This is a story related to me by my friend and founder CEO of Rivira Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd, Krishantha Cooray. Apparently he had, a long time ago, figured out that employees or subordinates are of four types, each associated with or rather amenable to description by the above names.
First. Annesley.
This, according to Krishantha, is the type of subordinate who will
accept with enthusiasm tasks and responsibilities, and end up messing
everything. Perhaps out of over-enthusiasm. Perhaps on account of
over-estimating capacities. Perhaps out of sheer ignorance and
incompetence. So why ‘Annesley’? Well, it’s derived from the Sinhala colloquial term for messing things up: aana gannava.
Then
we have Lesley. ‘Lesley’ from lessala-yanava….slinking away or (deftly)
sidestepping responsibility or nudging it in someone else’s direction.
[A] Lesley won’t say ‘no’ or ‘cannot.’ Lesley might even show the same
enthusiasm as [an] Annesley. Lesley won’t do the
job. Indeed he won’t even try to do the job. Someone else will take on
the responsibility. If that person succeeds, Lesley would probably not
be averse to accepting the credit (Krishantha didn’t elaborate on this)
but rest assured, if there’s failure, Lesley will not be blamed.
The
third character, according to Krishantha is Kingsley. [A] Kingsley will
take orders and carry them out as though they’ve been given by a king.
Fear of punishment or absolute loyalty and commitment to affirming the
notion of raajakaariya would do the trick. Such individuals attend to
the task at hand diligently. They get the job done.
The final
character is Bruce Lee. Yes, the martial artist Bruce Lee. [A] Bruce Lee
would fight his/her way through to get the job done. There could be
some bruises, black-eyes and maybe even a broken nose at the end of the
story but he/she would deliver.
Krishantha has an elaboration of
this thesis as well. You would have no doubt asked the obvious
question: doesn’t it depend (also) on who the king/queen is? Yes, the
character or personality of the person giving the order needs to be
factored in as well.
There are all kinds of leaders. Sometimes,
if the system has been tested and refined over time, it doesn’t really
matter who is at the top. There are rules, there are expectations and
there’s a culture of work. In such situations, a Lesley or an Annesley
won’t survive. He/she would be hoofed out. There won’t be a Bruce Lee
either; a half-way decent system will not require noses to be broken.
That’s when we find that everyone is a Kingley. In fact the real king
would be the system. All that’s left is rajakariya.
That’s rare, though. So we have to talk about leaders.
Obviously
any system that has all four types cannot be efficient. Bruce Lee will
get things done, but could create other issues. Kingsley can be counted
on. Ii might still work if together they outweigh Annesley and Lesley. No guarantees though. Ideally, Annesley and Lesley have to be shown the door and Bruce Lee reined in a bit.
Sometimes, say in a state institution, it’s not easy to get rid of Annesley and Lesley. Annesley has to be closely supervised and even nurtured into being a Kingsley. You can’t take chances with Lesley.
Unlike Annesley,
whose intentions might be praiseworthy, Lesley by definition so to
speak is constructed to ensure failure. Lesley thrives when there’s no
one watching. Lesley in fact can go out of the way to ensure that eyes
are looking elsewhere, for that is an objective precondition for
Lesley’s success and of course not the success of the organization.
However, when one considers the fact that Lesley simply does not want to
get caught, some surveillance could change matters. Continuous
supervision could even turn Lesley into Kingsley.
Bruce Lee is a
hero. In movies. In an office, he is a sword that could and often does
cut both ways. Good man to have around in an emergency, but certainly
not a man for all seasons. In a sense it is harder to turn Bruce Lee
into Kingsley than to effect a transformation of Lesley. The former is
an end-justifies-the-means kind of individual; the latter operates as
though believing that doing nothing is the only end that’s of any worth.
Bruce Lee has to be re-moulded and that’s really tough. Too little
supervision or giving full rein could end with delivery but delivery
leaving behind a wreckage-trail. Too much supervision could immobilize.
That would translate into idle human resources. Not good.
The
task of the leader is unenviable, then. The objective, ultimately, is to
transform self into system. Ego can get in the way. Human frailty can
stump. However, there’s little to lose by trying. An institution made of
Kingsleys and Kingsleys in the making would probably be better than one
made of a Kingsley, a Bruce Lee, an Annesley and a Lesley.
Perhaps
Krishantha Cooray, if and when he writes his memoirs, could shed more
light on this fascinating aspect of human resource management!
malindasenevi@gmail.com
[Malinda
Seneviratne is the Director/CEO of the Hector Kobbekaduwa Agrarian
Research and Training Institute. These are his personal views]
0 comments:
Post a Comment