Of liberty and fraternity, in coaching

Think sports and academic institutes if you want to make coaching in the workplace more effective. Remember we’re talking about adults here. It’s different and easier with children, since someone else makes the decisions and choices for them, and they are good learners. Not so, for adults.

The whole business begins with a person’s choice to opt for coaching or not. Someone could either be opposed to ‘extra’ coaching, confident of imbibing the required learning from the existing system. Or believe that true learning happens via numerous interactions and experiences with several people in uncontrolled settings. Or even that he or she is ‘good enough’ and is not in need of any more coaching. I mean, parents, relatives and friends could impress upon this person the need for and the benefits of coaching. Finally, the choice has to be of the person concerned.

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have opted for coaching in their lives, as those who have not. For coaching in the workplace to have a good start, it is fundamental to provide employees in the target group with this choice. As much as it is, to allow them to change their mind.

The second consideration is this. Someone who desires coaching also makes a choice of where or who to go to for getting coached. That someone has chosen to join a particular sporting or education academy for the purpose of getting ahead in life riding piggy-back on its influential patrons or famous teachers, or out of peer pressure, or because of its convenient location, should be for no one to judge. That someone has chosen to join an academy for the love of learning, or because of a genuinely great coach, or even because of the likelihood of a relationship of mutual trust and preference with the coach there, should not be anyone’s bother either.

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the right choices they have made, as those who haven’t. For coaching at the workplace to head in the right direction, it is necessary to allow the employees who have opted for coaching to consider their own motivations privately and then make known their list of preferred coaches. Whether from their organisation or without, from their business group or without.

Coaches also need to make similar choices. Of opting to coach or not. And, if they do make their services available, of deciding who to coach. Again, based on a private consideration of their motivations and preferences. If the choices of the coachees shouldn’t be judged, neither should those of the coaches. That’s only fair.

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the right choices and motivations of their coaches, as those who haven’t. For coaching in the workplace to proceed further in the good direction previously determined, the coaches must choose from among all those employees who have chosen them. The idea is to arrive at a coach-coachee matching just like sports and education academies arrive at their admissions lists. The coach is as high on the coachee’s preference list, and the coachee is as high on the coach’s preference list, as the matching process allows for. Too bad, if, as an outcome of a fair process, the employee had to settle for an undesirable or less than desirable coach.

If potential coaches and coachees need more familiarity with one another, the organisation must provide information and opportunities of interaction to them before they prepare their respective lists of preference. There could be application forms, credentials and statements of purpose submitted by the coaches and the coachees. Sounds foolish ? Trust me, it's no more foolish than wasting time in trying to coach people to be better coaches, monitoring if people have had the mandated number of coaching interactions, or pushing the coach-coachee pairs to draft and submit their coaching contracts. Wonderful things, these. Bring back painful memories.

The matching process would most likely throw up a situation where each coach has more than a few people to coach. In sports and in education, coaches handle their coachees in a group, and while doing so, they address the individual needs of each coachee too. It’s efficient use of the coach’s time and effort. The coachees get wider learning from watching others being taught. The coach’s as well as the coachees’ performance and behaviour are out in the open, and public encouragement and shame work wonders for both parties. Besides it’s more secure and fun to have co-travellers.

Given time and support, the coach-coachee group work their own rules of engagement, their own understanding of what’s working and what’s not, their own dynamic teaching-learning methods, and their own standards of progress. Broadly, if things are ok, coachees accept the realities of life that some among them progress better than the others, that some among them have louder voices than the others, that the ways of teaching-learning work better with some than with others, and so on.

There remains the matter of one more choice before we close the deal on making coaching in the workplace more effective. Both the coach and the coachee can choose to disengage with one another at any time. Amicably. As self-respecting adults would.

Didn’t I already say something like ….

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have opted for coaching in their lives, as those who have not;

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the right choices they have made, as those who have not;

Perhaps, as many good sportspersons and scholars have been the products of the right choices and motivations of their coaches, as those who have not.

Vote and vote well

A few days ago, during the city’s municipal corporation elections, I cast my first ever vote.

During the run-up to the day of the elections, I was very excited to discover my voter registration details on the election commission’s website. After all, two of my previous attempts at registration had failed, and I had no reason to believe that I would succeed with my latest attempt of a few months ago. I felt a sense of victory against all the dark forces that conspire against the registration of urban middle class voters like me. Politicos of all hues find us unpredictable and unreliable, since we don’t swing to their tunes of region, community and caste, and hence focus their efforts on expanding their base elsewhere. Bureaucracy ‘stiffs’ see us as politically apathetic and individually powerless, and hence direct their energies to other registration applications brought in by eager politicos.

But this time, I was going to cast my vote. Na-na-n-na-na.

On the day of the elections I searched the website again. Half-suspecting that my details would’ve mysteriously disappeared by then. But there I found them once more, beaming at me in all their glory. I fired a colour print of my voter details on high quality executive paper. And proudly carried it to the polling station. “Internet printout, eh?”, asked the polling agent stationed outside my designated polling station. “Let me check if your details appear in the copy of the electoral rolls for this station”, he continued. The more pages he turned over without finding my name and photograph, the more his self-importance increased. And the more mine decreased. I interrupted him, “but my details are from the election commission’s website”. As though my timely interruption would make the record appear in the pages he hadn’t yet flipped through. “I know sir, but ours is the latest and most valid copy”, he declared, as he continued flipping through his papers to locate my name or photograph. Then he delivered his verdict, “your record isn’t at this polling station; maybe it’s at some other”. “Some other ?”, I gasped. “It happens”, he sighed. This was fantastic. I had about four hours before the close of polling time to visit about a half a dozen polling stations in my area and locate my record. But I was determined. Had nothing particularly better to do that day. So I rushed from one polling station to another, only to hear one polling agent after another deliver the same verdict.

As I was about to concede defeat to the dark forces and slip back again into the set that is accused of not exercising their right and duty to vote, I saw some activity at a street corner. Some respectable looking people were speaking in English and a couple of youngsters were working a laptop. I’m respectable, can speak in English, and own two laptops. So I went there too. Representatives of a newish party that hoped to attract young, educated and affluent voters were helping people locate their records and their designated polling stations. I may not be young or affluent, but I am educated, and hence promptly commissioned their services. Lo and behold ! My name appeared, albeit with a different set of voter registration details. I thanked the volunteers.

And, armed with fresh ammunition and a renewed zeal to wipe out the enemy, I jumped into my car. Told the driver about the new coordinates to take me to.

I confidently walked into the polling station, showed the security personnel my identification, and queued up outside the polling booth. My mind was so clouded with the desire and anticipation of the precious moments that were to follow, that it didn’t occur to me that I had missed the most critical part of my war strategy for the day. To ask my driver who I should vote for ! Don’t be surprised. My driver lives in a neighbourhood that knows lots about the local politicos and about their deeds and misdeeds. He used to be a dance instructor, is now married to a school teacher, nurses upward mobility aspirations, and shares my view that people should vote for candidates with great performance and behaviour. Quite qualified to be my advisor.

When it was my turn to, I submitted my credentials before the electoral officer. He said my name aloud. When none of the representatives of the various political parties objected that I was a bogus voter, he directed me to the polling enclosure. Here I was, all to myself, and salivating at the electronic voting machine. When it struck me that I didn’t know who to vote for. That none of the names of the candidates was even vaguely familiar. So I did what I had gone there for. To exercise my right and duty to vote. Beep.

Even if it was for god-knows-who from god-knows-which-party.

I don’t like politics and politicians. I know that our city is going from bad to worse despite electing different representatives and parties to power. I know that manifestos and promises are forgotten by many of the elected. Etc, etc. So I shouldn’t have felt guilty at how I’d eventually cast my vote. But I did.

In the last few years, I have never read the questions in an employee engagement survey. But have always assigned a score of 5/5 to each. I have behaved similarly while responding to leadership surveys about my peers and bosses. I admit that I didn’t feel guilty while doing so. But I should’ve.

Hire, as the wise people do

I’m just back from attending a wedding in my ancestral village. While there, I thought many times about some wise people who were no more. And about what they’d said to me, off and on, over the years. Naturally, I also thought about their views on marriage. A rule, which they had said was time-tested, came to mind.

‘If you want progress for your son and for your family, marry him to a woman who hails from a better family. If you want a secure and dignified future for your daughter, marry her to a man who is a rising star in his family’.

As profound and simple rules do, this one too leaves unsaid the routine but not unimportant stuff that people anyway pay attention to while match-making. It doesn’t say that if the man or woman or their families fail obvious standards, then a mere application of the rule would make for a good marriage. As enduring rules do, this one too allows for a dynamic definition of ‘progress’, ‘better’, ‘secure’, ‘dignified’, and ‘rising star’. So it lets people decide for themselves, and in keeping with their times, whether these terms are to be interpreted on the basis of anthropological, social, political or economic value.

All it says, is that one could use the rule as a supplement to one’s own good sense and judgement. Even if it were the man and the woman deciding by themselves about a life together.

Ok. So a man should marry a woman from a better family. Because she would have higher standards, expectations and aspirations. Because she would want an even better life for their kids. If the man could understand and appreciate that, then he would be propelled forward. And if the man’s family could understand and appreciate that, then they would be propelled forward too. By virtue of a unit in the family getting propelled forward and raising the bar for other units. Needless to say, that an insecure man and his ungrateful family would waste time and effort in trying to make the better woman conform to their lower standards. Also, that a woman with a chip on her shoulder about being from a better family, could never be a propelling force with her condescending ways.

But why would a woman marry beneath herself ? Well, she could, if the family were only a little beneath hers. And she found a man who was a rising star in that family and looked all set to exceed her standards and expectations in the near future. She would be the appreciated additional propelling factor in the early days of marriage and a respected participant in the later days. Besides, the woman marrying a little beneath herself would also satisfy the condition that is good for her man. That he should marry above himself. It’s a win-win match.

A woman marrying above her would need to have high personal qualities to avoid the possibility of being ignored or made subservient.

Sure, there are many exceptions that defy the rule, for reasons I can understand, and for reasons I can’t. But when I look around, and look within, it appears to me that the underlying spirit of the rule applies more often than it does not.

Forget marriage. Forget man and woman. Forget old times and new. Examine for yourself how we hire people into our organisations.

Do we have any theory at all to guide our hiring decisions after we have assessed the education, experience, skills and behaviour of the candidates ? Do we frequently manage to get in people better than ourselves ? Can we prove to them that we are rising stars worth joining with even if it’s a little beneath them to do so ? Often times, not.

It’s very common to want to go into a better family. Therfore it’s very easy to bring in someone like that from a lesser family. It's yet another kind of a match. You decide if it's a win-win. You decide if you want to continue to hire like that.

Or hire, as the wise people do.

The best massage for me is the one which I only half experience

I understand that the word ‘parlour’ is derived from a French word which means ‘to speak’. But I do not visit a massage parlour to speak. I go there to sleep. And a massage which can’t lull me to sleep, or get me very nearly there, does not do it for me. Everybody has their quirks, and this is mine.

It is a basic requirement to have a place, even at first look and feel, that meets with my standards and sensibility. “How would the guys running the place know about that ?”, you might ask. “By thinking about what they would expect for themselves, and then setting the bar higher than those standards to be safe”, would be my reply. I love it when I am taken for a brief inspection tour of the facility even before I sign up for the massage. That’s because the folks there appear confident that they have been thoughtful and have set the bar well. I also love it when I see the masseur genuinely involved in getting the place ship-shape before my massage. That’s because he seems connected to my overall experience, and cares enough about his performance to know that he must.

It’s great to see the therapist and the masseur going over the form in which I declared the details about my medical history. Discussing and agreeing about what needs to be done and what doesn’t. I can sense when they are merely doing this to mitigate their own risk and when they are doing it for my sake as well.

It’s a relief to be handed the key to a locker to keep my clothes and other stuff in. Then I don't have to worry about my cash or cards. Anything, that keeps out the thoughts and feelings that potentially or actually distract me from my cherished sleep, is preferable.

Within the first few minutes alone with the masseur - in the way he introduces himself, mumbles instructions, and hands out the robe, towel and disposable briefs - I can figure out if he knows what it is to be non-intrusive in an intimate situation. I am pleased as punch to know that he is aware of the subtleties of behaviour that are central to his profession. And happily answer his questions about my preferred music, oil, temperature, and so on.

I thank my stars for being at the right place, when I am requested to take a warm shower before the massage. To be clean for handling by the masseur, sure; but to also unclog the pores of the skin to best allow for the oil to soak in. Then I know also, that I am very probably going to witness something that has an approach, a method, a technique, in the following minutes. I know I am going to submit myself to a fine student of his art when he provides me with a few pieces of evidence. Like doing justice to the soles of the feet, the palms, the small of the neck and the small of the back. Like using fuller strokes that are directed outside-in, from the head and the limbs towards the heart. Like the clockwise movements over the stomach and abdomen.

They say the soul of a good driver flows into and makes him one with his machine. So it is with a good masseur. He knows when, where and how much to knead, press, stroke, pinch, caress, roll and curl. He is attentive to the most fleeting of my body’s reactions and works to undo the knots. Unless he has good reason to do otherwise, he exhibits symmetry in his movements. And simplicity, unity, and balance. It’s usually around this time, about halfway into the massage, that I fall asleep. And experience the remaining massage in my dreams.

I love massages. Hence I have been less or more happy on several occassions when I've had them. But sleep during one ? And be completely thrilled ? Less than ten times out of a few hundred.

Why is it that the best massage for me is the one which I only half experience ? Because, true performance is about the journey. That guarantees the destination much before it is reached. Even you know that. When you’re getting the massage done.

How about when you’re the masseur ? Or the masseuse ?

Can we have some more of that sauce please ?

A few days ago, an article in a newspaper article read something like this - “... we need business leaders to mature faster ... since we have a growing economy”. To me, it seemed like the article was sponsored by the distributors of fruit ripening chemicals. :-)

A lot has been said and done about leadership development. Much more will be said and done. What’s the harm if I add my two bits as well ?

Here goes. Every individual has some secret sauce within. Circumstances draw this out for others to taste. When people really like the taste, and wish they had that secret sauce too, they become followers. Come followers, the individual becomes a leader. Required to satisfy every expectation and pass each scrutiny. Every day.

Secret sauce doesn’t need analysis or explanation. People can taste it right away ... when it is served to them. Like they can feel beauty and love ... when these are before them. Therefore, when they look to fill leadership positions at the time of need, organisations easily know whether they have the right candidates or not. They know it when they have made the less than happy choice of a deficient candidate from within or of an unfamiliar candidate from without. Yet they are not fully convinced about leadership development.

Just look at the defence establishment. Presumably, even they do not believe that everyone can be a leader or be made into one. But just look at their record. Not one leader ever recruited from outside. Not one leader who didn’t at least reasonably fit the bill.

They do great service to the cause of leadership development by hiring the way they do. Looking for signs of a secret sauce in the candidate’s past. Examining events and circumstances in the candidate’s past to ascertain if some secret sauce was drawn out and whether there were signs of followership. Generating fresh circumstances during the hiring process to test the candidate against the burden of expectations and the requirements of scrutiny.

Leadership identification and development for them is a never-ending process. The careers of defence personnel are about doing diverse roles in varied circumstances. In a continued manner, the probability of finding the individual’s secret sauce is increased. There are continued chances to obtain and maintain followership, to fulfil expanding expectations and to pass intensifying scrutiny. Not a chance in hell for aspirants to only do jobs they are good at, or find convenient to do. Never a possibility of only flying safely over or under the radar, as they say.

There’s another magic that they know about. That followers get the leaders they deserve. Future leaders have to get followership from a pool that is good to begin with and is constantly developing to get better. They’re not going to like the taste of just any sauce. They’re going to expect and scrutinise like crazy. They’re going to demand more and better tomorrow than they did yesterday. It’s obvious, isn’t it, that leadership development is as much about followership development ?

Secret sauce, followership, capability of fulfilling expectations and passing scrutiny are all quite evident by the time an individual reaches a career level called the ‘selection grade’. Only the best of the best make it to that step. Selection panels do not get swayed much by the possible consequences of rejecting and demotivating others. After the first such selection grade, there are many more selection grades to earn before one can become a leader. Defence establishments are as fussy about promotions as they are about hiring. That’s another big service they do to themselves.

Of course, there are also state-of-the-art defence academies. War games and simulations. Joint exercises with other countries. Reward and recognition for the exemplary. Legends about the special. And so on. That complement.

As much as there are politics, prejudices, exigencies and errors. And so on. That detract.

But again, just look at their record. Not one leader ever recruited from outside. Not one leader who didn’t at least reasonably fit the bill.

And then doubt leadership development. If you must.

A small glass of milk each or a tall one together ?

Ever seen a job advertisement or an internal job posting that reads, “we’ve clubbed the roles of sales manager and marketing manager into one … please pair up with someone and apply … the selected pair would share performance accountability and performance rating” ?

Most likely not.

Because, free market liberalism is based on the ‘liber’, the individual. With individual freedom, come individual responsibilities, individual aspirations and individual life. That’s what we are all comfortable with. Even if we cry ourselves hoarse about teaming and collaboration.

And, because, there is a role of sales and marketing director to which these two roles report. Such an arrangement is common, and exists for very good reasons. It enables job-autonomy, job-focus, and command-n-control. Under the watchful gaze of the director, both the managers don’t rub too much against one another. When the director goes on vacation, the managers manage J.

But I’ve often also heard stuff like, “we now have too many sales and marketing directors”. Or, “it’s a nightmare to make the sales and marketing managers see eye to eye”. Or even that, “the sales and the marketing managers are very good, but none fits the bill yet to become the sales and marketing director ... so let’s hire someone from outside”.

Then I begin to wonder about possibilities and experiments.

And examine job-sharing. The most common way to job-share is to split a role into two distinct roles and staff each with a part-time resource. Split the territory. Another way to job-share is to staff one role with two part-timers. Split the time and effort, and combine complementary skill sets. The latter is easier said than done, and such examples are hard to find even in the most progressive of organisations. That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Looks like it will happen anyway, given its merits, and given the direction our world of work is taking.

If we could staff one job with two part-timers, then we could surely combine two jobs and make a full-timer pair do the combined job. The model is exactly the same; of making two people do one job, share accountabilities and outcomes. The advantages are the same. So are the rough edges we need to iron out to make both these types of arrangements work. What if the two people don’t collaborate ? What if one is viewed as better and overshadows the other ? What if one carries the load and the other fence-sits ? What if they privately demarcate territories and return to old ways ? Etc.

In the example of the pair of managers, the minimum advantages are those of learning from each other, collaborating for better results, and feeling secure in the company of the other. The maximum advantages could be all these. Plus the pair doing their combined job and also that of their boss. Far-fetched ? Ok. So the pair could do theirs and some of the job of the boss. Numerous such pairs in the organisation adding their respective deltas could mean at least a few bosses less. Or leave those few bosses with more time to take on more responsibilities and deliver more results. Or even take care of some complaints of a peer's role being better in comparison to one's own.

That brings me to a job-share experiment that may sound even more far-fetched. We all know of good people who turn underperformers at this or that time, for this or that reason. What if each of them could bring in a deserving person who they job-shared with to turn things around ? Assess the newcomer against organisational standards, offer a contractual position, pay from the salary of the underperforming employee, limit and review the period of association – whatever.

Don’t be so surprised. I know a person who had regular job-related conversations with a pensioner dad to turn things around for himself. Ask him if he would gladly pay a part of his salary to his dad or not.

It's not just about under-performers. The rapidly changing business environment demands new skills from the best of performers. Limited or extended duration job-shares with folks who already have such skills might relieve them, their superiors and their trainers. At least in a few cases; don't you agree ?

Two minds are better than one.

Diversity by design

There’s a university and an organisation I know about which promote and protect diversity. Much more than some others do.  And consistently deliver results. Also much more than some others do. Whether their performance is because of the diversity in their fabric, or in spite of it, is a matter best left to your wisdom and dispensation.

The university promotes and protects diversity by design.

If you have a graduate degree in any discipline you can seek admission to any of the post graduate courses there. Admission tests for different courses are conducted on separate days to allow the applicants a shot at many of them. While the question papers are in English, you can choose to write your answers in any of the listed languages. You have to answer any five out of the twenty five questions asked. Even without prior background or preparation, you will always find your five questions to answer, since seven or eight questions usually pertain to topics of general interest.

Such open practices and other unrevealed algorithms of the admissions process guarantee that every new batch has a fair representation of students from different regions, ethnicities, social classes, and income groups.

Attending classes is not mandatory. You can take books to refer to during the exams. If you miss a test, professors will be quite comfortable to have you write a term paper and assign grades.  You can register for elective courses in any other department. There are neither curfew hours nor boundary walls in the hostels. The academic, administrative and financial councils of the institution have student representatives. Spontaneous teacher and student support against injustice and wrongdoing is a common sight. Talent is on full display all the while and everywhere. Dissenters turn into collaborators and yet again into dissenters with ease.

Pick any student, and ask what is best about the place. Most likely, you will get the answer, “I can be me”.

Ask any teacher whether every student's 'I can be me' adversely affects the university's basic character and purpose. Most likely, you will get the answer, "not at all; the elements of our core remain unaffected, since, no student, even while acting and thinking alone, is against them".

Switch your attention to the organisation now. It is a multinational, which gradually turned diverse in the course of entering and growing in different markets. The more diverse people, practices, views and ideas it assimilated, the more it appreciated the needs and benefits of diversity.

In recent years, its focus on diversity has become sharper, since it serves a more diverse set of stakeholders and customers, needs diverse skills, and seeks to grow its sources of talent. That much is by design.

In its operations in a particular country though, the promotion and protection of diversity happened by accident. The organisation grew so fast there that it hired good people of all types from just about anywhere. As a result, it now has lots of different models of success and ways of working for any employee to emulate. Lots of stereotypes stand broken. Every person finds at least some like-minded, even non-like-minded, supporters. And concludes, “the place does support me to be me”. The organisation has one more step to take, from ‘supporting’ its people to be themselves to ‘desiring’ that they be so.

Other organisations, where such an accident hasn't happened, and who are focussed exclusively on improving the diversity demographics, need to also get to a point where an employee would say, “looks like people here really want me to be me”.

By design.

Make the future work

Yesterday, one of my friends called me to say, “I have taken the advice that your elder brother gave you. To get a loan from a bank and buy another house”. I laughed out loud. Because, I knew instantly what the words behind his words were.

When things are comfortable, thoughts about future life distract from work. A biggish financial liability burns excess libido and brings back the focus to earnings and therefore to work. And life goes on as it is generally supposed to. That’s what my brother told me over a year ago.

Other memories surfaced.

A proclamation by someone, “professionals who aren’t brands in their own right shouldn’t even think about going on their own … they’ll trigger little recall and won’t get anywhere”. True enough.

An admission by another, “I get work done by others and focus on macro items … if I were to start off on my own I would either have to invest in a firm and pay people to do different levels of work … or stay by myself and be content with work that doesn’t use my full abilities since potential customer organisations would have their leaders to take care of the macro stuff … it’s like frying pan and fire”. Sure is.

Preferences - people making choices, doing different work and working differently. Evidence - organisations experimenting with different models of engaging skills. Direction - networking platforms and collaboration technologies.


A task at hand distracted me from these memories. Work towards launching my website - attractive design, super functionality, reader convenience, socially known. Big agency costs were prohibitive. Boutique firms were too focussed on getting big-agency-like customers and would put me on lower priority. Freelancers would have only one or the other of the skills I needed.

A boutique firm that charged fair money, and believed that our collaboration would get them a great credential plus enjoyable work, should be my choice. But why would such a firm sway from its set ways ? Yes, most likely not. Then, how about if there were a platform or association where I could find two or three great guys with the sum total of the skills I needed ? And they collaborated with one another and with me to deliver a great product ? Wishful thinking.

I don’t know why I thought about a group of cabbies we know. It’s been four years since we’ve been using their cabs. It’s an informal association that now has over twenty cabbies. They have a few simple rules. More customers for the association means more customers for each individually. So they pass on business to one another. Retain and grow the customer base for the association by a service offering that easily beats the individual cabbie and also takes on the big daddy cab companies. So they have good and polite drivers. Different cabs to suit your need of the day. Fair but flat price agreed in advance, where loyal customers get lower rates and an exemption from paying waiting charges. A guarantee, that they would reach customers at the appointed time and place. So they make sure that one of them reaches you, even at odd hours, and even if he could afford not to.

Now they do not wait at taxi stands nor ply about in search of business. They get familiar, quality customers who give them respect and admiration. They are open but choosy about which other cabbie they accept into their group. When members rub against one another they iron out issues as a collective and move on. They offer employment to willing and able relatives and friends as their assets multiply. Each can solicit business for himself but doesn’t anymore. Everyone can leave the group at will but very few have.

Seen that cook lately ?

Just as I was about to speak to my cook of ten years, my brain began sending this live feed to the rest of me. "Control your expression ! You do like his work, loyalty, sincerity, attitude and appearance. Ok, look away when you talk to him. Moderate your speech ! You only want him to know that these days he's taking too many calls while he's cooking ... and he's spending more time away with friends which pushes out the time when the kids should have dinner and go to sleep ... and he's routinely dishing out stuff which we have mostly accepted in our history together. Ok, ok, sound fair but firm when you tell him".

I finally said to him, "why don't you cook something different that is nutritious yet appealing to the kids "? The look he gave me, only Jack Nicholson could. Part confused, part amused, part defiant.

And I had hesitated about telling him that, after many recent reminders, he had not made a habit of replenishing the stock of items that were now important to us. Recommended in our book on 'food as medicine'. These would help our parents. Couldn't he imagine how happy we would be if he stepped-up or got a bit more flexible ? Couldn't he imagine how happy he would be with a higher place of pride in our household ? What had happened to that spark that prompted him to learn driving so that he could help with errands in the absence of our regular driver ?

Never mind. He had been good. Even now he was good. It's not even that he was beginning to burn out or reach a plateau. There wasn't a fat chance that we would misbehave with him or contemplate his replacement. Or would we, at times, if only fleetingly ? No, no. We shouldn't. What guarantee did we have that another new-age expert of healthy and interesting recipes would have all the other qualities that we so valued ? Of course our cook would continue to stay and work with us.

But our parents had changing needs and our children had changing preferences. If only he could also give us what the winds of change demanded. If only we could get rid of the faint feeling that we were just a little stuck with him. If the wind blew harder and he got blown away, whose fault would it be ? Ours, that we didn't tell him like it was ? Or his own, that he didn't realise it in time ?

Deja vu. When and where did I have the same experience ? Intensely similar feeling ? Vivid image ?

Many, many times ! Even at work ! Sometimes I was that cook and sometimes it was others who were. Have you been such a cook lately ? Have you seen one of late ?

Marching song

Two things are top of mind for me these days. Well, there are others; but for this show, I want to spare you the distractions of a multi-starrer film, and save myself the obligation of granting each star some screen space.

One, from the advice and opinions I got when I planned to take a break from an active corporate career. "Now you'll know who your real friends are". "Now you'll realise what you are not good at". "In three months time your shelf life will expire and you will be labelled as unemployed". "It will not feel good if others are not interested in what you are saying or doing". "Are you ready for some harsh treatment"? "What about your lifestyle"? Etc etc etc.

It's not just what others say or do; its also my own fears and who I am, that keep bringing me back to the thoughts about humble pie. What does it taste like ? Is it easy to digest ? I don't know. Neither might you, I think. If you have, like me, done reasonably well for the most part, and spent a good portion of time in the company of people who have commensurate lives.

The second, which is top of mind for me these days, is mortality. Pretty commonplace after one crosses the forty mark, I am told. There's so much unfinished business I have with regard to my family and myself. In little and significant ways, I get signals about what two decades of smoking, no exercise, and bad routines have done to me.

Earn my sleep and regain lost ground. So I began with daily walks. From my house, to a nearby hill, and then uphill. Those of you, who have experience with an outdoor physical exercise of some degree of difficulty, will understand how I also began to get clear thoughts, images and feelings during these walks.

One day, while I was struggling to negotiate a particularly steep bend on the road uphill, I heard a voice from within. "I'm ready to eat humble pie but not ready to die". What was that again ? Nothing. But I thought I heard something. Never mind. All I could hear were my breathlessness and creaking shin.

Next day, instead of walking uphill, I tried the impossible. Jogging uphill. At the steep bend, that seemed nastier that day, I heard a voice. "I'm ready to eat humble pie but not ready to die". This time it didn't go away. Perhaps because its rhythm was in sync with my breath and step. "I'm ready to eat humble pie .... huff huff huff .... but not ready to die ... puff puff puff". What was that again ? "I'm ready to eat humble pie ... huff huff huff ... but not ready to die ... puff puff puff ... hup one two three four ... one two three four". I smiled and jogged up the nasty bend. A marching song to help me on subsequent days, eh ?

I have attended college for longer than I needed to and have two post graduate degrees in humanities. And a love for models and constructs therefore.

My marching song seemed incomplete. What if my jogging uphill could be compared to the beginning of my second innings at work ? Would the lines of the marching song change in the medium term ? The long term ? What if it weren't me, but someone else just beginning a professional career? Would my lines for the short, medium and long term still apply ? And help ?

Couldn't get my answers. Went for my walk-cum-jog. Clarity hormones got triggered again. I knew at once what my line in the medium term should be. "I'm not getting that much humble pie, looks like I'm not going to die". And that I would like the song to eventually end with, "I long for some humble pie, I'm quite ready to die".

There was my marching song ! Complete with a model. A happy song that gave me direction. The next day I sang it silently. In full.

"I'm ready to eat humble pie ... huff huff huff ... but not ready to die ... puff puff puff ... hup one two three four ... one two three four".

"I'm not getting that much humble pie ... huff huff huff ... looks like I'm not going to die ... puff puff puff ... hup one two three four ... one two three four".

"I long for some humble pie ... huff huff huff ... I'm quite ready to die ... puff puff puff ... hup one two three four ... one two three four".

I smiled and jogged up more nasty bends that day. Go ahead and make your marching song. If you can't, take mine.

Live-in with an organisation

Someone comes up to you and says, “I want to be in a live-in relationship”. And you begin to think.

Does this person want to choose convenience over responsibility? Keep an exit option open and be focussed on the short term? Make an unconsidered choice and follow the trend? Is influenced by what is increasingly heard or said? Had a bad experience with marriage or witnessed dear ones go through a rough patch?

You may get surprisingly similar thoughts if someone comes up to you and says, “I want a flexible work arrangement”.

Now imagine that it’s my child who comes up to me and says, “I want to be in a live-in relationship”. I can’t just have thoughts and opinions. I will have to act. Do something for my child’s happiness and welfare.

Sure my child can make a choice. Just like she has in the past and handled it well. And be happy. Like I have been with my choices. Then, as an ordinary parent concerned about her welfare, I would want to ensure -

·         that she is making a considered choice and is doing it for the right reasons;

·         that she continues to respect and believe in marriage, to either consider it at some point, or at least, to be at peace with her choice and get peaceful vibes in return from married people;

·         that her partner scores well on the points mentioned above;

·         that she lives in a place that has people who are respectful of people and their choices.

Indulge me. Replace ‘live-in relationship’ with flexible work arrangement. ‘Marriage’ with full time regular work. The ‘person choosing to live-in’ with the candidate desirous of flexible work. The ‘live-in partner’ with hiring manager, supervisor, team mate or family. The ‘place of residence’ with an organisation.

And you might just hit upon the ingredients of making flexible work arrangements work ! Ask your questions, use the four points listed above, and get some answers. As an organisation, check to see how much you generally respect your people and their choices. And you might be able to predict whether and how beneficial it could be to offer flexible work. As an individual, introspect if you continue to appreciate that, all else being equal, the career advancement opportunity should go to the other person on regular employment. And you might temper your insecurities about getting victimised while on flexible work. As a line manager, assess how much you are willing to partner with an employee on flexible work. And you might get the direction to make it work. 

Since our individual and community experience with live-in relationships is more than it is with flexible-work arrangements, we could use the learnings from the former to inform the latter and push it in the right direction. Faster.