Small Companies but Big Politics and Even Bigger Egos

Small companies are small only in terms of size of business and number of employees however they are big in terms of politics and even bigger egos. Working in such companies can be a real pain not only in the neck but also the other parts of the body.

Such companies are like a mini zoo where one can find a scary collection of corporate animals. These animals are generally high on attitude and low on competency and maturity. And that may be the reason why they would not survive in a truly professional and big organization. Following paragraphs provide the various types of silly and strange corporate animals in small organizations.

Type P - These are people who are asked to look after areas where they have the least competence just because they are part of the inner circle of the top dog in the company. Loyalty means everything in such organizations and hence they get promoted despite lack of competence. Their position in the organization is a direct function of their foot-licking and yes-sir approach to dealing with Type V. They are unfair, unethical. unprofessional and non-transparent in their dealings with others. They love writing immature and stupid emails (a trait shared with other animals in the zoo-like small company - Type R, Type M, Type S and Type M/D).

Type M - These are people who carry big attitudes on their shoulders as if they are big-shots and movers and shakers of the industry. Such people are hardly known in the industry and no one recognizes them beyond the four walls of the small company. Their egos are however as big as the size of an elephant.

Type R - These are people who think they are the only ones who are smart. They treat others as if others don't exist. They believe being a part of the core team only they are important. They make others feel as outsiders. They are very grade conscious and carry a holier than thou and condescending attitude towards others especially those who have lower grade than theirs.

Type S - These are people who are abrasive, uncouth and pugnacious. They are hyper defensive and would generally not accept any suggestion that they need any improvement. They would make silly and immature comments and try to show how they are the only ones who are working while others are passing their time in the company.

Type T - These are people who are silent henchman. They would do as Type V would command them to and would come across as very well meaning. However, being a part of the inner circle they also adopt a style of treating others who are not a part of inner circle as outsiders. In addition, in moments of truth they show the outsiders their true place.

Type M/D - These are the true losers in the whole set-up. They are really dead-woods in the system and are wannabe Types T. However, they lack the grace and professionalism. They would come across as smart asses (along the lines of Type R). They are generally cynics and too demanding on others. They believe their view is only right and only what they do is important. They try to maintain exclusivity of the work they do but fail to realize that what they are doing is very commonplace. Again like Type M, no body knows them in the industry but they behave as if they are the only experts. They have a pugnacious, accusative and demeaning style of dealing with others. In some sense they complement the characteristics of Type P and no wonder are good pals with Type P. They would form a triad and gang up on others to drive their malicious agenda.

Type V - These are people who generally sit at the top and adopt a hands-off style. Their favorite hobby is writing emails once in a while and drop an initiative on a parachute. There are no discussions and no deliberations their requests are orders. Type P act generally like slave of Type V.

Impact of Top Leaders on Culture

In general, various factors go into shaping the culture of an organization. However, the way the various factors play out eventually depends on the leader at the top owing to the trickle-down effect.

The manner in which people at a certain level behave is primarily influenced by what people at the next level above expect, going all the way right to the top.

This is very much true in case of formal organizations like companies; institutions etc. where formal authority at various levels is defined to a large extent. Top leaders at renowned organizations aptly illustrate the impact of this factor on the culture of an organization.

Facilitating Settling Down of a New Employee

While trying to settle down in  a new position in a new organization it is important for a new employee be aware of certain pointers. However, leaving "how to establish credibility in a new job" entirely to the new employee is not very helpful.

The role of the organization, the manager who hired the new employee and the team the new employee becomes a part of in facilitating this is equally important or perhaps more. The care exercised and effort invested by an organization and the hiring manager in getting a new employee should extend till the time the new employee settles down in the "new environment" and starts contributing.

The first 90-100 days are important for a new employee to settle down and start finding comfort in the new environment and satisfaction in the new job. After all, well begun is half done.

Managing Changes

The thought that "most of that change is self-driven, not externally imposed" - is perhaps true, to a certain extent, for the physical changes to human body but not entirely for the non-physical changes (intellectual, spiritual, etc.)

Changes are constant and inevitable and since they cannot be avoided they need to be managed for smooth transition to the changed state. In that sense change management is a very positive and powerful management tool.

Changes that are forced by difficult circumstances on an organization ("the boat is leaking, we are going to drown") are accepted more easily as there's no choice but to change the status quo. However, changes that are for the betterment of an organization ("can we make the boat go faster?") are generally not accepted easily as people have a choice to continue with the status quo.

It is very true that no one likes to be changed however the very nature of human existence is about change and more change. Human beings change constantly from the time of taking birth to growing up, then aging till the time of finally departing from this world.

Don't Hold Back Long

The suggestion to say or do a thing that is holding a person back is a wonderful idea. It is also true that saying or doing a thing is helpful in flushing out the blockage in a person's thought process so that he/she can then start thinking beyond and move on.

This happens in both cases - whether the outcome of saying or doing a thing is positive or not so positive. Not saying or doing a thing for a very long time can lower self confidence and create mental stress as well. So in that sense this is a good psychological method for a person to keep mentally relaxed and charged up.

On the other hand, it is important and helpful to take a lot of care while using this method. Overuse of this method by a person can result in him/her appearing overconfident and brash, or even rude, and others may look for ways to avoid such a person.

In this respect, Aristotle's saying regarding anger ("Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry...") is applicable to a great extent. It is easy to say or do a thing but to say or do a thing at the right time, in the right way and to the right degree is very important.

3 Stooges and Their Great King

Replace 3 with any number of your choice - 4, 5, 6 or whatever you would like.

This is the story of very many organizations especially small business enterprises.

The king in such organizations walks across the premises like a lion in the jungle. And for her to feel great, she would have loyal stooges always in the tow.

The stooges are part of the inner circle, the elitist core team.

Others are outsiders and of no real consequence.

And how do you know who the stooges are?

A simple observation is what it takes to know who belongs to the inner circle and who doesn't. The stooges go for lunch with their king and they have bigger rooms as compared to the outsiders.

The stooges have generally inflated egos even bigger than the big rooms they get from the king.

The 10 Million Dollar Gage for Employee Engagement

How much money is more than adequate for any general employee working in an organization? This is a seemingly simple yet a very hard question to answer. Money is supposed to be an important element influencing employee engagement. So what happens when money is kept out of consideration while determining the drivers for employee engagement.

With the above as the backdrop, the 10 million dollar gage for employee engagement is a useful construct to understand the level of employee engagement in an organization.

Let us assume 10 million dollar is more than adequate for any general employee working in an organization. What than means is that if a general employee gets 10 million dollars he rises above the need to work for purely economic or financial reasons.

So what would be the factors that would influence the engagement of such a general worker with the organization supposing he is given 10 million dollars. Following scenarios could be thought of as the possibilities that will emerge.

• Employee wants to continue working in the same field and in the same organization. This is the case of an employee who is passionate about the work she is performing. It also shows the strength of the culture and working environment in the organization.
• Employee wants to work in a different field but in the same organization. This is the case of an employee who has lost passion about the work she is performing and wants to get into another area she is interested in. It, however, shows the strength of the culture and working environment in the organization.
• Employee wants to continue working in the same field but in a different organization. This is the case of an employee who is passionate about the work she is performing. But it shows the culture and working environment in the organization has room to improve.
• Employee wants to work in a different field and in a different  organization. This is the case of an employee who has lost passion about the work she is performing and wants to get into another area she is interested in. It also shows the culture and working environment in the organization has room to improve.
• Employee does not want to work at all and wishes to quit the rat race. This would mean the employee was not enjoying the work she was performing and also not enjoying working in the corporate world. She was working due to lack of any other choice. And probably the only motive was to have some means to pay the bills.

The table below captures the above in a summarized form. It is clear from the table that there exists the case where someone may be wanting to quit the rat race altogether. This in some sense speaks about the prevalent culture in the corporate world, in general.



For any organization knowing the number of cases where the general employee would want to work in a different organization is a highly pertinent information. Higher employee engagement would mean working towards a situation where such cases are minimized.

HR folks in many companies run employee engagement/satisfaction surveys with lot of fanfare and drum-beating. These exercises become yearly rituals and provide good sound-bites to the top guys in management and HR. However, they generally fail to delivery anything concrete. The 10 million dollar gage can perhaps serve the purpose in a better manner and more efficiently.

Old Boys Club Culture in Organizations

Many small organizations stay small forever and eventually disappear. There are several reasons that may arise due to factors external to the organization however the stronger reasons have to do more with internal factors.

One big reason for the above to happen is the prevalence of old boys club culture in such organizations.  Such a culture is characterized by the following:

• There is a king bee who is the owner, founder and the ultimate boss
• The king bee is surrounded by a close-knit group of stooges who have one answer for anything and everything from the king "yes sir, what sir"
• Stooges due to their proximity to the king act like kinglets (similar to piglets when one talks of a pig, interestingly these two situations may not be that different, really speaking)
• The stooges have big egos and humiliate, demean and put down others. For them it is as if others don't exist and don't matter.
• When a cake is being cut, the king will get the biggest piece, the stooges will also have big pieces and others are simply told to get lost. The sub-stooges (stooges of stooges) ensure they get good pieces of the leftovers of the cake.
• Professionalism and positive element in such a culture is pretty low and to sustain the dominance of the old boys club the stooges are put on the heads of professionals hired from outside by creating strange reporting structures. 
• When any senior professional hired from outside brings up valid issues with one of the stooges the other stooges jump on to the poor professional's head and show him down.
• The stooge the senior professional is forced to report into defends the other stooges and advises "improving relations with the other stooges" conveniently ignoring the non-professional and negative behaviors and acts of the other stooges.
• Since the king and the stooges will never get fired in such an organization they maintain a hands-off approach to management and create funny rituals to perpetuate it.

Any senior professional hired from outside in such organizations should move on without wasting any time. She would realize in no time how difficult it is to survive with nuts around.

Stuck in a Dead-end Job

Getting stuck in a dead-end job is a reality especially for those who work in business organizations that have not been seeing adequate growth and where the organizational pyramid keeps getting fatter at the top every year.

Here are some of the ways in which one gets stuck in a dead-end job:

• One outgrows the current role but the next level job is simply not available. In this case the person will have to continue in the current role and if she is not able to move out will get stuck.
• One becomes a senior professional in a company after having worked for several years. In this case if the person has not kept abreast of the changes in the market in respect of skills she carries and has in some sense fallen behind will get stuck.
• One is assigned to some special initiatives by the management. This is a clear indication that the management doesn't care whether the person stays or not. The person will find that the accountability to achieve something keeps on increasing gradually but the authority to get things done stays unchanged and may at times gets diminished.

The biggest problem from those who are stuck is to the organization's culture. Such people would typically show following behaviors and characteristics:

• They carry big ego around and try to make others, especially those lower in the hierarchy, realize their weight
• They are too demanding as well as pugnacious and try to prove that they are always right and others are wrong.
• They are full of conceit, false sense of pride and superiority and carry a sadistic and condescending attitude.
• They are highly cynical and question everything for the sake of proving a point and to show their importance.

Signs of a Toxic Workplace

Here are some typical signs of a toxic workplace:

• Many people write funny mails starting with statements like this - "Bringing to your kind notice that this is another instance", "I am surprised to know that", "Needless to say that", etc.
• Many people (even who are supposed to be senior/mature managers) pounce on anyone who makes a mistake. And the mistake is highlighted time and again in every meeting to show down the person who made the mistake.
• Many people are too turf-sensitive, deeply indulgent in blame game, totally political, highly hierarchy-conscious, and carriers of jumbo-sized egos.
• Many people are deadwood and performing roles that could have been performed by people many years junior, they are generally there because they are in dead-end roles with no growth potential. Hence they need to protect their turfs vehemently at other's costs.
• Many people are silent schemers who would keep a wry smile on their face and try to show how genuine they are but act/behave in a contradictory manner.
• Many people are pushing their stuff to others or delaying it indefinitely and yet are still not held accountable for such actions.

Characteristics of Coterie-Managed Companies

Working in a coterie-managed company is an extremely challenging proposition. In such companies the co-founders and their loyal lieutenants are the "Insiders", everyone else is an "Outsider".

Such organizations are characterized by following:

• The co-founders and their loyal lieutenants are short on ethics. When a loyal lieutenant leaves the company and rejoins immediately (such people can't thrive in other organizations) his employment continuity is shown with no break.
• The co-founders and their loyal lieutenants maintain tight control by demeaning professionals hired from outside. Artificial reporting roles and lines are created to make sure professionals hired from outside remain puppets in the hands of loyal lieutenants.
• The co-founders and their loyal lieutenants demonstrate time and again to professionals hired from outside their true place in the system (which is basically no better than that of a second grade citizen).
• The co-founders and their loyal lieutenants go for lunch together. By virtue of being the elite of the company, lunch is served in a special way.
• The co-founders and their loyal lieutenants may seem to disagree on certain matter over email but that is more of a facade to mislead professionals hired from outside.
• The loyal lieutenants would gang up on the professionals hired from outside and many activities which should have been managed by them are conveniently downloaded to professionals hired from outside in the name of organizational interest.
• The loyal lieutenants would also gang up on professionals hired from outside by maintaining tight control over the information that gets shared with professionals hired from outside (which is basically bare minimum and sketchy at the best). 
• The co-founders would allow only their loyal lieutenants to have direct reporting into them. For areas where loyal lieutenants have zero competency requiring professionals to be hired from outside, such professionals will be made to report to one of the loyal lieutenants (who will have zero idea about what it takes to get work done in that area) . The idea is to show professionals hired from outside their "true place", second guess all their decisions, control resources, withhold information and essentially continue to maintain their "Outsider" status.
• The loyal lieutenants would harass professionals hired from outside by maintaining tight control over resources. Requests by professionals hired from outside  for addition to their team will be brushed aside and ignored and instead will be asked to managed with scarce resources whereas the areas looked into directly by the  loyal lieutenants would be overstaffed.

Toxic Leaders and Incompetent Managers

One of the key reasons for an organization to struggle to grow is the presence of toxic leaders and incompetent managers in such organizations.

Toxic leaders carry a chip on their shoulders. They believe and behave as if they are the ones on whose shoulders the organization is being run. They come across as know-it-all, arrogant and rude in their interactions with others. One can spot them in meetings easily - they would be using the cuss words, disparaging others, putting others down, showing how smart they are, etc. They would also be showing their arrogance and over-smartness while responding over emails.

The problem of toxic leaders gets compounded when the senior management chooses to ignore such behaviours. Often times such people are blue-eyed-boys of the senior management and have the blessing hand on their heads. Such people will generally run into issues in case the senior management changes.

Incompetent managers reach their positions by virtue of their loyalty to the top brass and believe in being good old soldiers who would not loose a moment to say "Yes Sir". They would over commit and under deliver. In fact, they would push their activities to others like asking the people from other departments to perform their departmental activities.

Such managers cause frustration in those who are forced to report into them. This problem gets compounded when such a manager doesn't understand the ABC of what someone reporting into them is doing, They would second guess or stay silent only to give a surprise during the performance reviews. They typically demotivate those below and are not be fair in their dealing with others.

The top brass in such companies is responsible for allowing such situations to develop. Such companies will fail to attract professionals and even if trick someone into joining them would not be able to retain them.