The Mirror does not Lie!

Working with the EUM-O Framework

Who are we?

Very often my clients ask this question — albeit rhetorically, and then jump to the overwhelming narrative of ‘how great our culture is!’, ‘how inclusive are we!’, and ‘how differentiated we are from the rest of the firms!’ … the narrative that is cited would have references to real facts, anecdotal references to the inner dilemmas and intended action — these are difficult to dispute, and data that confirms the narrative.

If organizational identity and strategies are narratives in action — then the central narrative recognizes sub-plots, role-taking, and action choices and builds theme of continuity for its stakeholders. This is subtle, and perhaps an unconscious collective process that draws out confirmation bias from most members.

The EUM Framework, as created by Ashok Malhotra, becomes thus the only resource that can enable participating leaders and managers to look beyond the central narrative, and unearth marginal and subaltern narratives where employee dissatisfaction and deep urges to change are embedded.

I introduce the EUM-O construct to equip my co-travelers to discern multiple realities — some of these do get obfuscated or overwhelmed and lie dormant — but these experienced realities are equally powerful as potential reservoirs of energy (in the form of dissatisfaction, sorrow, rage etc.) to trigger and unleash new action choices within. The process of discernment and leveraging these unspoken narratives has its challenges but it often leaves most stakeholders emerging with a sense of truth(s) that lightens a sense of being and of having a new purpose or intent.

The Mirror does not lie!

In Narrative theory, every firm has ‘contamination narratives’ — anecdotes of human experiences that leave its employees with mixed and undesirable feelings — sometimes of ‘shame’, sometimes of ‘guilt’, and often neither these narratives nor the consequential feelings are expressed or worked with.

Let me share a recent experience of working with a global firm that was sitting with great pride on its central narrative — that of being ‘nice’ and ‘woke’ — the cited experiences were true and authentic, and the narrative spoke of the firm’s ability to emerge with sustainable solutions for the ecology it was embedded in, while reinforcing a culture that encouraged diversity, inclusivity, deep dialogue, and which discouraged selfishness, aggression, toxic masculinity etc.

We were exploring what needs to change — and most co-travelers were finding the question quite difficult to work with — the collective was citing a greater investment into this culture (the EUM-O strand of ecology) and feeling inadequate if they could not enhance it. But it was extremely difficult for them and for me to even discern, let alone legitimize, any other aspect of change.

Out of sheer desperation, I reached out to the EUM-O framework and presented all the five strands (Ashok calls these as imperatives) and asked smaller groups to create artefacts where and how the five strands create the tapestry of the firm today, and which strand would they wish to invest more energy into.

The EUM-O was not just the lens of looking at organizational phenomena but also became the mirror that does not lie — across multiple groups over the three weeks found the construct as critical to not just endorse the central narrative, but also discern the subaltern narratives of arena that fueled self-centric behaviors, competition, aggression and rage, and of clannish / tribalism that fueled nepotism, groupism, homogeneity, and even racism — these of course lay deep and covered by the central narrative. These were the shadows within — and were being ‘denied’ by all.

What was even most intriguing that some 100 odd leaders were able to state what needs to change — ‘dial-down’ the oppression of ecology / woke stances and smell the coffee. It become critical to just look at self and the firm through the lens of ecology but also to work with innate plural realities — and specifically the realities that lay in the shadows, and yet ended up sabotaging any real growth initiatives.

New Realities and possible New Narratives of Choice-making and Acting

What the EUM framework thus really offers to all of us who are a part of organizational systems is the ‘gift’ of viscerally engaging with competing narratives within the system — the experience is not pleasurable — in fact the experience of discovering co-existing realities is painful, often ridden with feelings of shame and guilt, and yet in the end — the truth of such pluralism also offers a lightness of being and possible healing.

The framework also challenges the monolithic claim of any one strand — these days it is perhaps more fashionable to speak of the ‘ecology’ strand as the only true dimension — and in this storytelling, we often end up deluding ourselves.

The EUM-O framework perhaps strengthens the boy who challenged the emperor for not wearing clothes — an act of empowerment perhaps.

How do you understand EUM?

Ashok is offering a two-day session on EUM — and I would advocate that these two days would be a great investment of your time and energies — I would advocate to anyone who assumes leadership roles in the system. Do check out my other blogs on EUM including the recent one where the data enabled me to postulate the ‘imposterization syndrome’ — an unconscious process of denying one’s wisdom and de-skilling oneself. Please do visit www.eumlens.in and write to me for any questions or your reflections.