Arun

Posts

Failures Should Also Be Counted As KPIs

Most organizations tend to measure success and conceal, justify or forget failure. This distorted performance measurement leads to failure being more revealing than success, as teams may hit targets under the surface with accumulating unacknowledged, unmanaged risks, bad decisions, weak processes or practices which cannot be sustained.Balance score cards lead us to optimize for appearance, not learning. Failures then should be counted as KPIs as well, not to punish people for every mistake but to make institutional learning visible and measurable. No failures reported does not necessarily mean good performance; sometimes it is the other way round. It is out of fear hiding lack of transparency or risk averse employment culture. Failures, which are penalized in the system lead to defensive behavior rather than innovation. Experimentation stops, people evade responsibility, decisions are postponed and their personal safety becomes more important. A correct way to report tracking failures ...

On "Biases"

Every person carries biases, not because human beings are irrational by exception, but because perception itself is shaped through limited experience, emotional memory, social conditioning, incentives, and identity. The mind does not observe reality in a completely neutral manner. It interprets, filters, prioritizes, and protects. This is why people with different histories can look at the same event and arrive at entirely different conclusions while each sincerely believing they are being objective. Bias is rarely experienced internally as bias. It usually feels like common sense, morality, logic, or truth. The difficult part is that awareness of bias does not automatically free someone from it. In fact, intellectually self-aware people can sometimes become more skilled at rationalizing their perspectives because they possess better language and analytical ability to defend them. The ego quietly adapts. It stops saying, “I am unquestionably right,” and begins saying, “I am simply bein...

The Chair Was Temporary. The Ego Was Not.

Why Some People Wear Titles Until Titles Wear Them? Many people do not merely hold positions within bureaucracies or institutions; over time, they begin to derive their identity from them. The designation slowly stops being a role they perform and becomes a psychological extension of who they believe they are. This is why authority often changes behavior. Power does not always corrupt in dramatic ways. More often, it quietly reorganizes perception. A person who is repeatedly obeyed, prioritized, addressed formally, or socially elevated can gradually begin mistaking institutional importance for personal importance. The chair, the title, the office, the access, the ability to influence others, all begin creating an invisible distance between people. And if self-worth was fragile to begin with, authority becomes emotionally addictive. This is why hierarchical systems often produce layered human behavior. People are treated not as individuals, but as positions within a structure. Respect b...

On "Middle Managers"

Middle management often becomes trapped in a position where responsibility flows downward while authority remains concentrated above. In inefficient bureaucratic organizations, middle managers are expected to ensure execution, maintain team discipline, absorb operational pressure, and deliver outcomes, yet they frequently lack the autonomy required to make meaningful decisions. They become translators of decisions rather than makers of them. At the same time, they must constantly balance conflicting expectations from senior leadership and frustrated subordinates, forcing them into a role centered more on managing tensions than solving problems. This creates a peculiar organizational paradox: middle managers appear structurally important, yet often possess limited real power. Their existence persists because bureaucratic systems require layers that coordinate communication, distribute accountability, and maintain procedural continuity. In many cases, these roles survive not because they...

The More We Talk, the Less We Move

Talking often creates the feeling of progress because the brain tends to confuse verbal clarity with practical advancement. Discussing ideas, plans, ambitions, or problems generates a sense of movement, especially when conversations are intellectually stimulating or emotionally validating. In group settings, frequent discussion can also produce social reinforcement, making individuals feel engaged, informed, and productive even when little has materially changed. The danger is that expression can become a substitute for execution. Repeatedly talking about goals may temporarily satisfy the psychological need associated with achieving them, reducing the urgency to act. Over time, some people become highly skilled at narrating progress rather than creating it. Silence, in contrast, often preserves energy for observation, reflection, and deliberate action. People who talk less tend to reveal intentions more selectively, think with less social pressure, and avoid dissipating focus through c...

Nobody Says No, Yet Nothing Moves

A supervisor often continues insisting because authority, once resisted, becomes psychological rather than operational. The issue slowly stops being about the task itself and starts becoming about whether instructions can be ignored without consequence. In many hierarchical workplaces, especially bureaucratic ones, managers are conditioned to see non-compliance as a threat to order rather than a signal of dissatisfaction or misalignment. The harder authority pushes for obedience, the more resistance retreats underground. Employees avoid direct refusal to protect themselves from conflict, while supervisors avoid acknowledging the resistance directly because doing so would force an uncomfortable conversation neither side fully wants. What emerges is a silent negotiation carried out through delay, reminders, avoidance, and pressure. At the same time, supervisors themselves are rarely operating freely. They are often under pressure from higher management, institutional targets, staffing sh...

Career Entrapment

Golden handcuffs describe a condition in which individuals remain trapped in jobs not because of fulfillment or growth, but because the economic and psychological costs of leaving become increasingly difficult to bear. High salaries, bonuses, benefits, status, or lifestyle dependencies create a form of institutional attachment where financial security gradually overrides personal ambition, autonomy, or well-being. Over time, employees may become aware that the role no longer aligns with their interests, values, or long-term goals, yet still hesitate to exit because the rewards are structured to make departure feel irrational or risky. This dynamic is reinforced by loss aversion, where individuals fear losing existing comfort more intensely than they value potential future gains. In many cases, the longer one stays, the stronger the dependency becomes, especially when identity, social status, or family expectations become tied to the position. The consequence is a quiet form of professi...