Building a Career!

What are next roles I want to work towards?

Well! That's not very difficult to figure out. I can rattle off 2-3 roles that come on top of my mind.

But is identifying and working towards roles an opportune/resourceful way to build a career?

Recently, I came across an alternative approach that resonated with me.

Think of your career in terms of a combination of skills and experiences.

 

What skills and experiences do you want in your next role/s?

I see an advantage of approaching building careers in this fashion.

Thinking of next role gets us fixated on role. We sometimes stop identifying and even evaluating alternatives. Coveted roles are limited and number of contestants are high.

On other hand, when we approach building careers in terms of skills and experiences, we become receptive to a number of opportunities - some of it not obviously apparent.

We might be able to identify emerging opportunities. We might land up identifying multiple opportunities.

A career as a portfolio of skills and experiences! And experiences being much more than just identified roles!

Subsequent question obviously is 'What skills and experiences do you want in your next roles?’  Obviously you will look at what are your career goals in long term, what skills and experiences you want to work towards in medium term, and what skills and experiences you already have.

I refer back to my belief in ‘intentionality’ - ‘ It’s necessary we intentionally and smartly build our portfolio of skills and experiences'

-
Sourav

 

The Plant and The Machine!

He asked me 'Will he move out? He is the one who has built this team from scratch to where it's now.'

I tried sensing emotion behind the question. Was it a feeling of attachment, of fear, or of discomfort?

I thought it was a combination of all emotions.

The person who was moving out was struggling with his own emotions. He asked me 'Is this a message to me? Am I not doing well?'

I felt for him. But I sensed the need for a change of guard.

He had built the business to a certain size. He had 'seeded' an industry at its nascent stages. He had made saplings sprout and overseen their growth to a healthy and beautiful plant

There was enough opportunity now to make plant grow to a tree. Essentially, market was poised for explosive growth. But same skills that had held him in good stead in ramp up stage threatened his success in explosive growth stage.

Soon a new leader came in. His style was diametrically opposite to previous leader.

No more was there space for experiments and pilots. Everything had to be done on a large scale. Feedback style changed to more direct and less encouragement.

It felt less like a lab/playground and more like a war machine.

We knew what we wanted to achieve and we will get it!

Did we succeed? We seem to be on the right path.

Was leadership change necessary?

Well. I don't know.

At this time, I am left with a few observations/questions:

• Do we typecast 'preference' as 'strengths' and exclude possibility of leader being able to use learned (non-preferred) behavior too?
• Plant and Machine are roles appropriate to different growth stages of a team/business. Different roles can be played by same person. But at times it may be necessary to change leadership too.
  I relate more to a plant than to a machine. At same time I feel there is a lot to learn in the machine mode.
• Sometimes a leader is impatient to make an impact. It is important to guide the leader's energy in right direction. It's possible that when one has a hammer everything looks like a nail.

-
Sourav

Differences!

A year back I told myself 'I am starting a race on a new track after a long time. Corners and turns may be different. I will just classify differences as different and stay away from associating value judgments with them.'

Have I been successful in my attempts?

I was successful in the first few months. I noticed differences. I discussed them out. At places I could make environment adopt to my style/needs. At other places i had to understand the environment and eco-system. There were instances when I didn't have an immediate resolution but a solution seemed possible in near future.

 A year down the line, a few differences have become sticky issues. There are certain places where priority of values for environment and for me is different. There are a few places where I perceive environment to be of a certain type but other stake holders don't seem to perceive it so -probably they are don´t see what I see.

How do I handle this situation? I am sometimes tempted to classify these sticky differences as bad. But then I hold on to my initial stance- ´what's different is just different. It's not necessarily bad!´

I think it's time to revisit differences map I had created a few months back. I then need to figure out my coping strategy- how exactly am I going to cope with some of the value priority differences that I encounter at work.

I remember what Charles Handy had said in one of his books - we rely on a faulty assumption that the organization will serve all our needs

It's time to think creatively again and use Handy's inverse doughnut philosophy.

 

-
Sourav

 

 

Strengths and Weaknesses

What do you work on -your strengths or weaknesses?

If you were to believe in development school of thought, then you should work on identifying and plugging your development needs.

If you were to believe in strengths school of thought, then you should capitalize on your strengths to plug your gaps.

Strengths school of thought appeals more to me - Let´s capitalize on our strengths!

But then there are times when I stumble across a blind spot of mine  - a movement from unconscious incompetence to conscious competence in learning stages.

In such times I wonder 'I didn't know till now that this was my blind spot. In past, have my strengths covered for these blind spots? Maybe! I don't know! But I could have had made more effective use of my time/resources if I had known my weaknesses'.

So Yes! We should leverage our strengths. But we should also attempt to be aware of our weaknesses.

This will enable us to use our strengths more appropriately and effectively.

-
Sourav

Short Term!

'When did I start work on this project? Seems like a long time back. How long back was it? Hmmm. .wait...hold on! I started work on it in early October. That's just a month back. That's not long back! ....or… is it not?'

I have gone through this chain of thoughts on a number of occasions over last few months.

I wonder 'what's different?' Short term isn't really feeling like short term.

There is a lot of action in my job, for sure. I'm doing work on

• designing & driving programs, &
• creating frameworks and setting up teams.

Number of variables and stake holders I am working with are high.

Maybe it is a phase- I am learning tricks of trade here and/or I am working on creating a number of atleast 1 year agendas.

But still October can't feel so long back!

I sense 'performance every quarter' focus prevalent in most publicly listed companies is at play here. Every quarter we must show a green performance.

Over a period of time every quarter starts feeling like a mini year.

But then the challenge also is to balance this reality with need for a longer term view needed for most people initiatives.

I'll make an assumption here.  Least count required to make an impact in most people initiatives is atleast one year.

Keeping our eye on one year horizon while meeting quarter performance numbers is important.

-

Sourav

 

Mentoring and Coaching

What feels more empowering - being told the answer or being told how to find the answer?

I will go for the ´how´. My natural inclination is go to for the ´how´. Knowing the how increases my capability to deal with similar situations in the future.

What's the flip side of this approach? It usually takes longer to find the solution and usually involves repetitions/ iterations.


What do you do when there is a time crunch (need for quick action) or when cost of failure is high or when ecosystem is such that a lot of pre-knowledge is required to figure out how things work?

I think a combination of the answer and how to find the answer, in the future, might be beneficial in such cases.

Hence both mentoring and coaching have their place in organizations. 

I don´t think it´s a question of which approach is better.  Rather the question is 'which approach is more appropriate in a particular situation'.

-
Sourav

Bell Curves and Identities!

Visualize you are having  one of your best periods or year at work!

Things are going well for you. You are stretching but enjoying. You are getting the results. Your teammates are also doing a damn good job. It's a successful and energizing workplace.

At end of year, you are told your performance doesn't meet expectations!

Well! Are you taken aback? 

In all probability you must have been.

Obviously, the Bell Curve and relativity is at play here. :)

It doesn't matter how well you perform; what matters is how well you perform relative to others!
 

This seems to be true in most of our institutions -schools, colleges, and workplaces.

It does make logical sense to say that we are upping the bar of performance and there are consequences for those who are at bottom of stack.

But logical from whose perspective? The organization´s!

What kind of an emotional impact might this have on employees? Will employees relate to organizations?- they might if the tide is with them -everyone wants be a rating 1 but no one wants to be a rating 5:).

Think of a family or a friends circle where the least effective member´s membership in family/circle is in question at the end of the year. 

What kind of an emotional response or a preventive mindset might that lead to ?

In companies, over a period of time the emotional relationship/identification will possibly be more with one's team members/work, etc and lesser with the organization.
 

Probably that's why, with the advent of Bell curves in organizations, the focus has shifted from loyalty (to organizations) to employability (of one's career).
 

Does organization lose? i don't think so!
 

Do employees lose? 

Over a period of time they might realize what's at play- they might choose to still put in discretionary efforts- but that will be for reasons beyond performance based incentive.They might also choose to be loyal to a particular organization - but that will be because his/her employability or other needs is being taken care of adequately.

Is there a better alternative possible?

Well! For that we first need to find an alternative to bell curves :).

-
Sourav