Leadership challenge in Engagement

Recently, The Conference Board came-out with The Conference Board CEO Challenge® 2013. This global consultancy firm has been coming-out with these challenges since 1999. For the year 2013 CEOs world-over have stated Human Capital as their top-most challenge followed by operational excellence.  I had an opportunity to attend session by Dr. Rebecca L. Ray, Senior Vice President, Human Capital -The Conference Board. She clearly stated that engaging human capital remained as the top-most priority of CEOs across the globe, including India.

Interestingly to one of my questions about what she thought was the top-most concern in engaging human capital in India, she very candidly stated that the organizational leaders need to walk-the-talk. If a senior leader of the organization does something that is not consistent with organizational norms or policies, many a times he/she is let-off. Such an incident, even if it happens only once, destroys the engagement of the employees with the organization.

Employee empowerment is talked about by mist organizational leaders these days. It has almost become a slogan for companies and institutions. But ‘few’ really seem to have the gut to listen to an empowered employees’ honest feedback. For starters reportedly a professor in a prominent law school in our country had to lose his job for challenging the decision of the senior leadership of the institution. After the barbaric gang-rape of one of its students in the campus premises, the management imposed a 9 p.m. deadline for closure of the campus gates. This deadline was challenged by the adhoc-professor and he was booted-out & his contract was abruptly terminated. But consider the published excerpts of his letter the professor seemed to have a point. 

Consider this –

In his letter, the professor stated, “While students have been and can be advised to avoid dangerous areas in the vicinity of the campus, imposing such blanket restrictions is an unduly paternalistic move. There have been numerous instances of sexual harassment and physical abuse of NLSIU staff and students in daylight. These problems cannot be eradicated with a simplistic measure such as constraining the movement of students after 9 pm. In fact, such restrictions are likely to result in more students choosing to stay off-campus in the future, thereby escalating the risks to their physical safety….

As word gets out, it may also affect our attractiveness for prospective applicants, exchange students and visiting scholars, among others. It is also quite foreseeable that not allowing students to enter after 9 pm may result in numerous instances where students can be left stranded in the vicinity. In addition to these practical concerns, there is a larger question of the symbolism inherent in the institution’s response. Given that these restrictions are clearly a knee-jerk response to a crime committed against one of our students, we are indirectly engaging in victim-blaming rather than addressing the root of the problem.”

Going by such the strategies of the institution, roads should be shut if accidents happen instead of improving roads, lane discipline, traffic surveillance systems and drivers’ competencies.

Leaders seldom walk-the-talk. They hate to be told that they are wrong and worse to be challenged. This in turn breeds a flawed organizational design that creates rigid hierarchies, a culture of intolerance and a control system based on hire and fire. Engagement is the biggest loser in this case.