Territories

I saw the dog playing in my garden and the first thought that came to me was, "How did this dog get in?" I then saw that our gates were open. I was reminded of something that I had read, "Does the breeze ask you your caste or religion before touching you? Does the migratory bird worry about which country's airspace it violates? Does the cloud look at which country it is floating above before dropping rain?" All these territories are man-made. The dog did not understand it at all. Funny, because even the dog marks its own territory and if anyone is anywhere near it, it will growl or bark. Despite that, this dog didn't understand any other markings.

Man made these territories so that s/he could live in peace with neighbours. But most wars have been fought over territories. Most of the tensions that we see in Asia today are again on who owns the oceans and what are territorial waters. There are issues with airspace violations. There have been instances where civilian air-crafts have been shot down for violation of airspace killing hundreds of people. So, apart from dividing up land, we divided up water and space too. And, despite marking all these territories, we seem to be at loggerheads with each other constantly.

Human behavior is amazing and varied. You also see this behavior of territory in organizations. Whilst this is an issue in all organizations, it is especially acute in large organizations. We do try and ensure that roles and responsibilities are clearly laid out. However, in large organizations, we typically notice redundant organizations, duplication of efforts and all these cause confusion on accountability. It also causes territorial issues. I have seen that typical human behavior is to make use of this confusion and actually not take accountability.  More so, if the organization is not meetings its targets.

"The business schools reward difficult complex behavior more than simple behavior, but simple behavior is more effective." Warren Buffett.  This is especially true in large organizations and more complex multi-national organizations. I have seen people wanting to "own" certain types of work or certain teams and will go to any length to get it going. To a large extent this happens when they want to increase the spend budget or revenue budget under themselves. What I have noticed is that this is done so that they can survive either at their existing level or they go and ask for a promotion stating that their accountability has increased.  This is also done at times to protect the budgets under them if some part of their organization is taken away from them due to re-organization.  The problem stems from the basic fact that the size of a role or job is measured by the Cost or Revenue that the role/job supports. So, the larger the cost or revenue under the job, the bigger will the size of the job be. Eg. if you are a Vice President, you must have $x of budget under you (either cost or revenue). If that comes down, someone will question as to why you are at the level of a VP. So, what happens if that  sizing is under threat? You will immediately try to increase it (so that you can continue to remain a VP) and that is where territorial behaviours come in. 

"Most bad behavior comes from insecurity." Debra Winger. This is so true. When the sizing of your role is under threat, you behaviours change and you want to add to the dimension of your role.  I have also seen many leaders making a grab for business lines to bring in revenue streams under them. This is more so where they are just cost centres and want to become profit centres.

Over the years, I have found that it is best to get out of this paradigm and also get your teams to get out of this paradigm. Yet, despite this, you still have to manage the Human Resources Policies that are driven by this paradigm. Why do they have this way of measurement? Because, there are not many other ways to measure a job sizing across a global organization. If you measure based on complexity, then, over a period of time, every role will become complex. This is exactly why organizations have used this measure based on cost or revenue. 

What has worked for me is to show the value that the organization drives - in terms of revenue improvement, cost reduction, profit enhancement and cash flow accretion. These are also objective measures and moves the organization towards contribution rather than costs/revenue numbers managed.

Beyond all these numbers, we need to remember that leadership is about people. It is essential for every leader to create an environment that is non-threatening. As regards this, I would come back to what I have written on many times before - being a human being and treating everyone as a human.  "The fact is that people are good, Give people affection and security, and they will give affection and be secure in their feelings and their behavior." Abraham Maslow. 

The Will to Win

There were elections in few States in India and in the Union Territory of New Delhi, a new party called the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), which translates to the Common Man's Party, is the second largest party in terms of seats won. They have formed the Government with the support of another party. The party with the highest number of seats (BJP) is unable to form the government because neither do they have a majority nor the external support. One of the members of  the BJP is reported to have said that "The AAP is power hungry".

I asked myself the question as to why all these political parties contest elections. It was because they wanted to win, take charge and drive change in the society. They wanted the power to be able to change society. So, are they all not hungry for power? Yes, they are. So, then, why demean it? There is nothing wrong in being hungry for power so long as we do not do unscrupulous acts to obtain it and not misuse it once we become powerful. I believe that this hunger for power in order to drive change in the societies that we live in is the winning aspiration in politics. If this aspiration does not exist, then, there is no point in contesting elections. Anyone who participates for the sake of participation is a waste of time. What is needed is the will to win. I was reminded of Cicero, "The spirit, the will to win and will to excel are the things that endure."

Someone said, "The will to win is refusing to lose." I believe that this is required in the world that we live in. The attitude that "we will not lose". The attitude that "we can". That we will give it our best shot in order to win. That there is nothing wrong in having that winning aspiration. That we are doing a job or taking up an assignment or contesting in an election or running a race to win. Yes, it is important to enjoy the journey and to participate fairly. But, the attitude should be winning. Without that, we do not give it our best shot. As Vince Lombardi said, "Winning isn't everything, but the will to win is everything."

When we win something, we lose something else. This is life. We focus intensely on our jobs and careers, win there and take the eye of the ball on family or something else (could be our hobby). That is why we discuss work-life balance quite often. This balance depends on where the will to win is. If you want to be a great dad or mom, you focus on the child and win there. You become the best dad or mom and that, in itself, is a victory. Though we think that this is not yielding money, it could be the best investment we have ever made in our lives. A great childhood, good parenting, a well rounded child can give us much more than what many jobs can. We may end up becoming a great parent and probably not the best manager or leader in the company that we work in. It depends on the choices that we make. Whatever be the choice, we should look to not only excel but win in that choice and not feel ashamed about it.

 

Many companies lose their way in this world because they do not have the will to win and/or do not adapt that winning aspiration as the world around them changes. Yes, it is important to adapt our winning strategies as the environment around us changes. So, whilst we have the will to win, we should also have clear winning strategies and these will change as the world around us changes. It is said that of the Top 100 companies in 1900s only 16 exist now. I would say that it depends on how you look at it...most companies have been merged with others or taken over by others or taken others over and changed identity. What this shows is that most of these companies that have survived have kept on morphing and adapting their winning aspiration as the world around them changed. However, all of them had the will to win.

 

What does this mean for each one of us at an individual level? Each one of us needs to have this winning attitude. It is important to participate. It is very important to enjoy the journey. However, to be able to give it our best shot, it is important for us to have this will to win through this journey. This will to win or refusing to lose helps us build character. It makes us more resilient when we face adversity, as the journey to success is never easy. It helps us anticipate changes in the journey. It deepens our convictions and keeps us motivated. It pushes the "can do" attitude to the fore. We refuse to wilt under pressure. So long as we have this will, we motivate ourselves to keep going. The boxing champion Muhammad Ali once said “Champions aren’t made in gyms. Champions are made from something they have deep inside them - a desire, a dream, and a vision. They have to have last-minute stamina, they have to be a little faster, they have to have the skill and the will. But the will must be stronger than the skill.” 

 

Most importantly, the will to win pushes us towards individual excellence. It gives us the pride in ourselves and the pride in the job that we do. I sign off with a Confucius quote, "The will to win, the desire to succeed, the urge to reach your full potential... these are the keys that will unlock the door to personal excellence."