Can unreasonable behaviour at workplace be sometimes good?

How reasonable can unreasonableness be?

A weighty question that bears heavily on various contexts that we are privy to and how we can ride or override the wave.

Worklife, workplace and work stickiness are dystopian partners that ought to work together but often find themselves disparate and disjointed.

It is about finite execution and infinite possibilities, that is the thin line to unreasonableness creeping in. As an analogy, look at the infamous Vietnam war that Americans waged that caused thousands of American lives and millions of Vietnamese who got decimated, yet Americans lost the war, despite winning every battle of supremacy. Reason? Americans had a finite objective to end the war and the Vietnamese had infinite reasons to prolong the war and cause irreparable damage to American psyche and morale.

How are the above scenarios relevant in the corporate context?

Top talents are finitely scarce and infinitely aspirational to retain. On the other hand, organisations are finite in their thinking that talents are mere resources who are dispensable, and that’s where they tend to lose the capability to win in the market. They generally miss the woods for the trees!

At the same time, many employees are content playing the finite game of taking salaries, going with the flow and paying the bills, without much change in status quo. Just doing enough to stay under the radar is reminiscent of the quiet quitting syndrome, where it is purely a financial contract. When employees become infinitely responsible and measure themselves against the stretch goals and not the fulfilment of KRAs, they begin to truly evolve.

Let’s look at the age-old dichotomy of wanting authority and emergence of DOA (delegation of authority) frameworks in the corporate world. Ever wondered why managers always crib about needing more authority to get their job done, without anyone actually asking for more responsibility? Why is the Delegation of Responsibility not as important or called for? Passing the buck is easier than making the buck anyway, and hence you have a few islands of excellence floating in the sea of mediocrity.

Managers need authority and leaders own the responsibility, the latter more primal in today’s existential struggle across the business world. To take the argument further, most management also wants to be “in charge” muscling their way in, without standing up for people “in their charge”. In one of the famous instances quoted, a Michelin-starred eatery encountered an influential connoisseur who spoke rudely to the staff and complained about firing the staff to the owner, failing which the establishment risked closure. The owner stood up for his staff and banned the customer for life from his restaurant, prioritising self-respect and fairness. Such leadership, empathy and having your back is becoming rarity nowadays because most are concerned about securing their own chair first.

This could be the bane of the Industrial Revolution legacy propounded by the likes of Henry Ford and Frederick Taylor, wherein they commoditised resources designed for the assembly line. Today, the need of the hour is intuitive and innovative way of working that requires a different mindset of change and work ethic.

Another intriguing point is about how long is a tenure enough to really leapfrog into career progression. Some purists say five years in an organisation is enough if you have grown well and the organisation has reached a maturity curve. Some opine two years or a contract cycle, if progress has been sluggish and prospects are dim. Always good to leave on a high and not having a tail between the legs. Funnily, more often than not the tail wags the dog!