I am extremely thrilled and honoured to be a member of the HRM Committee hosted by Bombay Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
I'm thoroughly excited to work towards contributing innovative, cutting edge HR practices to enable organisations to enhance their success . Lots of learning opportunties on the way. Thanks to BCCI
 |
| Photo Credit Ryan Barretto Mar 2024 |
Few people would deny the impact of well-being on the benefit of the organization. This approach tends to get pushed to the back burner for short-term gains (shareholder value?) over the long term growth and survival of the organization, especially when there are leaders or managers with a high need for controlling people and aggressive competitiveness. Hybrid or remote workplaces have only accelerated these tensions, which then negatively impacts well-being, and the progress of the organization.
With the above in mind, this article asks an extremely pertinent question, which is it's title.
From the article - "We need to reset the employer/employee relationship. We need to establish clear and fair principles for working in a remote or hybrid world. In a way which sets reasonable expectations for all parties and holds employers and employees to account."
I think the ability to leverage the employees's #strengths in their work will provide huge dividends to the organization and employees.
Your thoughts?
How much honesty is enough / needed? = how much authenticity is required for different relationships?
If we are told that being authentic is essential to building trust with others, then how much do we reveal of ourselves while being authentic in our relationships with them.
Here's an interesting Ted Talk on authenticity and leadership from psychopaths.
While the similarities to leadership are intriguing, the speaker raises critical points about how much authenticity is required for us in our relationships.
 |
| Photo Credit : pexels-rdne-8068763 |
I've heard this line "You have come from a culture? Well, so does bacteria!"
Culture is the make and break of an organization, no matter how brilliant it's people are. After all culture is defined by the way people work together.
Let's also not forget that anyone who leads a team at any level of the organization also defines the culture for that team. This may not often align completely with the culture of the organization. Hence the possibility of conflict and messiness is very real.
Throughout my HR stint, I worked in various organizations in different industries, including a startup. Each organization had a distinct culture that was driven by those at the top with the most influence on their peers. Some places made it easier for people to work together, others tied up the organization in red tape, and still others had leaders at different levels that made employees ask "who interviewed him / her and what did they see in them that made them select that candidate.
As you can probably tell, leadership and culture has fascinated me for a long time.
Here's a fascinating article that I came across on the things that separate best #workplace #culture from others.
Excerpt - "It's important to note that creating a positive workplace culture is an ongoing process that requires continuous effort and attention. That’s the only thing the best and worst cultures have in common."
Read the rest of the article here.
 |
| Photo Credit : pexels-minan1398-1313814 |
Here are a few pics of a workshop on Stress Management that I conducted for my client in the BFSI space.
The participants from the middle and junior levels from different functions of the organization. I am thankful for their whole-hearted participation in the exercises and for their insightful questions during the workshop, which made the entire experience wonderful both for them and for me.
While they identified the causes of stress on their own, I shared with them a guided meditation exercise, and a journaling method both of which they found very useful.
 |
| Participant Expectations |
 |
Reviewing the Causes of Stress |
 |
| Journaling |
 |
| Learnings that they will put into practice |
Who do you consider to be a leader worth admiring? By admire I mean that you are so impressed by them (vision, accomplishments, style, etc) that you celebrate them, become their fan and would like to adopt some of their behaviours into your life.
So... Gandhi? Hitler? Churchill? Your neighbourhood businessman? A preacher / priest? A film actor? A family member? A friend? Well, that's your choice.
Now, consider this Ted Talk by Martin Gutmann (the trigger for this short article) that tries to understand this by asking if, by actually celebrating the wrong leaders, we are thereby creating an aspiration to become what might actually be an ineffective leader? If so, what could be the repercussions (on self / team / organization / society) when we celebrate the only shiny (media / social media) side of leadership?
There's a lot of food for thought in this video. For me, one of the most provoking ideas was about what are the measures by which we tend to judge leaders. Or rather, which measures are most appropriate to evaluate leaders?
This further reminded me of discussions I have had during my corporate days while hiring candidates at any level or promoting employees. Practically everyone at the discussion had a different criterion preference when evaluating the person, and it would frequently take us time to understand the other person's perspective when we didn't understand and disagreed with the evaluation.
Things moved forward only when we shared our perspective on the factors we looked at when evaluating the candidate.
And the two final thoughts that struck me from this video:
Let me know your thoughts in the comments.
