From : E-Group, STC, Salt Lake, Kolkata This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and kindly arrange to notify stcsaltlake@xxxxxxxx immediately. Using Internet Explorer in ATM PC of your branch, please browse http://10.128.74.200 (our Intranet Web-Site). We have provided lots of Reading Materials for you at the site. Happy browsing! Dear Member, Kindly double click on the enclosed attachment to read it. With regards, Anup Sen, Moderator E-Group, STC, Salt Lake, Kolkata email : stcsaltlake@xxxxxxxx We shall be glad to receive your feedbacks through emails regarding the mails being sent to you through this e-group.Title: State Bank of India, Staff Training Centre, Salt Lake, Kolkata. : : stcsaltlake@xxxxxxxx : :
HAVE you had ever wondered why in
organisations, even after a lot of top management exhortations and a series of workshops
on creativity, people simply refuse to think out-of-the-box? Or why many
employees are unable to digest constructive criticisms about one's performance
Or how to explain the immortality of hierarchy despite persistent attempts to
undermine it? Answers to these questions are not easy to come by, as many of
them are embedded in the vast and mysterious arena of human nature. But the
latest advancements in fields ranging from anthropology to neuropsychology are
finally revealing some very tantalising glimpses of what these answers could
be. The human animal Evolutionary psychology, a term coined
by two American academics Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, is an approach to
psychology in which knowledge and principles from evolutionary biology are put
to use in research on the structure of the human mind. A few key assumptions
underlie this theory. It reminds one that though humans
branched away from primates more than five million years ago, 98 per cent of
the genes are common ? a strong reinforcement to the fact that we are still
animals. Second, the mind/brain just like any other physical organ adapts to
the specific external environment and deriving out of that is a startling
conclusion that the minds and bodies are adapted to the ancestral environment
of the Savannah Plains, where we foraged as hunter-gatherers 2,00,000 years
ago. The needs, drives and biases that guided humans then have not disappeared
but are still embedded in the complex internal circuitry of the brain and they
do rear their heads very frequently. It is the contention of the evolutionary
psychologists that you can take the person out of the Stone Age, but you cannot
take the Stone Age out of the person. Needless to say such a radical
reconception of human nature has significant implications for all the facets of
human activity. In two classic articles written by Nigel Nicholson in the
business journals Human Relations and Harvard Business Review, the impact of
this theory on management and organisations have been explored and some of the
findings have the potential to fundamentally change the way that management is
practised. Hierarchy cannot die The theory implies, for example, that
many of the "behavioural" problems are the result of the mismatch
between the ingrained stone age mentality and the current environment. In fact,
the theory offers very coherent and consistent explanations for problems
ranging from child abuse to sexism. And secondly it is these ancestral
instincts that guides one in many of the endeavours in organisations. Be it
creating a hierarchical structure or implementing a very scientifically
designed performance appraisal system, the hunter-gatherer still stalks the
carpeted floors of many corporate offices. Take, for example, the persistence of
hierarchy and status differentiators in many organisations. Despite the big
talk about empowerment and self-forming groups many studies have pointed out
that managers are still very comfortable in the hierarchy chain of command. It is also a common observation that
even in training programmes which bring together people from different
companies, any group activity brings to fore informal leadership and
deferential behaviour. The reasons for this, according to the evolutionary
psychologists, are not hard to fathom. Wealth, which during the hunter-gatherer
time was represented by food, clothing and shelter, was less predictable and
still it can be assumed that some did better than others and accrued status. As a result, they were more sought after
for alliances, leadership and more fundamentally as a mate who would produce
healthy babies more likely to survive the elements. In other words, the desire
to obtain status is so hardwired in our internal circuitry that any attempts to
curb it either by introducing flat structures or reducing layers makes our
instincts to find paths that bypass these imposed constraints. Risk and rationality It is also the contention of this theory
that life on the Savannah Plain, with its inherent resource uncertainty and
mortal dangers, etched in humans the tendency to avoid losses except when
threatened. While humans are loss averse when comfortable, we panic when
threatened and indulge in many irrational activities. Examples of such behaviour include the
apparently irrational move by many traders to double up positions when the
stock moves down and to sell while the stock is still rising. Both are classic
examples of panic when threatened and risk aversion. Traders do have their
informal rules of thumb such as "cut your losses and let your profits
run", but they also admit that it is the most difficult thing to learn. The same instinct also makes people more
productive when layoffs, which do not specify who will go, are announced by
companies. These situations force people to go to any lengths to avoid the pain
of that loss. But when companies close entire divisions, people indulge in acts
of aggression and violence, which though smacks of irrationality, is but a
reaction to a threatening gesture. So any activity that will call for risky
behaviour on the employee's part will not be very successful and it is
precisely the reason why many organisations find that making employees think
out of the box a very difficult proposition, because creativity and risk are
but the two sides of the same coin. So what should managers do? Nigel Nicholson in the article titled
"How Hardwired is Human Behaviour" has, in fact, gone on to say that
"the most concrete take-away from this contention is that if you want
people to be risk takers, frame the situation as very threatening. The competition is going to destroy us
with a new product. Or, our brand has lost its cache and our market share is
slipping fast. On the other hand, if you want people to eschew risk taking
behaviours, make sure they feel secure by telling them how successful the
business is". A final word? Being very provocative, evolutionary
psychology has had its own share of controversies. It squarely places itself in
the "nature" school as against the "nurture" school of
biological thinking and, as a result, has an aura of fatality around it. As
Nicholson points out "its tenets directly dispute a great deal of popular
management theory, which contends that people can change their personalities if
correctly trained or motivated". The last word has not been written on
the subject, but the perspectives gained so far have the potential to change
the way managers think about their organisation and its members. If not
anything, at least it would be wise to remember that the modern skull of the
manager holds a stone age brain! (The author is an Assistant Professor
with IFMR, Chennai) |
