It has become a commonplace to say that, with globalisation and automation transforming the world of work, we need more 'soft skills'. There are various lists of these 'skills' available on Twitter or Linkedin, and often they are just similar things expressed with a slightly different twist. The idea is that when cost pressures push the corporations and investors look to capitalise every ounce of 'value', our very human qualities matter more than our ability to carry out instructions. In the battle for our career with robots, we can only survive by being more ourselves.
However, these things are usual staple in Conference Circuits. Books have also started to appear on the subject - a few dystopian ones in a sea of very enthusiastic elegies to the brave new world - and the message is very similar. Howard Gardner may label something 'Creativity' which Daniel Pink calls 'Play'; Howard Rheingold may call something 'participation' which may become 'Relationship Work' in Geoff Colvin's telling; but the message is that instead of competing with Robots, the basic strengths that made humans such a successful species need to be invoked all over again.
However, there are some missing ones in even the most elaborate of the lists, and these intrigue me. My favourite one is 'Compassion'. I never see this C-word pop up in any of the Powerpoint slides. Communication and Collaboration feature prominently; Relationship Smarts have also got some airtime after Mr Colvin's intervention: But Compassion never made it. Indeed, there are others, but, in this post, I want to explore the case of Compassion and why it is not considered a critical Soft Skills - and, what does that tell us about the whole conversation about Soft Skills.
First, the case for Compassion, as I see it. Compassion is the essential human tendency, a higher cognitive ability that differentiate humans from animals. Indeed, some animals are capable of compassion, but these are the ones with bigger brains and greater cognitive abilities. In contrast, the competitive spirit is a basic life force, existing almost across the board in the living universe. As we get to compete with Robots, competitiveness can be programmed but compassion less so. In fact, as far as I am aware, the recent breakthroughs in Machine Intelligence, which signifies a break away from efforts to mimic the human brains to a new kind of thinking, makes Compassion even more difficult to fit in.
Compassion is a real differentiator because it may be irrational. This is different from collaboration, which one does for with a favourable outcome in mind: It is logical, so it can be programmed (and indeed, Robots are better at collaborating, without emotional hassles and stereotypes to deal with, than humans). Compassion, by definition, has no defined positive outcome for the person concerned, except the emotional well-being. But compassion has great collective benefits; it makes people work better together, make lives happier and at the biological end, allows new features to survive and grow. It is crucial to ideas, as a brutal winner-takes-all space would only preserve those who shout the loudest and keep us forever in the prison of the present: The outliers and the oddballs will never make it. It is the stuff that built the greatest common glue that made human societies successful: Religion. It is, I shall claim, the most successful and persistent of the soft skills that each generation needed to survive.
But we never speak about this when enumerating the soft skills. There are several reasons for this, but all of them are equally 'debunkable'.
First is that compassion is not a workplace skill. This is empirically untrue: Many of us have direct experience on the contrary and having one's best friend at work is also very common. In fact, our ideals about good workplaces are of a community based on compassion, friendship and understanding.
Second is that compassion is not tangible, but so are all soft skills. A related objection is that it is not teachable, but any good school teacher would seriously object to that. And, even if schools have become all too assessment driven, religious teaching is all about compassion (particularly in Christianity and Islam, two of the world's most successful religions).
Third is that compassion is culturally specific: What compassion is to an Indian may not be the same to an American. But this is flawed too, but compassion is more of an universal human feeling that the ones we call 'soft skills', such as Communication. Compassion is exactly the same feeling for an Israeli and an Arab, an Indian and a Pakistani. This is why religions based on compassion can successfully build multi-cultural communities (without linguistic unification) and this is why those who take 'culture training' to conduct international business do worse than those who are characteristically compassionate.
Fourth, a more serious one, is that compassion is rather unpredictable. If pure compassion is not based on self-interest, how does one fit that into a pursuit of career, which is all about self-interest. But this is based on the fallacy of the company man, the assumption that we are capable of maintaining a 'professional self' different from our person. As some Organisational Theorists would point out, it is the whole person who comes to work, and, at least for most people, office and careers are not solely about 'self-interest'. It is rather about their 'self-concept', and most of them are compassionate, 'normal', individuals.
Indeed, the meta-reason why Compassion does not make it to our list of soft skills because we believe the world of work is a world in itself, different from our daily lives. But the point of soft skills is exactly that: The world of work is rapidly changing from a factory, where one interacted with machines, followed instructions and lived within processes, to more like the usual human community, where being human is no longer a disadvantage, but a necessity. Compassion has come to be seen as a religious thing, not because religions invented compassion but because compassion was a human tendency that allowed us to invent religion (okay, I give it away and admit to be an atheist!). When we reach deep down and think what makes us human, as this robot-induced challenge surely does, compassion comes at the very top of human abilities. It is time to put it back on the soft skills that we should be looking out for.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The Creativity Imperative Businesses today consider creativity of their staff as a critical, possibly the most critical, factor for their ongoing survival. This is because the environment, political, social and commercial, has become so fluid; as Yogi Berra put it, “the future isn’t what it used to be”. Constant change, demanding and more aware customers and citizens, rapid information dissemination through new technologies of information and communication, and intense competitive and regulatory pressures, are pushing companies and people who work for them to innovate and adapt continuously. Set in this context, employee creativity has a whole new meaning. It is traditionally understood as people thinking about products and services, which did not exist before, or tweaking and improving the existing ones. Competitive pressures add to this creativity imperative. Information is fast and cheap, and communication technology is driving the costs of production and distribution
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.