Winning by passiveness
Winners should be more active than others, they should be the alpha of the pack, the leader of the clan, stronger than the masses, intelligent than the group, courageous than the army and cleverer than the coterie. Or is it? How many active people have been sacked in an organization? How many alphas have been reduced to rubble? How many leaders shamed? How many strong people have been killed? How many intelligent people have been fooled? How many courageous people have been imprisoned? And how many clever people have been taken for a ride? So, are all these traits - strength, intelligence, courage - really needed to be a winner? Could be. Will you not be a winner if you do not have these traits? Lot of people would say no, you can't win because you do not have these traits then are not capable to compete with the people who have these. Agreed. But what if these folks are removed from the scene? Can you win, then? Can you wait out till the winners move out, and then move in taking the position and be a winner? Can you win by not being active or aggressive? Can you win by passiveness?
The title of the blog would have given it away. Yes you can? Is it morally right? Maybe. Maybe not. I will approach this topic from a neutral point of view and therefore will not be concerned on morality which is a personal trait. I will treat the topic as neutral - just like mother nature that does not differentiate between species when it wipes it out from the face of the earth. The thought came to me when I was in one of those meetings where you did not have anything better to contribute and so you let your mind wander. Suddenly someone posed a question - what needs to be done to get promoted? I replied without thinking, - Nothing. Just wait out for the smarter folks to leave and you will automatically be promoted as there will be no one else. Call it winning by passiveness. Ah! I got the subject for my next blog. Looking around my company I didn’t have to look far to notice that some of the folks were getting promoted to manager, simply because there was no one smarter to fill the gap. Call me conceited. But there was no denying that this was the case in my organisation. The organisation had made the rule that people should look inwards and only inwards to move to the next step. This was very generous of the organisation. Giving a chance to loyal folks is a good reciprocation. The problem was that this was a form of inbreeding that over a period of time brings in complacency, reduces competitiveness and brings the average smartness of the organisation down. And when that happens the organisation’s development stops. It is not good for the organisation, overall. The organisation should consciously make efforts to bring in fresh genes from outside, similar to what nature does, to keep inbreeding in check, being in fresh ideas and keep the genes evolving in novel ways.
There could be multiple reason for applying the strategy of ‘winning by passiveness’. One reason it that it is easy to apply. All that you have to do is - Nothing! It is as easy as that. If being mediocre can bring me rewards sooner or later, why not stick with it. Using brains is not that easy. It takes a lot of time, patience and energy to learn and innovate. Most organisations (companies) unknowingly propagate this culture. They simply do not motivate enough. Motivation is usually personal to individuals, but can be grouped under two broad categories - Penalty and Reward. Penalty is not to give the person raise or bonus or even fire him from the job. Research has shown that stick is more effective than carrot. But it is short lived. Plus there is an added risk that your performers would also leave thinking that they might be at the other end of the stick in the near future. Reward appears to do the job of motivating, better. But the problem is that the difference between reward and no reward is not much. For example, if I get a raise of 10% for doing a good job and 7% for doing average why would I slog harder an entire year for just 3% extra? In fact, if you are smart, passiveness is a better strategy in this case. The 3% doesn’t make any real difference in lifestyle, and remember that the government has its own share in the 3% raise too called tax. Just by consciously letting go of this paltry percentage you can have a relaxed full year. No need to come on weekends and make impression. No need to slog. The organisations must widen the gap between active and passive employees to such an extent that the difference in raises (or reward) matters. The reward should worth the extra effort a person gives all the year round. The performer should have something tangible to take home for the new year. Now, there are people who will give their best even if there are no rewards associated just for the sheer joy of work. Such people are very few and you can treat them as anomalies. Don’t expect a typical professional who has a family to feed, to go extra mile, for free.
Passiveness is more prevalent at senior management level, say VP and above. It is also about not taking decisions on time and not thinking far ahead. If you are a VP don’t worry, you won't be alone. There is safety in numbers. Most of the senior folks are actually non risk takers. They understand that success and failure is not always related to your efforts. Serendipity and luck plays a much bigger role in your initiatives. Suppose you push hard and get a budget for a new product and the product bombed in the market. You better start packing your bags then. On the other hand, the passive guy, would actually come down to wish you luck and hurry back to his cabin. No harm done. He just won by passiveness. Even for a company like google less than 5% of the initiatives see success. Others are trashed. If your company has the habit of treating you like a trash, even if your intentions were holy, I’d suggest you to be passive. You will win. Companies need to understand that success comes with luck and you should keep experimenting with a lot of small failures to achieve a big success. One success will cumulatively give many fold returns than a group of small failures. When corporates give small and strict deadlines to its senior staff with no margin for error, then everyone will maintain status quo. Status quo is a problem in the long run, because if you are not moving forward then you are definitely moving backwards. There is no pause button in life. If this is the scenario in your company then the senior management will pass days, quarter to quarter, just maintaining status quo. New development and its results take time and in a large company this time could be from an year to three or more. But if the senior management is unwilling to invest and is too trigger happy to fire senior staff every quarter, then just wait it out. Maybe they would get fired and you’d be safe. Adventurism is only advisable when the management understands. Else, tow the line and keep winning by passiveness.
There could be multiple reason for applying the strategy of ‘winning by passiveness’. One reason it that it is easy to apply. All that you have to do is - Nothing! It is as easy as that. If being mediocre can bring me rewards sooner or later, why not stick with it. Using brains is not that easy. It takes a lot of time, patience and energy to learn and innovate. Most organisations (companies) unknowingly propagate this culture. They simply do not motivate enough. Motivation is usually personal to individuals, but can be grouped under two broad categories - Penalty and Reward. Penalty is not to give the person raise or bonus or even fire him from the job. Research has shown that stick is more effective than carrot. But it is short lived. Plus there is an added risk that your performers would also leave thinking that they might be at the other end of the stick in the near future. Reward appears to do the job of motivating, better. But the problem is that the difference between reward and no reward is not much. For example, if I get a raise of 10% for doing a good job and 7% for doing average why would I slog harder an entire year for just 3% extra? In fact, if you are smart, passiveness is a better strategy in this case. The 3% doesn’t make any real difference in lifestyle, and remember that the government has its own share in the 3% raise too called tax. Just by consciously letting go of this paltry percentage you can have a relaxed full year. No need to come on weekends and make impression. No need to slog. The organisations must widen the gap between active and passive employees to such an extent that the difference in raises (or reward) matters. The reward should worth the extra effort a person gives all the year round. The performer should have something tangible to take home for the new year. Now, there are people who will give their best even if there are no rewards associated just for the sheer joy of work. Such people are very few and you can treat them as anomalies. Don’t expect a typical professional who has a family to feed, to go extra mile, for free.
Passiveness is more prevalent at senior management level, say VP and above. It is also about not taking decisions on time and not thinking far ahead. If you are a VP don’t worry, you won't be alone. There is safety in numbers. Most of the senior folks are actually non risk takers. They understand that success and failure is not always related to your efforts. Serendipity and luck plays a much bigger role in your initiatives. Suppose you push hard and get a budget for a new product and the product bombed in the market. You better start packing your bags then. On the other hand, the passive guy, would actually come down to wish you luck and hurry back to his cabin. No harm done. He just won by passiveness. Even for a company like google less than 5% of the initiatives see success. Others are trashed. If your company has the habit of treating you like a trash, even if your intentions were holy, I’d suggest you to be passive. You will win. Companies need to understand that success comes with luck and you should keep experimenting with a lot of small failures to achieve a big success. One success will cumulatively give many fold returns than a group of small failures. When corporates give small and strict deadlines to its senior staff with no margin for error, then everyone will maintain status quo. Status quo is a problem in the long run, because if you are not moving forward then you are definitely moving backwards. There is no pause button in life. If this is the scenario in your company then the senior management will pass days, quarter to quarter, just maintaining status quo. New development and its results take time and in a large company this time could be from an year to three or more. But if the senior management is unwilling to invest and is too trigger happy to fire senior staff every quarter, then just wait it out. Maybe they would get fired and you’d be safe. Adventurism is only advisable when the management understands. Else, tow the line and keep winning by passiveness.
Remember - winning by passiveness doesn't mean winning by laziness. Passiveness means not pursuing actively. It doesn't mean that you do not do your duties. Does the strategy always work? I have seen this strategy work but also fail often. Usually it is a long wait for the alpha to get out of the picture and you dominating the scene. There is also a possibility that a competition might enter the scene ever before the alpha leaves. Sometimes you are rewarded only when there is no competition. When a new alpha arrives your chances of success reduces drastically. The strategy might work but for a very short period of time. So what's the best strategy for you? It is to be active. Go and pursue your goals. Do not wait for the rewards, promotions and hikes come to you. Rather go out and pursue them. If your goals are not met, actively start pursuing it. After all you have just one life to live.
Comments
Post a Comment