Pic Courtesy: Blog of Lydia Abbot
Story. Gaya Lal was a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Hodal in Haryana. He won elections as an independent candidate in 1967 and joined the Indian National Congress, and thereafter he changed parties thrice in a fortnight, first by politically defecting from the Indian National Congress to the United Front, then counter defecting back to INC, and then counter-counter-defected within nine hours to United Front again. When Gaya Lal quit the United Front and join the INC, then one of the INC leaders declared that “Gaya Ram was now Aya Ram”. It became the subject of numerous jokes and cartoons.
Genesis. The term originated in 1967 in Haryana where excessive political horse trading, counter horse trading and counter-counter horse trading took place, triggered several rounds of frequent political defections by the serial-turncoat politicians within a span of short time, resulting in the dissolution of the Haryana Legislative Assembly.
Political Connotation. Aaya Ram Gaya Ram expression in politics of India means frequent floor-crossing, turn coating, switching parties and political horse trading in the legislature by the elected politicians and political parties. To end this trend, the anti-defection law was made in 1985. The trend still continues to surface every now and then, by exploiting the loopholes in existing anti-defection laws to benefit a specific party through further horse-trading, counter-defections, formation of unholy alliances and electoral fraud.
Aya Ram & Gaya Rams are found in every organisation, group and establishment.
Military World (Also in Corporate World)
In military (for that matter even in corporate world), there are two types of people. First type is good for the organisation. They take decisions after considering all the relevant factors. These leaders and managers willingly take calculated risks.
It is the second type that one has to be worried about. These people can be further divided into three sub – categories.
- Fence Sitters. These types are unable to or unwilling to decide on anything. They not only are reluctant to take any decision but also do not give any opinion on any matter.
- Quick on the Draw. These types are in a too much of a hurry to take a decision. At times these decisions are taken without considering all the factors or without analysing their long term effects.
- Wind Socks or Yes Men. These are the most damaging types i.e. the yes men (I classify them as Wind Socks). They do not have a viewpoint or opinion of their own. They always align themselves with the blowing winds like a wind sock. They wait and watch and finally agree with the higher up.
The first type generally do not rise in any organisation. The second type sooner or later run into a wall due to incorrect decisions taken in a hurry. It is the third type which may land up at higher posts and do a greater damage.
“A ‘Yes man’ is a dangerous man. He is a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshall but he can never become a leader nor, ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues and despised by his subordinates. So discard the ‘Yes man’.”
– Sam Manekshaw
Definition. As Merriam-Webster explains, a yes person is “one who endorses or supports without criticism every opinion or proposal of an associate or superior.”
Born or Made. Some people believe that yes people are born that way. While it’s true that some people (extroverts) are quicker to express their opinions than others (introverts), the truth is that anyone can become a yes person and more often than not, yes people are made not born. Leaders and Managers create a working environment as they lead their team. Team members learn quickly what behaviour bring reward and what brings punishment from their higher ups. Even the most vocal team members will stop expressing their opinions, if the leader makes it unpleasant for them to disagree with them.
The Danger of Yes People. Having yes people around you may feed your ego, but it does little for your effectiveness as a leader. It may give you a false sense of feeling that you are taking the right action on a critical decision and may feel good that your thoughts are being validated.
“When two men in business always agree, one of them is unnecessary.”
– William Wrigley Jr.
Draw Backs of Having a Team of Yes Men
- An Organisation Full of Yes Men leads it nowhere. Diversity is a key ingredient for decision-making success. While mastermind groups can catapult the organisation forward, the lack of dissenting opinion within decision-making groups can be detrimental.
- An organisation Full of Yes Men Lacks Innovation. Creative freethinking promotes innovation. Yes men are the exact opposite. They are parrots who do nothing but repeat back what they think you want to hear. Informational diversity is needed to find solutions to complex problems.
- An Organisation Full of Yes Men Misses Opportunities. Opportunities exist all around us, one has to look for them. Yes men are too busy focusing on following the leader, missing the opportunities in the process.
- An Organisation full of Yes Men Makes More Mistakes. Intellectual, constructive debate helps to identify the weaknesses of a plan. Groupthink is so powerful it can make one miss the obvious. When a person feels like there is a group consensus, even if they don’t agree with it, they are less likely to speak up. They overlook the issues and conform to the general perspective despite glaring problems.
- An Organisation Full of Yes Men Is Afraid of Risk. Yes men by nature choose to take the safer route even if it isn’t necessarily the best or most efficient route. They choose the known for the unknown, leading to a culture of maintaining the status quo.
Agree to Disagree.
If a leader does not allow team members to disagree constructively about something that is occurring in the workplace, it communicates that the opinion of the team members is not valued.
Leaders who only want people who agree with them to work with them, create unnecessary teams. They create teams of yes people.
To get the best results from the team, it’s important for the team members to speak their convictions. To be productive, team members need the power to disagree appropriately with each other and even the leader at times. Productive conflict and healthy dissent is good for any group.
Recommendations.
- Encourage participative decision making process.
- Ask for opinion / feedback and listen to it.
- Allow your team members to speak up, even disagree with you if they feel so.
- Allow them to voice their concerns about a course of action that you are taking.
- Encourage healthy discussion (even disagreement) in interactions and team communications.
Bottom Line
Professional Dissent is not Disloyalty.
Professional Discussion is not Denial.
Professional Dispute is not Mutiny.
Without a bit of chaos any organisation is as good as dead.
Question
Are HR policies of our Defence force’s encouraging creation of Yes Men?
Suggestions and value additions are most welcome
For regular updates, please register here
References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaya_Ram_Gaya_Ram
https://managementisajourney.com/the-danger-of-creating-yes-people/
https://the1thing.com/2015/09/15/why-a-company-full-of-yes-men-leads-you-nowhere/
Yet Yesmen go up the ladder. In fact too many of them.
Percentage is not high but the damage done is high and generates bad publicity.
To answer the Question posed at the end of the excellent discourse (mainly for seniors to understand) — No, the polices in themselves do not push up YES person. It is the implementor of these policies that are at fault. Policies are guidelines needing implementation. No policy, even if ill thought out, talks about promoting the individual who agrees with the senior. It is the senior who rewards the YES person.
And it is agreed that not many have reached highest of the positions by just being YES person. Individuals who do reach those levels may appear to have followed the policy of never to disagree, but do have quality to implement what is ordered with enough personal drive.
I believe my friends who reached these heights were there because of capabilities they displayed beyond being agreeable.
Agreed.
Yes men are created by the leader.
Leaders can encourage expression of individual opinions.
Very comprehensively covered.
One thing I learnt in the IAF that was unique, “Until a decision is made you are duty bound & at full liberty to give your opinion, but once a legal decision is made, you must implement it to the best of your ability, as if your own”. The best case, but you need leaders who can listen, and change their point of view. An organisation unknowingly always shapes itself to mimic its leaders. Yes men destroy an organisation.
True sir
Leader should make his team members participate in the decision making process. This way it gives a sense of belongingness and ownership to the member, increasing their involvement. (SELL type of leadership)
One should participate in the decision making process with no inhibitions and express their views. Thereafter, stick to the company policy once the decision has been made.
Interesting discussion.
Policy has to be followed once formulate is given. Those who do not should not find place in any organisation. However, Policies are nothing but SOPs and cover actions in most situations. SOP can not cover all the contingencies and that is where leadership is required.
Many ways to define leader. It is opined there are two types– 1. The book does not permit it so will not do it. Circumstances have little play and Judicious use of policy does not happen. Will push the idea of YES men. 2. The book does not stop me to do it and therefore can be done. Judicious use of policy. Such a leadership is desired and is likely to produce leaders who will have positive impact.
Thanks for the value addition.
I call it
Throw the book at them
and
Throw the book out.
Book has to be thrown
at or out
depends upon situation.
To some extent, I feel that most people get this way because they are responding to a culture or people in management who elicit and reward this type of behavior. Most so-called yes men are doing what they think they need to do to survive on a dysfunctional leadership landscape where all the signals and messages affirm for them that dissent is bad and agreement is good.
The baseline for an open environment to foster a more participative decision making process is the leader him/her self.
Absolutely yes men create more yes men.
It needs a strong leader to break the chain.