He’s a bad boy. He’s a bad student. These are statements that we
heard as we grew up. Often used and heard in schools, these are statements that
typecast an individual and templated stimuli and responses. At the workplace,
it was “Oh, he doesn’t fit into the team” or “he is a bad worker”. Though
profound in its content, intent and impact these are not sparingly used.
What makes a person say this? Why should a person be branded as
bad? What leads to such a branding? Understanding the causes leading to the
statement from both sides can unlock major issues in human resource management.
Does anyone really want to be bad? Nobody deliberately
tries to become bad. Self-esteem and the need to be recognised and appreciated
is inherent to human existence. Said, unsaid, each and every person wants to be
the best in whatever situation he or she is in. It is a different fact that he
or she may not make such a statement or indicate such an intent, but deep
within every individual wants to excel and be recognised. Being bad is against
the very grain of human existence. If somebody has become bad he or she has
been driven to it or assigned that role.
A bad student, is likely to be the manifestation of a large number
of contributing factors. It could be a combination of poor teaching, inability
of understanding what is being taught, inability to put across or apply what
has been understood. It could also be aided by physiological and psychological
issues which may need to be addressed by experts. Branding the youngster bad
would effectively close the doors of future on the person. A so-called bad
worker is, most likely, the result of poor recruitment and selection process or
a product of inefficient, ineffective and insensitive human resource management
protocols of the organisation. For all we know, we may be having the right man
at the wrong place. I’m sure the person branded bad at work, would qualify as
the best father, as the best husband, the best friend and such many other bests.
A “bad” at one place necessarily need not be “bad” at every place. Such an
occurrence is extremely rare and if it happens that individual may require
urgent expert care.
Having led teams of varying sizes in different locations on
different tasks, over 36 years, I have never come across a single individual
who was inherently a bad man, bad worker or a misfit by default. It cannot be a
coincidence. One cannot stretch the run of luck for 36 years, over varying
geographical locations, with people of from all backgrounds and regions. I’m
not discounting the innumerable HR problems that I have faced. I have had
issues, some of them very major, that required me to pull in all the resources
at my disposal. But, these I realised were issues that stemmed from perception
differences and interpersonal issues. Dealing with the situation “one on one”
with that individual produced amazing results. We have together achieved what
people said was impossible. At the end of my career spanning 36 years, I carry
with me the satisfaction of having worked with people, each one a genius,
giving the team more than his or her best. Commencing our relationships purely
on a professional plane we ended up with strongly cemented interpersonal
bonding.
Despite the hierarchical structure that exists amongst us I still
continue to enjoy the warmth regards and respect of my teammates. Since I
believed strongly that there is not a single individual intrinsically wanting
to be bad, I never took inputs on personal qualities whenever I took charge of
a team. Given the requisite professional and technical wherewithal, I
feel that interpersonal relations remain the bedrock on which a team will
perform. It is possible for the leader to draw the best from his teammates
provided he or she knows the fundamentals of drawing out the best.
It is human nature for an individual to be focused on four
fundamental aspects. These are “Survival”, “Sustenance”, “Success” and
“Sublimation”. Let us call it, the “4S”. These are in line with “Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs”.
Survival is innate to any living being. Thus, it is natural for
the individual to ensure his or her survival whatever be the costs. It will
remain the closest and fiercely guarded short-term goal of every individual.
There may be exceptions where individuals become unmindful of their survival. I
have led men into life-threatening situations while clearing dangerous
explosives. I have seen them walking into danger without a second thought. For
the uninitiated, it is contrary to survival instincts. It is not so. The
individuals involved in clearing explosives were putting their survival at risk
for survival of a bigger lot. Everyone in the team understood and knew that
individual survival was the output of collective inputs of expertise and
commitment. Thus, every individual was assured of his survival due to the
efforts of others. As one walked into danger, he was sure that others were
worried as much about his survival as he is. Every member of the team
subordinated, his or her survival instinct to the need for the team’s survival.
In such a scenario, there is no bad team member. The reader must not feel, that
every member in the team is equally motivated to begin with. Behavioural issues
like jealousy, anger, anxiety, prejudices and so many such parameters do play
their role. But these slowly giving way to more exciting and rewarding
collective goals. The pace at which teaming is done depends on the leader.
Once survival has been assured, individual starts looking for
sustenance. Sustenance manifests as accruals that assure him or her of growth
within the organisation. The individual will naturally be aware of the
differentials in capabilities and potentials amongst the team. Unprejudiced
assessment of efforts and rewards considered just an unbiased do not create
resentment. It is important to create an atmosphere where an individual is
assured of his or her sustenance. There is no magic formula that can be applied
to achieve it. The subordinate must feel and sense that he or she is not being
discriminated against and someone else is receiving undue preferential
treatment.
Success is defined differently by each individual. It is very
difficult for the organisation to make an individual feel that he or she is
successful. However, the organisation can play a positive and proactive role in
an individual’s assessment of his personal success. As soon as the individual
feels that the organisation has a significant role in the success achieved so
far, he or she would treat the organisation differently. Individual success may
not be confined solely to his rise in hierarchy in the organisation. The
organisation contributes in so many different ways to an individual’s
well-being progress and success. The superior would have to find ways to subtly
make an individual realise the positive contributions made by the organisation
in the success achieved by the individual.
Who doesn’t want to be immortalised? In every human mind, there is
a seed of sublimation. It is not without reason that HW Longfellow, in his
poem, “Psalm of Life”, said, “we can make our lives sublime”. As soon as the
sense of belonging to the cause or organisation overwhelms the individual
beyond his personal needs he or she is ready to step into the sublime world.
Foot-soldiers, front - line leaders, backstage planners, each and every one can
sublime. It just needs the right environment, motivation and appropriate
leadership.
The next time, we feel like calling somebody bad, hold your breath
check back whether we have contributed to that individual being branded bad.
Nobody in his or her right senses can be bad.
