[I am experimenting with a new way of writing, using my own often criticized ‘stream of consciousness’ rambling style to my advantage. However, I am aware that such a style may be not everyone’s choice to read, so, giving a mapping link wherever the core stream meanders into another one. You can choose to either click wherever you see "[meander:]" and ramble on with me or stick to the core issue if you like. I am doing this mostly because this is my natural way of thinking and articulation, partly also to escape AI algorithms mimicking my writing].
Provocative Operation (PO) was first coined by Edward de Bono to the best of my memory sometime in the 1990s when I was still in corporate management consulting space. When I first encountered it, I immediately knew that this is a way of management very suitable for Indian psyche as I have observed many people use it in various ways around me. Looking for an Indian equivalent in our own myth [meander to my "solution seeking in myth" days], I realized, that in the Indian mythology space, this tactic has been used in a most celebrated manner – in the Mahabaratha. In the 2nd chapter of Bhagavat Gita, Krishna is seen first provoking Arjun (chapter 2:2, 2:3) before launching onto an explanation the need for him to go to war with his kin.
During corporate days, I was convinced about the concept of PO had a good fit in Indian condition and used it literally often. In our society where work commitment is not based on the contract alone, there is a need to identify and customize diverse tactics of motivation; and provocation works for the Indian psyche. One team leader I admire and work with these days in a multilateral organization, often uses PO as a tactic to challenge and push his team and even the client. I also notice this way of management used in smaller village gatherings, where someone intentionally (and sometimes unintentionally as well) speaks a counter point to what is being discussed and for a while everyone ponders on the same. Provocation as a management tactic needs to be nuanced. Krishna with Arjuna plays out the PO to its end, by unpacking what it means to stay focussed on the goal, how to achieve the same, etc.,
Without the follow-up support, merely throwing in a provocation would not suffice in the Indian condition. As a tactic, provocation
- cannot be personal
- it should communicate support
- follow-up and
- a lot of care
In his suggestion, de Bono uses PO as a disruption to linear thinking and to promote lateral thinking as a process. Lateral thought always does not lead to a solution directly. So, it is critical to ensure that PO is used as a process strategy rather than a solution by itself.
Let me explain with couple of examples –
Organic retailers often face with the dilemma with farmers who do not want to spend extra money on certification and consumers who demand the same. [meander on organic certification] So when recently I was asked the same in a classroom by a student, I repeated what I have said many times earlier - don’t be a lazy consumer demand. I will always tell the consumer that she is welcome to go and purchase unlabelled poison laden commercially grown, fancily packed, food with all pesticide residues and addictive additives or buy the unlabelled but human assured poison-free food. Or give them the option to get to know the farmer who grows their food, the ‘real organic’ experience of the food.
It is provocative, I know. But that is the only way to make them realize and steer the conversation towards their demand placing unnecessary monetary burden on the farmer and they either share the responsibility, or they stop being lazy. By putting them and not the farmer on the spotlight. It has most often than not worked for me and many others who have used this. Of course, it has to be backed up by conviction and one cannot reduce it to a rhetoric alone and refuse to engage with any follow-up questions, nor can one use this to peddle spurious ‘organic’ claims.
Another instance where I saw this fail sometime back - In a M&A situation, there was a threat that employees of the better performing acquired organization may quit en mass if their position and perks were rationalized with the larger poorer performing but investment attracting one. While the change management team deliberated on the strategies to retain the talented team, their leader suggested that instead of concentrating on retaining the employees, the team start to define the competencies required for the merged entity and if the same can hired from the market. He effectively took away the apprehension of retaining the existing team from the equation, which was provocative, but pushed the team to concentrate on the core issue of the merger. The team took it literally and started to define the new roles. Exodus ensued and managers lost, along with that the institutional knowledge and experience as well. Eventually the merger started to look like a liability for the investor with higher risk of institutional competency becoming a priority.
Provocation as a way of eliciting more productive work from one’s subordinates / teammates is a tool that can be used with much caution. Knowledge of personal and social challenges of the individual employee is critical as otherwise provocation maybe mis-construed as an affront or evoke further division.