Willing are not capable... understand first

Understanding of the understood is very essential in all walks of life and more so in corporate world. Only when such 'auditing' is done, the systemic error of our brain and behaviour can be understood if not in a position to correct it.

Be it in our garden or in the agricultural field or even in our balcony pot, we remove any plant other the plant we have planted, when grown. We call all such undesired gatecrasher plants as 'weeds'. These weeds, with limited water, nutrient, sunlight and other requirements, grow indeed faster than the plant of our choice. If they are allowed, they may outgrow the garden plant. This is all about one side of the story.

In the above context, we clearly decide what is 'wanted' and what is not and we act as well by removing them.

In the corporate scenario, many weeds are misjudged and wrongly understood as 'great leaders', extremely capable people, visionaries and finally 'best adaptable' to all circumstances. These people express their willingness to do any job, they have no special need, expectations and even what a specialist may think twice before doing, these people will say they can do it.

They love to outgrow everyone in the corporate not by fighting or combating but by they willing to take up any responsibilities. From sweeping the floor through treating the VVIP and conducting board meeting etc., they assume they are capable off.

Many corporate bosses loudly praise such people as great asset, highly adaptable, talented etc. The 'total intelligentsia' in the corporate, according to some corporate bosses/leaders/HR function, must kneel down before these talents.

The larger question is 'who are these people'? Are they really as talented as believed to be? If one to two such people can do many things in the corporate, why corporate should hire talents, professionals, experts etc. Only if we study these 'coroneted leaders', we can learn the fact that these people are nothing but mere 'corporate weeds'.

Most of the corporate bosses, leaders and the HR functions generally judge people based on their willingness to take up responsibilities and not the end result as how they complete the task at the end of the day. Talents and capability should be measured not on the basis of ones willingness but how they complete the task should be the criteria for such measure. Only if the corporate use such yardsticks, the 'willing to do everything' people can be clearly understood as 'asset' or 'mere weed'/liability.

The suggestion is not against respecting the people who show willingness to many things, but judge their capability as well. Willingness is not the capability.

Dr S Ranganathan, ClinRise Derma Pvt., Ltd., Chennai