New entrants vs old guards

Perhaps there isn't any position starting from Management Trainees (inclusive of all new joiners either in bureaucracy or private sector) to the CEO or the Secretary, where a new entrant is not given a tough time by the old guards. Why they do it, is for the psychologist to answer. But Who exactly are these 'old guards'? This piece will help define and identify them.

Let's first establish,,who constitute old guards; and why are they referred to as such?

Old guard is an English translation of the French word," Vieille Garde"---the name was given to Napoleon Bonaparte's Imperial guards, who were the elite regiment of his army and were intensely loyal to him. It was this 'Vielle Garde', who at Waterloo made the last charge. That the charge was in vain, is a matter of history. However what emerges from this definition are the following; old guards are an elite force, they are extremely capable in their vocation and are passionately loyal individuals.

The current usage of this term has more negative connotations to it, then positive, while in reality, its origins lie in the domain of superior positivity and eminence. Hence its new meaning, however it may be correct or incorrect, today denotes those people in organisations or Society, who are unwilling, and do not want to accept change, new ideas,etc.

For the purposes of this article, I will rely more on the positive undertones of the word, without diluting the negative implications.

Old guards can make the life of a new entrant extremely difficult. They may contain and withhold critical information. They can delay the execution of initiatives proposed by the new entrant; they will find faults or use the toughest filters to undo the enthusiasm of the newcomer. I have witnessed deliberate concealment of significant information by the senior most members of the management. Upon being confronted, why they chose not to reveal critical details; I received lame , pretty lame excuses, like, it was unintended, the issue we thought was trivial, or 'I thought Mr. X, Y, Z, may have already briefed you'. How I dealt with it, is reserved for another piece. What is clear is that, if the intention is not to be of help to the new supervisor or even a junior, the concerned person definitely suffers from a serious setback of confidence in his/ her own abilities. They hide, because, they feel, the control will be lost. Some do not share work for fear of being considered redundant. For HR practitioners, this attitude of people must be checked and addressed.

The old guards hand over challenges to the fresh intake, based on the inbuilt fear and apprehension, especially more so, if the new joiner comes as their supervisors in the management cadre. They tend to keep the new person occupied with the trivia,so that they will not institute changes that may go towards the demolition of their empire built over years or decades of maintaining the status quo. Essentially it is the fear of the Unknown.

Old guards or out of sheer respect for them, I would want to refer to them as 'fixed assets' are not necessarily mean ; some of them, rebel, but most of them, fall in line, with the diktat of the new leader, out of compelling expediency or by virtue of enthusiastic willingness. I had serious difficulties in distinguishing between compelling expediency and enthusiastic willingness. The veneer was always very thick, for me to unmask the real person behind the facade. The dividing line between the two is not as prominent as the 38th parallel or the McMohan Line. The demarcation between expediency and willingness can easily be smudged by the pretender, when challenged.

Between these two extremes are the fence sitters, who wait to see which way the winds will blow... only once it is firmly determined, will these jump in to either facilitate the induction or create hurdles in their settlement. I found this category to be the slimy and slippery loathsome lot. Not only such are capable to hoist the new entrant high up on the flag post, but also possess equally, skills to lead the person up the garden path, which has no point of return, but only has at the other end of the path a deep ravine, to jump in --- they are lost in oblivion. This category of managers are also found indulging in corrupting the workplace, with 'corporate gossip'. They slander. Next they praise, without good reasons. They talk behind the back of the new entrant. They feed the newcomer with information about colleagues, which is normally laced with negativity; then there are some, who portray teammates, regardless whether they are junior or seniors, in an unkind realm of thought. This is done to achieve their latent dubious objectives ... the finality being , the undoing of the new joiner.

On the flip side of things, the behaviour of the new joiner also determines the response of people; arrogance is met with withdrawal and aloofness; pleasing attitude is met with warmth and acceptance. Many years back, I had in my career, only one successor, who ended up being wily and deceptive. Having known him, more as an acquaintance for at least a decade, I held his hand and guided him to slide smoothly and easily into my then function. During this transition time, the attitude and behaviour was extremely humble and friendly, but upon assumption of full responsibility of the job, the individual went totally ballistic; he started witch hunting,for finding "loyalists". Alas! He knew not that in corporate life the only loyalty is to the self and later to the organisation. Those he suspected wrongfully though, were chucked out. In my view, this is conduct unbecoming towards the old guards.

The incoming executives,not all, but many, arrive into the institution with an air of superiority and arrogance. Since no person from within the system is given an upward movement, the newcomer who is cognisant of this fact is made to feel that they have been hired for possessing better skills and abilities --- which though in reality might be at polar ends.

This feeling of being better prevents easy acceptance by the existing staff; some rebel, mostly submit. Those rebelling are either taken to the launderers or are completely sidelined to live and decay in silence, on the boundaries of the organisation. Such new entrants believe that their first job is to indulge in a corporate 'Spanish Inquisition'. Officials who submit are carefully kept on watch to discover if there exists any hidden loyalties. I remind my readers that this phenomenon is not restricted to the corporate sector, it is as much prevalent in government, public sector enterprises; it beats sanity, when you read that a government decides to change the commissioner of Gujranwala for fourteen times in less than thirty months.

Many new joiners give an initial impression that nothing will change, that the environment will be business as usual, the work being done is good and hence must be continued. This could be an honest and truthful approach or it can be a deceitful act --- where the crocodile, while lying lifeless on the sand, strikes, only when the prey is unprepared, to take any route of escape. Leaders and managers can possess animalistic tendencies. Look around. Plenty. There is a Buddhist thought that, 'No person can be found who has been, is or will be, only criticised or only praised'. In every live and operating unit, there will be presence of good people and the not so good. If the new supervisor is constantly on an attack as a hungry shark, it will reveal to his colleagues that he is a timid, scared and full of fear person, who is generally in a state of perpetual fear of the Unknown.

Joining a new team, with preconceived notions which are housed in suspicion and mistrust, does no good to the transition process, of taking the torch from the outgoing individual. The team members in such situations become actively apprehensive to the extent that they get into their shell and avoid giving and sharing information or leads to the new leader.

Whether one is a new joiner or is part of the old team, a lot depends on their individual traits, grooming and background, that will either usher in an environment of calm and togetherness or will serve as deadly sparks for the powder keg of suspicion to blow up.

In view of this scribe, the new joiner must make the most efforts to imbibe within themselves the culture and ethos of the organisation. For corrective actions, if any that are required, it is best to give time for its initiation. The narrative must first be properly and judiciously built up; the buy-in of existing staff must be had, and only then, should measures for changing people, systems, processes, etc must happen.

The old guards must recognise that the tide of time brings changes; it is inevitable, and hence must be embraced. The treasures of the past are not likely to give suitable responses to the challenges of the present. Control of negative emotions must create placidity in behaviour and not anger or agitation.

The new entrant must recognise that just as one starts to imitate the person who is admired and liked, the seeds of hatred or dislike towards one or many, induces their presence in the minds, and hence there is always the possibility to become an ardent follower of the disliked manager.

Resistance, mostly yields unhappiness; acceptance on the other hand ushers comfort of mind and soul. This is not to suggest that one accepts what is incorrect or wrong nor is it to mean that unjust behaviour should not be resisted.

For a harmonious integration between the new joiner(s) and the older team, it is imperative for both to demonstrate a great deal of tolerance to divergent ways of conducting business. Visibility of respect towards each other must remain an act of mutual endeavour.

Leadership is about wisdom. Knowledge is about skill and abilities. Wisdom demands silence; knowledge provokes conversation. The old guards and the new entrant must harmonise their relationship on the plains of wisdom.

– The writer is a senior banker and freelance columnist