I am 14 posts away from 250 all-time (~11 years, since I started blogging), and I've set that as my target for the remaining 2016. It's not a lot, considering that there are still 53 days remaining in this year, although when I set the target a few days back, there were more than 60. Also consider the fact that I've done only 16 posts in 2016 so far, in about 10 months and a few days. At the end of 2015, my average was 22 posts per year, with the highest of 54 in 2007 - the year I traveled to the US first time, and did some sort of an experience sharing series of posts - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.
At this point of time, my target seems achievable, just that it requires me to do a little more than what I generate at my regular pace, with the stretch that is quite significant by my performance standards so far, but not humanly too adventurous. This is not how most companies set their targets - for themselves, for their people. There is an unsaid rule that the targets have to be crazy and overwhelming, demonstrating optimism and hope to shareholders and employees, and pushing the executive leadership - pushing them hard - so hard that they fail, to think of creative ways of achieving the numbers, not otherwise achievable if the company continues on its course. The executive leadership push the guys below them who further pass the pressure downwards and soon the whole company is under tremendous pressure. One of the reasons why this is considered wise may also be the oft advised funda to aim high, dream big, so big that you even need courage for the dreaming. One funda doesn't fit all, especially for targets. What kind of targets motivate someone is totally dependent on his/her personality. And companies have personalities too.
A company's personality is a complex summation of the personalities of all its stakeholders, some carrying higher weightage because of their position and personality. Just like humans, some companies are more suited to focus on limited set of offerings for limited set of customers, and make them best in class. Some companies are more suited for diversity - in products, services, cultures, locations and people. Some companies are more suited to compete hard and grow. And there are many more kinds of course, most of which can't be described in such simplistic terms. And like people, lot of companies are in wrong businesses - businesses that don't suit their personalities. And that leads to misaligned expectations, unrealistic goals, frustrated leaders, stressed and scared employees, poor commitment from everybody, and a lot of inefficiency. And eventually, missed targets. Such companies set themselves on path to decline and perish, which is very sad.
Just like we have counseling for people, I think there must be counseling made available for companies, or rather any group of people with an overall common goal. But to equip those org-shrinks, there has to be a lot of research work to understand the area, model it and bring a scientific approach to define organizational DNA and personality as concepts, and the best suited paths for organizational success. As organizations grow, they do take decisions very early on in what they choose to be vis-a-vis what they choose to be composed of. Perhaps the misalignment can begin at that very stage, and therefore it may make sense to engage these org-shrinks very early on with a company.
Also, the very notion of aiming unreasonably high should be put an end to, and leaders must take a lesson or two on being realistic. Irrational expectations would only lead to temporary irrational exuberance from the insane leaders and temporary fake excitement from the sane ones, while everyone knows they'll fail, yet commit to the ask just to please the boss. Most of the insanity in companies flows top-down and the highest amount of fixing is generally required in the thinking of the topmost bosses - viz. the CEOs, Chairpersons and/or Promoters. They must understand that a company is not just a geometric progression of numbers year on year. It is a whole organism, much more complex than the humans that it's composed of.
Collective and organized human effort towards a common goal is the smartest and the most beautiful capability human civilization has led to. Unfortunately, we still need to cover some ground in making it the most meaningful and successful for all engaged, along with ensuring every organization's success in achieving its goal - which it has chosen and defined in the best alignment with its personality.
At this point of time, my target seems achievable, just that it requires me to do a little more than what I generate at my regular pace, with the stretch that is quite significant by my performance standards so far, but not humanly too adventurous. This is not how most companies set their targets - for themselves, for their people. There is an unsaid rule that the targets have to be crazy and overwhelming, demonstrating optimism and hope to shareholders and employees, and pushing the executive leadership - pushing them hard - so hard that they fail, to think of creative ways of achieving the numbers, not otherwise achievable if the company continues on its course. The executive leadership push the guys below them who further pass the pressure downwards and soon the whole company is under tremendous pressure. One of the reasons why this is considered wise may also be the oft advised funda to aim high, dream big, so big that you even need courage for the dreaming. One funda doesn't fit all, especially for targets. What kind of targets motivate someone is totally dependent on his/her personality. And companies have personalities too.
A company's personality is a complex summation of the personalities of all its stakeholders, some carrying higher weightage because of their position and personality. Just like humans, some companies are more suited to focus on limited set of offerings for limited set of customers, and make them best in class. Some companies are more suited for diversity - in products, services, cultures, locations and people. Some companies are more suited to compete hard and grow. And there are many more kinds of course, most of which can't be described in such simplistic terms. And like people, lot of companies are in wrong businesses - businesses that don't suit their personalities. And that leads to misaligned expectations, unrealistic goals, frustrated leaders, stressed and scared employees, poor commitment from everybody, and a lot of inefficiency. And eventually, missed targets. Such companies set themselves on path to decline and perish, which is very sad.
Just like we have counseling for people, I think there must be counseling made available for companies, or rather any group of people with an overall common goal. But to equip those org-shrinks, there has to be a lot of research work to understand the area, model it and bring a scientific approach to define organizational DNA and personality as concepts, and the best suited paths for organizational success. As organizations grow, they do take decisions very early on in what they choose to be vis-a-vis what they choose to be composed of. Perhaps the misalignment can begin at that very stage, and therefore it may make sense to engage these org-shrinks very early on with a company.
Also, the very notion of aiming unreasonably high should be put an end to, and leaders must take a lesson or two on being realistic. Irrational expectations would only lead to temporary irrational exuberance from the insane leaders and temporary fake excitement from the sane ones, while everyone knows they'll fail, yet commit to the ask just to please the boss. Most of the insanity in companies flows top-down and the highest amount of fixing is generally required in the thinking of the topmost bosses - viz. the CEOs, Chairpersons and/or Promoters. They must understand that a company is not just a geometric progression of numbers year on year. It is a whole organism, much more complex than the humans that it's composed of.
Collective and organized human effort towards a common goal is the smartest and the most beautiful capability human civilization has led to. Unfortunately, we still need to cover some ground in making it the most meaningful and successful for all engaged, along with ensuring every organization's success in achieving its goal - which it has chosen and defined in the best alignment with its personality.
