are floating all over the Internet, from day 1.

There was this guy at a manufacturing organization, a fresher straight out of college whose flair for mechanics and machines made him an enthusiastic candidate. However 5 months down the line he put down his papers. The reason he cited was that he was very confident of opening a Xerox shop and handling prints, but for mechanical he would have to start all over again.

A similar example from an IT company, where one guy was particularly fond of .NET technology; however he was placed under the SAP wing. Three years down the line, he was an adept at SAP, and respected for his skills; and just then he was shifted under the .NET wing. He had to start all over and it seemed 3 years went a waste!

There are individuals waiting to master skills and contribute in the growth of an organization. They want to unleash their enthusiasm in belonging to a company and doing their bit. But are we recruiting to stagnate or do we have better career plans in our minds for our employees?

Breaking The Hierarchy - Serving Water To Guests

An office set-up is considered, whereby some guests have come for liaison purpose. The cabin of the Head of the Department is where the guests are seated. Outside the cabin are seated 6 subordinates [ranking executives], 1 computer operator and 1 project trainee. There are 2 peons allotted to the dept. however both of them aren't available in the vicinity, as have been sent around for Xerox and dispatching mail.

Water bottles aren't kept in the cabins, but rather in a closet at the corner of the far end of the room; where the peon keeps all the material for serving purpose, and prepares tea etc. So the cutlery too is placed there, as well as jug of water and glasses. Anybody wants water, calls out to the peon who carries glasses in trays.

Now when no peon is around to serve anything, one of the guests gets thirsty. And the Head asks one of the subordinates to get water inside.

The structure and hierarchy of boss-subordinate and peons levels are so strong, that certain type of work is said to be allotted; and somebody else cannot do the job or is considered below dignity!

In this case what can be done? Let the subordinate executive bring water / or ask the computer operator [since he's in the lowest bracket of designations] / or wait for the peon to return and let the guest go thirsty till then?

Well say the computer operator is asked by a new executive who recently joined the organization, to take water for the guests. Surprisingly it creates quiet a furor, and invites wrath from the other executives stating that the Computer Operator shouldn't have gone. Rather we should have waited for the peon to arrive [that's another matter the peon came after 30 mins]!

The case-let is brought forth to analyze how should we deal with the set hierarchy in the organization. How do we instill a sense of ownership, which makes every employee contribute in the smallest of the ways to the organizations health and growth. About just not talking of Equity among employees, but about taking measures for employees to feel it in the air. About making the organization more flat; so that such trivial issues do not contribute in becoming a water cooler moment!

On querying several people about the case-let; they came up with various suggestions; some of which have been described below:

Ms. Shikha Singh: Just start keeping a tray with 3-4 glasses of water in the cabin. Much ado about nothing.

Mr. Simhan: This is the problem of hierarchical demarcation. I for one (having worked abroad for over 40 years) would not have bothered if my boss had requested me to serve the 'guests', that's what the visitors are. Soon people change their attitude the better. What would we do, if the house-help was not there and the guests had to be served a drink? Would we not serve it ourselves? If I were the boss and felt that there was a hierarchy, would have got up and gone and fetched the water myself and set an example for others.

Mr. Parthasarthi: Self service and vending machine will be the best option in this case. Serving guest is not matter of dignity is matter of courtesy. People must take this as humanitarian angle instead of formal approach. Not serving guest is bad etiquettes and people who are stubborn with hierarchy are not fit to become employee if they do not exhibit good etiquettes whatever position he may enjoy in the company.

Ms. Asha Mathew: I tried being in the scene and as a person who is asked to serve water. What I would do is, pull the tray, place a few drinking glasses on it. Keep the jug separate, and arrange all this on a tray and ask the guests to feel free to help themselves. On the whole - I would just pull a table in front of them, with all the things on top of it. If you are asking on how to make the Organization more flat with certain tasks - it must flow from the top! I may feel bad to serve water to the guests, but if I one day happen to see my boss doing it with no hesitation - then I might as well learn that from him.

Ms. Preeti: I suggest keeping water bottles for each and every one. This will help in avoiding future disputes. Secondly if the Head is really a gentleman he should have not minded to get up, to take glass of water for himself and as well as for guest. There is nothing bad in serving glass of water or cup of coffee to your colleague or visitors. Only thing is people working there should be mature enough to understand the things. Instead of saying it low level work you should be confident enough saying that you have done something nice. In most of the MNC companies nowadays there is no office boys they do there work by themselves. It depends how one takes the things, if you think in negative manner you will feel that you have done something that wasn’t your job.

Mr. K.M.P. Singh: The Head has to be rational and the executive has to think the way the boss is ordering. In my opinion, giving a glass of water to the guest is not an issue but most important the way he orders. It is just matter of delegating the duties to the peons and it must be kept in mind that at least one peon has to be available at all the time.

To summarize the whole of the case-let, indeed many of us would agree that it has nothing to do with making the organization flat, but more with how we decide to breed culture within the organization and setting an example by being one. Yes the Head of the Department could have himself gone and fetched water, infact he did have an extra glass in his cabin. But on benefit of doubt even if he forgets the same, and some third person brings it who's not the peon shouldn't really kick up much dust from other on-looking executives.

The best reason of looking at it is the employees/executives to a certain level do not feel the essence of ownership of the organization. For them it means the organization belongs to somebody else but themselves. Maybe if we could develop on this idea along with structuring a healthy culture; a flat organization won’t really be much of a dream.

To read the comprehensive details/responses of/to the case-let, visit here.