Being a "Yes Man" versus Being [Hu]man[e]

 Being a "Yes Man" versus Being [Hu]man[e]

27 June marks the Death Anniversary of Field Marshal (FM) Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, who is hailed as probably the greatest General of the Indian Army and one of the exceptional leaders whom Indian soil ever had.

PC: DD News Twitter Handle (@DDNewslive)

FM Sam Manekshaw ("Sam Bahadur") had very famously said something about those people who simply refuse to move any further ahead in life than kowtowing to the desires/wishes/whims of those in control over them. The essence of Sam Bahadur's statement is reproduced below:

A ‘Yes man’ is a dangerous man, a menace. He will go very far. He can become a minister, a secretary or a Field Marshal but he can never become a leader, nor ever be respected. He will be used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues, despised by subordinates.

You see...there are many clauses in this - some clauses are red herring for some; yet the same clauses might be inspirational for others. The matter is of choice.

Some keywords in the statement are:

• a dangerous man, a menace
• can never become a leader, nor ever be respected
• used by his superiors, disliked by his colleagues, despised by subordinates
• go very far

It is said that failures are a test of a man's patience and success is a test of a man's character. But then what are the definitions of success and failure? That, as I said, is a matter of personal choice.

Now, the big question should be asked - the Red Pill or the Blue Pill? As I said, the matter is of choice - an individual's choice between designation-based parameters of fame and ethical decisions which arise out of moral considerations.

Often in work-spheres, we might encounter individuals who in the bid to become blue-eyed for their superiors consequently become fiery-eyed for their colleagues and subordinates. Every superior undoubtedly requires a subordinate who can act as an instrument to fulfil his/her desires. A true leader, which means someone who can inspire and motivate those individuals who are being led, undoubtedly commands respect from his followers. For him, unhindered compliance is achieved by motivation and respect. Others seated in leadership chairs, on the other hand, require such subordinate instruments (read "Yes Men") who act with obedience without question, even if that might mean exhibiting a conduct of compliance ad nauseum for the colleagues and subordinates of these "Yes Men". Here lies the riddle. What should be the point at which an individual must take a detour from the path of being a "Yes Man" towards being [hu]man[e]? I repeat, accepting the risk of sounding redundant, that the matter is of choice.

There is also a misconception among a fraction of individuals - that meekly submissive compliance is equivalent to enhanced efficiency. It is a myth which should be busted as soon as practicable, if an individual wants to move towards the apex of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The role of individual conscience is of paramount importance here. When the line between submissive compliance without question and compliance within the realms of rationality starts to blur, the individual who complies thus moves ahead on the path of becoming a "Yes Man".

To sum up, while success in terms of achievement of a pat on the back from superiors is important, at any point of time, an individual's conscience must be able to make a conscious decision between being a "Yes Man" versus being [Hu]man[e].