Ruchira Chaudhary contrasts managing with guiding: top-down advice versus equal-partner conversations that develop strengths. She separates praise from support, arguing support is active partnership, not a one-off compliment. Instead of climbing a vertical ladder, she proposes a jungle-gym model where people invent their own paths, move sideways, or pause.
Chapters
What you were thinking about when you drew this marvelous distinction between managing versus guiding and praising versus supporting. Can you help us with those distinctions?
So in the traditional world, we manage, and in our idea of management, or I think is we're constantly doling out advice. And if you're Indian like I am, unsolicited advice, cricket and religion is what binds us. We constantly tell people what to do. When we meet people on trains and flights, we tell them they should get married if they're not married, they should procreate. I get that all the time, at least when I was in Singapore, I remember. But anyway, long story short, so the difference here is that when our idea of management is what happens at the end of the year. You evaluate somebody's performance and then you appraise them. But that's very different from coaching or collaborating, because what that means is it's a series of conversations where you actually have the opportunity to take someone to the next level, where you can actually make somebody a better version of themselves. Because that appraisal at the end of the year is pretty much it's a done deal, right? You will announce a verdict. And this is a mindset, unfortunately, which with a lot of us work, that you're responsible for managing them, for their compensation, you influence it, you have to watch out for, you have to nitpick, you have to make sure that they're doing their job right. So you're consciously checking on them, not checking in on them, right? Often that sort of translates into micromanagement. But this whole business of managing is very different. From coaching or collaborating or guiding because in the first instance, it's almost like it's not an equal hierarchy. There is a boss and there is somebody who reports to you. In the latter instance, you're equal partners and together you find solutions. So that's the whole sort of larger premise of managing versus collaborating or guiding versus— I don't know the word you use that for. I've forgotten what I use.
One of the things that I'm thinking about as a manager, you do evaluate your people and they have KPIs and they have a career ladder, you know, and there is a structure and stability inherent in a corporation. At least it's— you build it hoping it's going to be there for a while. However, you talk about helping someone invent their own career ladder. Now, how can that be in a corporate context?
Well, that's exactly my point, I think, because we're so used to, or we stereotype our careers as vertical ladders, whereas one rung has to lead to another rung. And therein lies the problem, right? As leaders, if we can be those coaches that can help people find a unique path that plays to their strengths. Or as Sheryl Sandberg says, think of your careers not as a ladder but like a jungle gym, right? Because a ladder is limiting. You basically see the butt of the person who's right above you. That's basically the view that you have. But, and it's limiting because you have to follow a traditional path, whereas the way the world is changing now you have the ability to hack this ladder. You can do different things. Your career could have squiggly lines and, you know, you could go up and down and pause, and you need that leader coach to help you find that path. So you could do both. You could manage, you could do the evaluation, but you can let people play to their strengths, help them fulfill those aspirations. So for instance, if Ruchira's career lies outside of consulting and she has this fantastic coach who says, listen, and I've had one who said, listen, I don't think you'd survive in a traditional consulting firm because much as you enjoy the client work, you don't enjoy the business development, right? And as you climb that vertical ladder, I sort of camouflage that example. It's in the book, it's about consulting, and I truly didn't enjoy my life because I didn't like to go all out, make cold calls, sit in those meetings, sell the business. Because I was much happier doing the work. I was a doer, I didn't want to sell it. And I think I had a very candid discussion with my boss and he said, you know, you would be so much happier if you were in a situation where you could simply, you could be the farmer or the nurturer as opposed to the explorer or the hunter, right? That's the words we've used. And I thought about it because in a traditional consulting outfit, Now they offer you career paths, you can be the specialist, you can have, yeah, but I also have to be very honestly tell you, it might be great in terms of your compensation and you might get the hierarchy, you never get the same respect traditionally, right? Because there is a clear sort of divide between those that go out and get the business that run large teams, vis-à-vis those that are the super specialists that come in at the right juncture.
The traditional path versus the new age types who kind of went to the side. Exactly.
And it's changing, it's changing in a big way. Technology companies, and Microsoft is a fantastic example of that, they're trying to change it because they feel individual contributors have as much to offer as those that run teams, and not everybody wants to run teams, right? Not everybody wants the burden of having the administration. So that's changing, but I'm talking about nearly maybe 15 years ago, and I felt this was not what I wanted to do. I was just not enjoying my life. And I had a boss and a mentor who sort of counseled me, says, and you should just go and do what your heart wants. And through a series of— I call it eclectic career path, but I think I've had my own squiggly lines and up and down. Academia was never on the radar. I've come here.
So in some regard, you're helping people become like you, more uniquely and extremely themselves. And if that fits into a standard career path, fine. Or if they have to invent one, then go invent one because now we can do that, right?
Absolutely. We have options. And that career path could be a straightforward career path. It could be a different function within the organization. It could be, you know, it could be something outside of the organization. I mean, entrepreneurs and gig workers and freelancers. Yeah. There's a whole world. It could be something in a different industry, in a different field.
