Why it is difficult to be M's Friend - hold a mirror to your face

I had a wonderful vacation with the family for a few weeks in Kerala often referred to as God's Own Country for the splendid beaches, mountains, back waters and much more. Most of the time I was not connected to the rest of the world (no news, TV, computers, etc...) and it was nice to have a few days of splendid isolation and give a 100% to the family. The photos attached are taken in Poovar about 30 KM from the capital city Trivandrum. Being away from the daily grind also gave me time to reflect and solidify some ideas about business, economics, politics and technology.

I have a friend who when I asked him if I could mention his name in the blog, said no, so I'm going to call him M. I have known M for over 10 years and consider him a friend and a sounding board for ideas. I also discovered that many people find it hard to be be his friend. I think I know why. During any serious discussion or debate, M holds a mirror to your face, i.e. he asks the hard questions, questions your motive, your assumptions, and your agenda. He does this purely from the intellectual need to establish clarity, both for the speaker, and the audience. This approach, however evokes hostility, because it is seen as questioning ones authority, integrity , etc.. Of course like all of us M is not perfect either and some times does antagonize people when he probably can get the same results without antagonizing them. But I deeply appreciate his friendship, candor, and clarity.

Holding a mirror to your face:
In previous blog entry titled agenda coloured glasses I had talked about agenda based decisions. Holding a mirror to the face of a speaker ensures understanding of people's agenda. In working closely with many senior managers across many industries, one of the questions that make many people agitated is when they are asked what is the "value" of their group to the core of the company or organization. Does the competence of your group need to be the competence of the organization or should it be out-sourced?

Another "holding a mirror" question is that on performance. I have seen so many managers wanting numerous metrics in place to "manage" their teams, but get very defensive when they are asked the motivation of those metrics. Is it an issue of trust, integrity, productivity etc. Also often managers do not want the same metric of trust or integrity to measure them because they feel that they are obviously above that - but then does it mean that they are hiring less trustworthy , or less productive people?
Metrics are useful when they are simple, in limited numbers and the value can be easily communicated both to your employees and to the managers above you.
In most organizations there are different constituencies that need to be represented and whose interests need to be balanced. The Customer, the employee, the share holders and of-course the vendors or suppliers. Any decision that skews too much in the favour of any of these constituencies will effect the other constituencies and can ruin a company.
On a parting note I will give you an example of skewed decisions causing organizational failure.
An automotive company that I have worked closely with has a great engineering team that makes innovative products that are used by many major car makers in the world. They also have a great purchasing and finance team ensuring strict compliance with their corporate financial and governance policy. The purchasing department was so effective in cutting down prices and sourcing lowest cost providers that at some point cutting cost became the sole purpose, while supplier sustainability was forgotten. What ended up happening is that the engineering team could then not get any good vendor to work with them on a long term basis because all the engineering system companies that worked with this company either became bankrupt, or stopped servicing them to ensure sustainability. So the good purchasing department got great prices. The good financial team ensured payments were stretched out as much as possible, and the good engineering team spent a lot of time on re training new vendors and hence loosing out on time to market. Effectively this company has great individual constituents but is a failing company that is in bankruptcy. So hold a mirror to your face when you make a decision or go into a debate. Thank you M for your clarity of thought.