Disorder in the Questions: asking the ‘How?’ sooner

When we go for marketing calls to sell the service of DNA development for the businesses, I make a single statement to make our point i.e. ‘we help the companies to grow from one level to next level’.  As a response to this, often we get back a question ‘How do you do that? ‘.  Also we get other questions that are closely related to the disorderly question “how do you do that? “. Some of them are ‘How do you get from here to there?’, ‘Where has this worked?’, ‘What would this program cost and what is the return on investment?’. ’ How do we measure it?’ etc. We prefer to call this question disorderly, because it beats all the creative and productive purposes. The question creates a subtle aura of cynicism or contempt. It indicates something such as “ We have been doing it all these years, how can you be better than us” ,  “We know it all , let us see if you can tell us more than we know, which is impossible”,  etc.. It is also a defense against taking action, as it implies that let us know clearly that it will yield what we want then we shall act.

Thus the How? question is a defense for the stubbornness to act for change or even to think differently. It is an indirect expression of doubt, more on to them than on us.  The How? question also seem to be a habit.   Business owners who have strong habits of pursuing what is practical and doable, tend to ignore larger purpose and impacts. We are astonished to watch frequently that when some business owner’s initiatives do not work, they simply try harder. When they are trying to control a business and it is failing, then they doggedly do more of what is not working.

The How? question also promotes an illusion of speed such as the world is moving fast now a days  and there is no time for thinking and emotions; At any cost we must do all things fast. Of course, we need to do things fast what needs to be done. What need to be done: ‘the business’ is often forgotten.  Instead the organization mindlessly pursues to meet the mechanical objectives. This mindset, of going only behind what works, is the biggest hurdle to sustainable business growth. We attempt to break this mindset very early in our interactions and that puts us in the risk of being expelled from the premises. But that is the hazard of business facilitation job. We need to put up with it.

Each time business owners / managers try to get answers to the question How?, they get answers such as .. do Lean management, do six sigma, do 5S, do 360 degree feedback, do balance score card, do leadership training etc etc. All seem to have not yielded what was expected if not failed. Still organizations resort to such programs every now and then with a hope to solve their fundamental issues.  Often How?  question fails because it is not the right question and secondly the answer comes out of someone else’s experience. It is difficult for any business to live on the experiences of others regardless of the meticulousness with which the answer is accepted.

It is not that we propose a blanket ban on the How?, it is only that we persuade the business owners/ managers to save this question for a  latter period and that there are more important questions to be asked before the How?. Getting the questions right at first is the best step. We facilitate to make them ask right questions.

Contributed by Sasikanth Prabhu

Mentoring Redefined

What next after learning. World has identified mentoring and coaching as successor to learning. Indian history however is replete with examples of mentor – mentoree relationship. If we start from understanding Eklavya – Drona, to Upmanyu and Maharshi…, to Gandhiji and the three monkey symbol everyone signifies a befitting mentor-mentoree relationship.
So what is mentoring. To start understanding, we should look into above relationships. There exists a role model, a person interested in role model, the role model himself inactive in contributing physical development of given person and we have perfect mentor-mentoree relationship.
Again, mentor is essentially a good thinker and mentoree interprets. Mentoree picks up the signal and interpret it in his own way.
If we extend this line of thinking, Karl Marx would qualify as mentor for communism where in possibly he himself might not have practiced communism, it is the mentoree (here leadership of a country or a large part of world), who took the cue and interpreted it in its own way. This is one mentor-multiple mentoree situation.
For Example collective US thinking is mentor, and the rest of the world as mentoree. Now the interpretation of mentoree for the given mentor is different. The mentor here throws some thought, jargons and world tries to understand, internalise and adopt it. The ones who are reactive to it are interpreting it differently but that does not cede the mentor position of U.S., that is thinkers – OF THE WORLD. This should qualify for multiple mentor-multiple mentoree relationship. But once they themselves self profess to be mentors and try to dominate the thought process they cede to be called mentors.
Mentoring is a happening phenomenon and not a doing phenomenon. There have been forms of mentoring exercises in companies and as consultancies but truly speaking mentoring is just not possible. There are cases when a person assumes role of grooming, training, transforming another person but these do not amount to mentoring.
So equivalent to learning, a mentoree has to be interested person and have drive to interpret the deeds, saying and vision of mentor to develop himself.
It is at best judicious form of learning from focussed source. The mentoree has the right to choose right appropriate mentor.
In mentoring a person unknowingly help someone (mentoree), having no agenda of his own, with his personal, professional or career development.
In school days, a teacher has some influence on student. If this influence continues even after schooling to various other walks of like, the teacher graduates to a mentor. Here, student (mentoree) takes the cue from the life style and thinking of teacher and then transforms himself accordingly. Thus mentor-mentoree relationship is outcome of years of exchange and trust build-up. Any shortcut is unpalatable.
Mentoring is indirect learning. Mentor can never be a mentor if he guides explicitly to the mentoree. Mentor’s job is to think and present his viewpoint. The interpretation is solely mentoree’s. If the two discuss together to refine the thought process or develop understanding the mentor-mentoree relationship is over, it then forms discussion group, guide, coach, etc.
Essentially, it is the ownership which is of prime importance. The ideas of both mentor and mentoree are original and fully owned by themselves.
Going by transactional analysis, mentoring is adult-adult relationship. Any other transactional state would qualify for something else.
The crux of success of such an indirect, passive relationship lies only in OK-OK position of both mentor and mentoree.
So a person may be christened mentor only after another person (mentoree) experience or feels OK by the mentor thought process and aligns himself accordingly. So, mentoring is one relationship which is the outcome of a process and does not lead to initiation of a process. Any process after establishing this relationship should not be qualified as mentoring relationship.
The world will be at loss in defining such abstract phenomenon. Because as per the above paragraphs mentoring ceases once it is established. So for a mentoree mentor should be changing with time.
A mentor in given time cannot hold mentor status
1. After being understood as mentor,
2. Ceases to remain mentor once it dominates thinking pattern of mentoree instead of vitalizing it,
3. Does not add value indirectly to mentoree, direct value addition would be termed anything else, not mentoring.
Mentoring and guiding is different from each other…
To learn from a mentoring is abstract form of learning wherein a person matures into learning from directly available sources of books and other hardware, to judicious interpretation of deeds and saying of mentor he has so appointed (It may be mock monkey statue as earlier stated). A person may refine himself by being in touch with mentor. But mentor never states things or does anything for the sake of mentoree.
Mentoring is then in essence a more matured form of learning from observing and believing. It therefore is superior to learning from indirect sources of learning like books, videos, etc. Moreso, it’s the perception of an individual which is more important because two different person from the same role model (Mentor) may learn two diametrically things altogether.
A case in point: the role model played by our film heroes motivate some children and even grown-ups to go for violence, crime-ideas, womanising, boozing or some form of malpractices. Can it be called mentoring relationship? I feel no, because here the mentoree is not thinking, and interpreting with his understanding..…
Again, even if two person are in regular contact with each other, mentor-mentoree relationship may exist, the pre-requisite remaining indirect influence of mentor on mentoree to ignite thinking in mentoree as well.
There has been a discussion on how to manage such a relationship. West has designed programmes and methodology.

The experiments in west on mentoring dwells upon mentoring arena.
Accordingly, a mentoring arena is the space that is established each time we agree to mentor somebody: the space in which a mentoring transaction takes place. The distinction between arena and transaction is because there are many different kinds of mentoring transaction: sometimes we give advice, some-times we coach, sometimes we just listen, sometimes we give feedback, sometimes we challenge, sometimes we counsel. Each of these specific transactions can legitimately occur in the mentoring arena. A mentoring relationship allows this arena to become more clearly defined, to develop and to mature.
of betterment of mentoree, its mentoree’s capability to extract best out of mentor. The professional relationship which is touted is at best not mentoring and at worst is brain washing (?).
On the other hand a person like Smt. M. Padmanabhan, who I have never met is a role model for running a school, more in handling of children in Montessori classes. The effect has come from stories which goes round like her presence during children alighting from bus, banning slapping and canning in school, doing rounds in kitchen and above all being friendly with children. Today she is mentor to all her children who call her BIG MADAM and probably manifest her deeds in many forms in their life.


contributed by Yogesh Jain

Offering service and creating an experience

Is offering service and creating experience to a customer same?

It is very difficult to articulate the difference. It is very difficult to convince a scholastic person and to explain to a business owner the difference between these two.

Mostly, the B school erudition treats the service and experience offering as same. The B school scholars may prove it with their entire intellectual bulk that experience is all service and experience is created by service.

Yet there is difference in subtle way. The difference is felt in our hearts and I am struggling to find ways to explain it.

Once the difference is felt by the business owners and if the focus is shifted from just service orientation to experience orientation, the structure of business and organisation will qualitatively and quantitatively change.

contributed by: sasikanth prabhu