being a rebel

We often discuss the highly sought-after trait of ownership in people, but I intend to delve into a crucial yet rarely discussed aspect: being a rebel.

Even if someone exhibits a high degree of commitment and accountability at work and everything about them seems to go right, I argue that this still doesn’t constitute true ownership. Take Bob, for example, a product manager who is a high performer with flawless skills and delivery. But there comes a time when he agrees with Ted, the VP of Product, despite having a rationally better take on things, and he doesn’t put up the necessary fight; then Bob doesn’t make the cut.

True ownership involves taking responsibility for the outcomes, which is where my idea of being a rebel stems from. Rebels aren’t conformists, and I opine that being an agent of conformity at any organization is a recipe to subpar outcomes.

It’s always an easy way out to say a blind yes to someone above us, or our peer, or someone who reports to us. This is what I called being an agent of conformity. On the flip side, we should stand up, disagree & commit, and this is the hardest way out unlike its counterpart.

At Swiggy, “stand up, disagree & commit” is one of their prevailing core company values, and there were some (again, only some) true proponents of it. What does it mean? It means you have this set of people who can go to war to do the right thing by what the organization or the product is set out to do for their users and fully commit to realising that goal. And they don’t pick their battles to be convenient unlike their counterparts; they actually wouldn’t care about who is on the other side, even if it’s the whole chain of command. Not because they are dogmatists or for the wrong reasons but they are rebels with a cause and a higher purpose (of the organization).

All of it aside, we do have to be open to be convinced and agree on something that’s better. When your purpose is right, it inherently keeps you in check to avoid meaningless arguments just fighting for our opinion to win.

And as for organizations, hiring rebels who challenge for the sake of it and don’t commit is damaging. A double-edged sword, as they call it.
Though Bezos (here on pg 3) didn’t elaborate the rationale behind his decisive hiring question when he said, “Will this person raise the average level of effectiveness of the group they’re entering?”, maybe looking for the “rebel” trait when you hire could be one way to move the needle on building an effective team.

It’s not just about doing the job; it’s about achieving extraordinary outcomes.