Thriving in Adverse Circumstances

Thank you so much for having me. My name is Neha Chatwani, and I am an organizational psychologist.

So I deal with all issues at work, irrespective of who it is that is working or where it is. Whether it is a single entrepreneur doing social entrepreneurship, or individuals, teams, leaders in larger or medium-sized companies, working internationally, locally, remotely or in a sort of hybrid setup.

My main topic is people at work, how they work. And I hope that through the services I offer, together we can enable these individuals to be as effective as they can be.

Yeah, I like to emphasize the fact that I'm a psychologist. I think there are certain professions that take pride in being who they are, defined as a profession. As old-fashioned as that may sound, there's still a sense of pride in being a doctor, a lawyer, a psychologist, or maybe even somebody who is an artisan, who masters some kind of craft, right? There's a certain sense of mastery. Not to say that there are not new professions that are developing, but the depth and the history and the tradition of psychology is what I like to bring to the table when I describe myself as an organizational psychologist.

And then when I describe how I do things, I like to use other kinds of terminologies. I often talk about the fact that I work in an arena of change management bricolage, which is a little bit unusual, because people don't necessarily define change management as bricolage. But I think particularly the pandemic has shown us how much we do have to leverage this notion of creativity, which goes beyond simple agility and beyond innovation and improvisation.

So I'm proud of being able to say I'm a psychologist out of tradition, but I do use a more cutting-edge approach in the way I serve.

I think what's important is we as human beings. And I like the idea of being a psychologist, because it puts the human being at the center of our understanding of who we are in the world. And work is an expression of this. It's, for me, just an actionable type of identity.

And I think as human beings, we are enormously resourceful, to the degree that we're not even conscious of how resourceful we really are. And a lot of the learning we do is very unconscious. So hence my idea or interpretation of bricolage is that we are able to thrive, not only survive, but we are able to thrive in the most adverse circumstances, in the most unusual turn of events, right? That we have that ability to be creative, improvise, be focused, be strategic, learn spontaneously. And that is, for me, bricolage. And that is what I try and leverage in my work.

So when I say I hope to be able to encourage and enable people to be the best they can be, I mean that quite purposefully. And I mean that in the context of the best they can be, because it's not the best in terms of gold medals, A pluses, number ones, in the way we're taught in a conventional sense at school or in performance management. But it's about being effective and the best and impactful as you can be in your circumstance. And this fits into the idea of bricolage.

Yeah, that's a tricky question. I think there's a lot of research on how to actually try and define what it actually means to be creative. I think the simplest answer is when you have managed to achieve what it is you set out to express. It doesn't have to be a goal that you're trying to achieve, but something you're trying to express or impact in the most unusual way, and transport that information or that feeling to somebody else, and encourage them perhaps to go on that learning journey with you on that topic. That, for me, is creative.

Yeah, I think there have been people who have discovered themselves and their own potential to actually fulfill what it is they set out to [do]. I think everybody was pushed to a certain limit. And I think there were a lot of people who of course had a lot of reactions to what was happening around them. And a lot of people, I think, also took the opportunity to think about how they were living their lives and how they wanted to adjust.

So I see a lot of people come to me for career design coaching, questioning what they've done so far in their careers, questioning their jobs, wondering if this is a good time to make a change. Which sounds a bit ironic, because these are volatile times, and it might be more natural to kind of hide in your shell, if you have one to hide in. And yet I'm actually experiencing quite the opposite. I'm experiencing a lot of people approaching me saying: I think that I maybe have not been as happy or as contented as I've pretended to be, and this is a good time to perhaps explore, right?

And I think that's true on an individual level. And I think it's also very true for teams that are likely going to return to the workplace. And I think the idea of going back to what we know is actually ridiculous, because there's no such thing as going back in time. That just doesn't exist as a concept. So we're not going back to normal. We're going back to what some people are calling a new normal, which, okay, is a terminology I can go with, I guess. But I think we all realize that even going back to work is going to be a different place. A different attitude, a different leadership will be needed. We cannot unlearn what we've been through now.

And these are really exciting times in that respect at the workplace, aside from the entire environment obviously pivoting towards better use of technology, and at the same time the backlash of what this means in terms of wellbeing. So I think this is a very exciting time to work in the arena of work.

Yeah, absolutely. It has been a very unusual setup, I think, for most people. And it's not correct to speak of simply working from home or remote working in the context of the pandemic. We have to remember that it was more than that, because the entire household was at home, which I think is not always the case when you do home office once a week, so to speak, right?

And not only was the entire household at home, the entire society was at home. School was at home, right? So it wasn't working from home. It was bringing your office home, basically, and bringing in all the other institutions, and then knowing that in the lockdown there was no way out. I mean, we all had to stay at home. There was no opportunity to go out and meet people, have a drink or have lunch with somebody. So it was a very unusual situation. And I don't think it's fair to call this working from home or remote working or home office in the conventional sense that we knew it. It added a whole different pressure dimension.

And I think for many people, in the beginning, it was actually a very positive experience, and maybe it stayed that way as well, because they finally saw their families. They finally had time to do things at home. We certainly know there was a lot of renovation going on, and a lot of companies did very well, of course, providing the products that were needed. New sofas were being bought, walls were being painted, et cetera. People were decorating their homes, a very introverted kind of activity.

But this also means, of course, that people start wondering: am I living the life I really want to live? Is everything in place where it should be? And this is a question of work-life balance. And having said that, I've always found the term very strange, because it implies that work and life are two different entities that we somehow need to balance.

And I find that in my conversations, people are beginning to say: well, shouldn't they be linked in a different way, and shouldn't it be more holistic? You used the word purposeful. Shouldn't it make more sense? Can we not design this in a different [way]?

And it's interesting, because for some years futurists have been talking about the upcoming gig economy. And so it's kind of interesting: people are now beginning to say, how do I design my own career? How do I design my own job so that I can actually have all of those factors in where I need them, right? So how do I provide for interesting work, security, learning, time for my kids, time for myself, et cetera?

Well, if I had that one, I would be writing a bestseller, I think. But I don't think I have a magic answer. I think the answer is different for everybody, and that's important. So I really believe people need to spend some time just asking themselves those things.

I think the pandemic has given us an opportunity to do that, mainly because I think we've all taken up the ancient hobby of going for a walk. People used to do this, right? They used to go promenading somewhere, and this was what people did. They walked and they talked and they philosophized. And in the lockdown, this was basically the only thing you could really do: go for a walk.

And I see the link between people going for walks and reflecting with themselves, or reflecting with one other significant person they're allowed to go walking with. And this, I think, is what has triggered the revival. And the answers are very individual, but it's the questions that are more important, I think, than the answers.

For me, it was a very interesting experience too, of course, because I'm actually an introvert in many ways, and I really enjoyed the beginning of the lockdown, to be very honest. So I enjoyed the fact that there were no social obligations, and that I was able to just concentrate on the few projects I was working on, and I had plenty of work. The weather was fabulous and we were able to get out. It was March, springtime. So I really enjoyed the walking. The walking is a large part of my daily routine anyway. And we've been on a walk together too, I think, right?

So this was important to me. But what was more the shadow side of the lockdown for me was that I take care of my father, who is an elderly gentleman of 92. And I was kind of confronted with: how do we really see elderly people in society? And I struggled enormously with the recommendation that they should be isolated because they were a vulnerable group. And I felt this wasn't the right approach. I actually felt that they would need more attention, more human attention, and not be isolated.

And so that was one of my learning journeys during this whole pandemic: how do we cater to the needs of a very specific group in society? And I was also interested in understanding how society views them, right? I think there was a lot of talk about children in school, not so much talk about elderly people, except that they should somehow be isolated, which I think was psychologically detrimental.

Yeah, that's a really interesting question. I think nobody's ever asked me that before.

I don't really believe that we plan to do what we do, necessarily, but I think, and this is true for me, [we are] driven by a certain interest or curiosity. And I think that I was driven by the curiosity to understand people and appreciate them. To understand, to appreciate them, perhaps is the right sentence, right?

I was very shy as a child, so that made me very much a listener and not a speaker, which many people don't believe. Many people who know me now don't quite believe that, but I actually had to learn to speak publicly. As a child, I was a very shy person and very much a listener. And I was very curious about what motivated people to say and do what they were saying and doing, right?

So I think that drove me into psychology. It was the closest thing I could think of studying that would perhaps enlighten me on that subject. And I think it's been a learning journey ever since, and I think that's why I do what I do.

I actually started my career in clinical psychology, which was extremely demanding for me, so I moved into the more conventional area of psychology. And I'm just fascinated by people's motivations, the complexity of their feelings, their own interpretations of what is happening around them, and how they react to it. For me, it's an endless learning journey. And with every client I work with, I learn with this client. This is how I see my work: we're doing this together, and we're both, of course, in different seats, but I always hope the client is in the driving seat, and I'm just reading the navigation map and figuring out how else we can get to where we want to go. And maybe even asking the question: is that really where we want to go? So that's the way I see myself, very much in that facilitator, navigator, curiosity role. I hope that that's how I live my life too.

If I might add, I think it comes from my biography. I'm of Indian origin, but I have grown up in different countries in the world. And I think many people understand a global nomad as somebody who has at least grown up in their own culture and then moved on. But I don't really have my own culture in many ways. It is already a collection of different things, and hence I find it very interesting. And I think I also command the ability to flip, to understand different kinds of people in different contexts and find it perfectly okay, even if it seems very paradoxical.

So I think this whole attitude towards people, that they are allowed to be various things and feel complementary and paradoxical about certain situations, comes very naturally to me, because it reflects very much my own biography.

I think it simply enables me to flip, to switch sides and see different perspectives more. That's all. I don't know whether it by default means that I would have a broader horizon, but I think it's very difficult for me to just have one perspective on something and not appreciate a multiple number of perspectives.

Having said this, I also have to say that I am very grounded in certain principles, which I think are basically humanitarian principles. And I was thinking a couple of months ago where these would come from, and I realized that they actually come from my mother, who attended [the teachings of] Mahatma Gandhi in her youth. She belonged to a freedom generation in India, if you like, the first generation after freedom or independence was obtained from the British. And she was a great advocate of Mahatma Gandhi's teaching, which is very [strict], right? It's very humanitarian, but it's very principled. And I think that's important, because it gives it a routine. So it's not me saying I have this broad horizon and everything goes, and that's fair enough. I understand the various points of view, but I do have my own compass, so to speak.

Yeah. I mean, one of the stories I like to tell, and I think this is where I became socially aware, if you like: I was in the village of my grandmother in rural India, maybe about eight or nine years old. And my mother had sent me off to the pharmacy to buy her aspirin. And I remember going into the pharmacy, and there was a gentleman there, and he was purchasing one aspirin. That was one tablet. That was basically what he could afford. And he was putting some coins on the counter.

And I remember, as a child, thinking that is so impressive, on so many levels. It was the first time that I realized people just don't go to the pharmacy and buy a box of aspirin, right? That is just not accessible for everybody.

There were a series of different events, and I think particularly rural India, visiting my grandmother, had many triggers at that age that influenced the way I see the world, and how relative and paradoxical things can be. So in those days we would have [streams] of refugees who would come into her village, because the whole geography had been flooded with monsoon rains. So everybody who was living around that village would come into the village, because their huts had been swept away by the rains.

And I always thought it was so paradoxical that we had so much water everywhere, and Grandma would always say to me: go out and give everybody fresh water to drink. Such a basic thing, right? A very Samaritan thing to do. And I always felt that was such a major paradox, but I also understood how important it is to serve, basically, to serve, and to understand and appreciate the resources you have.

So, yeah, I guess maybe that was also the beginning of not only humanitarian thinking, but environmental thinking, social responsibility, all the things that we talk about now in a very sort of highfalutin tone. But these are the kinds of childhood experiences that I think were very influential.

And then, just sort of fast-forwarding here, I think the sudden death of my sister, who was 41 years old at the time of her death, was a major pivotal event as well. It encouraged me to do what I wanted to do with my life, particularly professionally, but it is also the positive driving force behind most of my work, where I like to encourage people to feel that they are doing the best that they can do, or having the best impact that they wish to have in their own lives.

Yeah. So thank you for putting the word gratitude out there. I think that's really a big word. It's true that I will never forget how grateful those people were that I gave water to. And that really remained with me, because they would always say: thank you, child, bless you. And I kept thinking, well, I'm already blessed. I was so overwhelmed by their gratitude. And let me answer the COVID question using that word.

I think one thing we would probably all agree on is that the pandemic has actually shown us where the cracks in society really are. I think all the social issues that we were well aware of, including poverty and violence, discrimination, inequalities, have shown up again, right? They're pretty marked, very ugly and very [visible].

On the global level, the grab for vaccines in rich countries and the lack of long-term thinking on the fact that we need to share them, and we need to find a global approach to a global pandemic: I think we failed, as maybe a simple way of putting it, right? So we even struggled in the European Union to get our act together, and that's only one small part of the world, right? I think there probably are more positive examples outside Europe, but on a global level, I think we can safely say everybody ran for themselves, and we found it difficult to collaborate. That's very telling, but it's what we know.

[What's] fascinating about the pandemic for me is that for the first time in a long time in history, I think, the entire world was captured by a phenomenon which was obvious and [affected] rich and poor alike. And I think that's why it gained so much attention, because there was no telling who this virus was going to get to next. It could be a prominent person, or it could be somebody at the end of the supply chain, so to speak, right? And of course prominent, rich people will have access to the best medical care, but even that wasn't a guaranteed lifesaver, so to speak. So I think it was really an enormous magnifying glass for all of the issues that we know exist in the world.

I would hope that this would be an opportunity to rethink our socioeconomic systems, the distribution of wealth in particular, and also specifically the way we work. Because looking ahead, I don't really believe that we will need to do the nine-to-five routine that we have been drilled to do. And if we look further than that, it should actually be an opportunity to rethink educational systems, because this is where the foundation is. So I'm seeing it on several levels here, right? Political collaboration as well, on a global [level].

Unfortunately, I'm not too optimistic. I see us kind of rebounding, because there is a great yearning for the normal the way we knew it, which personally I don't think was very normal anymore in the 21st century: the grapple to apply old 20th-century models in the 21st century. Maybe that's a normal reaction, just to rebound, [rather than to] further investigate different concepts which could help make the world a little bit more egalitarian and help us tackle major social issues, but also environmental issues and other discrepancies that we face.

But I'm not sure, to be honest with you. I wish I could say to you that I think it's going to go in a certain direction, but I feel that we're still at a watershed. And if I look at the 20th century, I think we can say it maybe took the first 50 years to organize the last 50 years, right? Including two world wars.

Now, people like to feel that through digitalization we are much faster than we were. I'm not going to pass judgment on it. I don't know whether we are faster. I think we're beginning to realize that we may have left our souls behind somewhere, and that people simply need a certain amount of time to readjust. But I would expect that we will still be seeing a lot of turmoil looking ahead, because we're only [in] 2020. So if I look at the 20th century, I would say, ooh, we may have another 30 years of adjusting, or at least 20 years of adjusting, before we come up with a paradigm for the 21st century. We're not there.

I mean, there are so many amazing ideas out there, for sure. In that sense, I'm not pessimistic. There's a lot of good thinking going on, and there's a lot of good experimenting going on, but it's not [mainstream] yet. We may see the tail of it still to [come].

Yeah. There's always an opportunity to break out. I personally think we're in a permanent state of psychosis, if you like. I mean, there's always a phase that we are in. But what I am a little bit critical of is the idea that the current situation is much worse than any other situation we as humanity have faced before in history. It's kind of part of the game of the life cycle that there are always going to be pandemics, quote unquote, in whichever format.

And it amuses me a little bit that we feel, as the human race, and I think this is kind of the fundamental point, that we are at the center of the universe, and that things are either man-made or not, and depending on the system we choose, that is going to make the difference. I think at the end of the day, one of the biggest challenges we face is that we tend to think of the good old times, whenever they were, because nobody can actually tell me when the good old times were. And if we look back into our history, terrible things have happened.

I mean, actually the 20th century was the age of humanism. This is when they coined human rights and so on. And we're kind of stuck in a rut with that now, because we're kind of thinking: is this still relevant, or can we go back to slavery? I don't know. Anyway, the fact is, through these discussions, we always put humanity at the center of the discourse. And it amuses me, because I think humanity is only part of a system that is called nature, and it's only a very small part of the system.

And when we look at nature, what do we see? We see effective use of the resources that are available. We see the innate focus and purpose to thrive, right? To grow, to live, to survive. And we see a constant struggle for [equilibrium], for balancing, right? It's all about balancing. I mean, watching a tree grow is a perfect example of that. Where resources are not available, the leaves will fall. Where there's a rock, the root will grow around it. Some help, but it's always about the purpose, the striving to the sky, for the sun, right? And as simple as this metaphor may be, this is the metaphor of nature, basically.

And we as the human race tend to want to take ourselves out of that paradigm, out of that equation, and say: no, but we determine the system. But we don't determine the system, is my answer to that.

So in a sense, what I would like to see more of going ahead is the recognition of the fact that it's irrelevant whether we have caused the environmental change or not, or whether it exists or not. What is relevant is: how are we going to collaborate as human beings, seeing that we share this environment as a resource? How are we going to collaborate in order for us all to thrive equally as a human race? I think that is an interesting question, right? And I think in a way that is the question that has always been asked every time there has been a system change.

I actually believe that the capitalistic system that we have has been built in good faith. I mean, the idea was that there would be a wealth distribution. It didn't happen, because many things were not considered, and human beings are not easily put into an economic model. This is not the way we tick, which is why I find it interesting as a psychologist, right? Are we naturally so competitive? Are we naturally so greedy? Who told us that this is the way we naturally are? This is what I challenge, right? Is it not a result of socialization rather than a natural, innate behavior? This is a question that we won't be able to answer, of course.

But on a very practical level, I agree with you that we're at the beginning of a change cycle, another change cycle, and change is innate to who we are as the human race, in the context of the place we live in. So maybe it's not a question of being optimistic or pessimistic. Maybe those are not the words that we need to use in our discourse. Maybe it's more a question of perspectives, right?

And what I think is causing some of the disruption, and what the pandemic has brought to the forefront, is that over the years we have told ourselves we can control. We are in control. We are in the driving seat as the human race. And now comes a little virus and tells us no.

And all the science in the world has not really been able to explain why it is that an 80-year-old somewhere can be infected and either be asymptomatic or simply recover, and a 25-year-old who is seemingly healthy contracts COVID and passes away. All the science in the world has not been able to explain some of the paradoxes we have seen yet. Maybe there will be an explanation, but at least to date, I haven't read anything that's convincing, right? This is an interesting lesson in itself. Do we need to learn more that we don't control?

And when you travel through the world, there are peoples, and there have been peoples in the history of humanity, who have spoken and lived the art of letting go, which is something we don't have anymore in our societies. This, I think, is an interesting point. We could go into this whole discussion of burnout, depression. The pictures we're shown as individuals, of who we have to be and how we have to be, are linked very much to this, right? This, I think, is a central point.

Yeah. I tend to be very much focused on the way we work, because I feel very much that work is an expression of identity. It's also not work in the sense of "I work to earn a living", but "I work to express myself, to make a contribution to my environment, to leave a legacy, to be in a collective", right? Because often it's not an individual contribution that makes a difference, but a collective contribution, whether it's simultaneous or successive.

And I think we need to look at the central paradigm of work. And for me, work is also about learning. And I like to think that life is a learning journey. That is what life is. And life is not about accumulating material wealth, but about learning and accumulating [wisdom], which you are then able to share.

And I find it very encouraging, especially in my area of work, that narratives have become a big trend, that they've resurfaced, if you like. Because narratives and telling stories have always been basic learning mechanisms of transporting content, mostly by aged, wise people, though I don't think age and wisdom necessarily go together, but they can do so.

I think one of the biggest things we need to look at is how we learn, informally, formally, how we share what we learn. This will help us deal with all kinds of disruption. That's kind of my agility understanding, anyway: that knowledge and wisdom are at the central point, and we actually have it. And that's my bricolage. We actually have it available to us. We just need to leverage it.

And I think that will also impact the economic and social systems, right? Because it's about inclusion. If you really want to build wisdom, you need to include. If you want to innovate, you need diversity. So it actually all hangs together with this whole central idea of how we learn and how we share.

Looking ahead, I'm actually quite optimistic about it, in the sense that through the digitalization of learning, we actually have the ability to go beyond what we were able to until now, with all the caveats. I still [remember], and you maybe also still remember, as a child: when you asked a question, you couldn't Google around or send an email to the professor or whatever it was. You kind of went to your grandfather and asked him, and he might have a story. And then you maybe got a dictionary from the library, if you were lucky enough to have access to all these. The process was very different, right? From asking questions. And today, within seconds, you can have a whole array of information, data, opinions. There are caveats, but I see a phenomenal opportunity also in this.

I think I share the outcome of, I think, much research on this topic: looking ahead, what should education look like, where is the focus? The World Economic Forum has a lot of work on skilling and so on. For me, it's not about content. It is going to be about emotional stuff, in fact. So I'm taking a U-turn a little bit from what I said, because I've been talking about sharing content and creating wisdom around that. But the sharing part of the wisdom is going to be around what we think is emotional intelligence, however we define that.

And I think this also links with the pandemic. What we have also realized in the pandemic: we have difficulties being on our own. We don't cope well with isolation, we don't cope well with change. However, I think human beings have the ability to do so. And in fact, I think a certain level of loneliness is important for reflection, for wisdom. We have low levels of tolerance. We tend to use retail therapy, I think, to get through a lot of things, which is why Amazon did so well. And everybody was dying to go shopping, urgently, please. So either they wanted their entertainment and to go on a cruise, or they wanted to go shopping. It shows a lot about people and how they cope with situations.

We need to learn to be more self-content, [to have] more gratitude, more reflection, more appreciation. And yes, these things can be learned. They are skills, they can be learned. People have aptitudes, of course, and personalities that are more inclined. But at the end of the day, these are socialization skills. And this is where I think the focus of learning needs to be in the future.

And the whole topic of wellbeing in organizations stems from this. I have had these personal experiences in my career, where I have taken sabbaticals to take care of my terminally ill mother and have been told: if you take time off now, this is kind of the end of your corporate career. Which it then also was, in many ways. These are the kinds of things that I think should not be happening. This is where we need to close that gap between balancing work and life.

So this is where we need to learn. The technology is going to keep developing, I mean, this is clear. The science is going to keep developing. We benefit from it, we have benefited from it. We're living longer, healthier lives. It's amazing, actually. But we need to live longer, healthier lives in our spirit and soul as well as in our body. So this is where the focus is.

Okay. You're putting me on the spot here.

My personal contribution a hundred years from now. As you know, I write, and I have authored a book and contributed to various sources, like Forbes, and also to various chapters. So maybe a hundred years from now that will be unearthed, if there's still archaeology in that sense. Or maybe it will be found in an electronic library somewhere. And I hope it's a piece of history for somebody to smile [at]: how naive were they a hundred years ago that they really believed these things, or they really thought this thing? Or how old-fashioned is this model? Or maybe even: how inspiring is this model that they had a hundred years ago, and we can still use some of it.

So, aside from the fact that I hope to enable the individuals that I work with, [it's] the results of this written material, of my research and of my thinking, which I hope is a bit of a legacy.

The pleasure was entirely mine. Thank you.