Organisations have become increasingly fluent in the language of culture, inclusion and psychological safety. Whether that language has changed how people experience their workplaces is a different question. Employees are encouraged to speak up, yet hierarchical behaviour persists. Companies celebrate diversity, yet leadership teams often emerge from remarkably similar backgrounds. And when good people leave, the explanation frequently returns to compensation rather than the quality of management.
Prabir Jha has spent more than three decades in people leadership across Tata Motors, Reliance Industries, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories and Cipla before moving into advisory work. That experience has left him sceptical of HR practices that are more visible in policy than in behaviour. In conversation with HRKatha, he argues for greater individual choice within organisational cultures, more outside perspectives in senior leadership, and a definition of inclusion that goes beyond demographic representation.
Practised in the trenches, not preached from the pulpit
Organisations speak increasingly about psychological safety, yet many workplaces remain hierarchical. What prevents the idea from becoming part of everyday leadership behaviour?
Unfortunately, this is talked about more from the pulpit than it is practised in the trenches.
A lot of it has to do with leaders’ own experiences and how they built their careers. They feel that is the only way people can be led. As a result, cultures remain hierarchical, tenure-based and influenced by proximity to the top.
Nothing is more important than a conscious shift in role-modelling from the top, accompanied by a clear articulation that behaviour must change down the line.
That change must then be rewarded or reprimanded very clearly through straight feedback. Promotions, bonuses and recognition must all visibly represent the new philosophy.
Simply talking about psychological safety in town halls is unlikely to change much.
“Truly diverse companies cannot be built around token, demographic-anchored affirmative action.”
One culture is not enough
Organisations often try to create a common culture across the workforce. With employees seeking different things from work, does that pursuit of uniformity risk becoming counterproductive?
Culture must be atomised to personal drivers and preferences.
Whether we admit it or not, subcultures do and must exist within any overarching organisational culture. Organisations need to build flexibility and offer more choice. They need to stop being obsessed with compliance and policies and become much more practice-rich.
Decision rights must be pushed dramatically further down the line. Organisations need to empower people aggressively and, at the same time, hold each other accountable. These are the things that build ownership and trust.
“At least 25 per cent of senior leadership should have less than five years of tenure. That is the only way to bring in a blinker-free, outside-in perspective.”
The reason nobody names
When capable employees leave, compensation is often cited as the explanation. Are organisations sometimes reluctant to acknowledge the management failures behind attrition?
People typically leave because of poor managers. Low appreciation, toxic behaviour and no conscious effort to expose them to new learning or visibility are the real drivers.
Companies often find it difficult to acknowledge this dark underbelly because the issue can ultimately reflect poorly even on senior leadership. So it becomes convenient for everyone to blame attrition on better prospects.
“People leave because of poor managers. Companies blame compensation because the real reason reflects poorly on senior leadership.”
Build the bench, keep the window open
Internal leadership development builds continuity, but can it also make organisations too inward-looking? How much external talent is necessary to challenge established thinking?
I believe at least 25 per cent of senior leadership should have less than five years of tenure in any organisation. That is the only way to bring in a blinker-free, outside-in perspective. It keeps the culture evolving and the system agile.
At the same time, growing plenty of internal talent builds organisational stability, reinforces pride and creates a strong career story, all of which contribute to a good employer brand.
The answer is not to choose between building and buying. Organisations need enough external talent to challenge established thinking while continuing to develop a strong internal leadership bench.
“Culture must be atomised to personal drivers and preferences. Subcultures do and must exist within any overarching organisational culture.”
Pluralism over checkboxes
You have been critical of conventional diversity approaches. What do you believe organisations are getting wrong, and how would your idea of pluralism produce a genuinely different leadership team?
The entire diversity conversation has become derailed. It has become a convenient political hijack for some.
Truly diverse companies cannot be built around token, demographic-anchored affirmative action. Over time, that can foster mediocrity rather than merit and, in turn, fracture organisational cohesiveness.
What I have always advocated is building pluralism, in thinking and in doing. This means hiring or promoting beyond the usual parameters: the same industry, same background, age, gender and so on.
It must be about inviting and supporting divergent viewpoints, encouraging debate and building greater innovation and ideation into the culture.
This is a much deeper effort than the perfunctory checkbox metrics that many companies follow.
“Psychological safety is talked about more from the pulpit than it is practised in the trenches.”