The Red Sock Theory

Imagine the following scenario:

Its Sunday morning and you have nothing planned for the entire day. You look at the pile of laundry in the corner, having grown progressively over the course of the week like some alien creature amassing strength to attack you in your sleep. Well, you think, you might as well get on with it. It had to be done some day. It’s time to do one of the dreariest things known to mankind: laundry.

You set about sorting the clothes into the light and dark colored piles, while you hum and sway to some music that you call your ‘laundry collection’. The task being done, you go over to the machine and put the dark pile in, add some detergent, set the timer and select the wash and dry options. With a satisfying ‘slam!’ you shut the lid and move over to sing along (ridiculously, by the way) to your laundry music. After what seems like an eternity, the timer sets off and beckons you to attend to it. You rush over and take the batch of clothes out. You then put the second batch of light clothes in, and doing the same set of actions as before, shut the lid again. Back to your (again, ridiculous) singing into an invisible mic that you imagine clenched in your fist.

The timer sets off again, and you drag yourself out of your concert (leaving thousands of your invisible fans disappointed of course) to take the second batch out. You open the lid and stare aghast at the sight before you: Pink! Everything has turned pink! All your shirts, your t-shirts, your bed sheets- they look like they belong to Barbie! You pull the clothes out with an urgency that you never knew you possessed. Where was the culprit? What the hell was to blame for this cotton candy fiasco? Suddenly something catches your eye right at the bottom of the drum. Something tiny.

A single red sock.

You pull it out violently and stare at it with absolute fury. If looks could kill, the sock would be ashes by now. The funny thing is, this is exactly what happened to Rachel on ‘Friends’ (how convenient for yours truly). You crush the insulting little red piece of fabric and fling it out of the window as far as you can. It disappears into the land of the lost (most likely your neighbor’s house, but he doesn’t need to know that). Feeling dejected, you wish you could go back in time to extract the stupid thing before putting the second batch into the machine. Ah, well most of those clothes needed to be replaced anyway. Only one of those shirts was new. You could always do with new clothes. It looks like you did have something to do that Sunday after all: shopping!

You call your friends and ask them to meet you at the store, and then proceed to get ready. You shower (again with the singing- what’s it with you and ridiculous songs?) and dry off. You put on your shirt and a pair of jeans. You get your last pair of socks out and are just about to put it on when you notice that it has holes. Never mind, you’ve luckily just done your laundry and go over to the pile. You find one sock and are about to look for the other when you realize that the one that you have in your hand is red. Ah, well this was also of no use now. You discard it and pick up another pair. It’s a good thing that you were going shopping.

Translating the Scenario for Business Organizations

This little incident is not uncommon. People grapple with situations such as these all the time. The difference is, instead of clothes its parameters ‘X’ and instead of the red sock, its parameter ‘Y’. Allow me to translate how this works in business organizations.

For any given project, there is a team that is put together. The project leader picks the best people for the job. They all have different profiles, some excel in their fields, while some have prior experience with the specified tasks. However, there is also a ‘red sock’ in the team. There is no telling who this person may be. It is only revealed once the project has failed in some way. The fault is traced back to the ‘culprit’ and he/she is reprimanded. This affects this person’s performance in other projects, and thus these projects too are hampered. The project leader justifies the reprimand by saying that it is done for the good of the organization.

The only fault of the reprimanded person was not possessing the right qualities for the job. The actual person to blame is the project leader who chose this person in the first place, in the same way that it was actually the user to blame for leaving the sock in the machine above. However, since the user is in power, it is he/she who decides to punish the sock instead of admitting to their mistake. The ‘sock’ suffers, and so does the efficiency of the organization.

Businesses need to recognize this phenomenon as it hampers its functioning, especially in employee productivity. Employees that have been selected by the organization itself for a specific set of qualities which they possess, are not valued. This lowers employees’ morale and their willingness to be productive to the organization. It also inculcates dictatorial tendencies in people who are higher up in the hierarchical ladder as it allows for blame-shifting. This is a sure way to descend into a downward spiral for the organization, allowing fear to become the primary driver for progress. Another problem that arises in this situation is that these reprimanded employees would begin to believe that there is a problem with themselves, causing them to lose faith in their abilities. Their self-doubts would have an adverse impact on their performance in other avenues of their professional as well as personal lives.

Summary

The user chose and bought the red sock for use: The organization chose the person as an employee for qualities that they valued.

The red sock was not a problem in the dry laundry pile: The employee was functioning perfectly well in the organization at other tasks.

It is only when they are washed together with the light-colored clothes that there is a consequence: The leader’s decision to put the employee in the project team had unintended consequences.

It happens due to an oversight: The project leader failed to anticipate the adverse effects of putting the employee in the team.

The red sock is found only after the unintended consequences have been discovered: The employee is blamed only after the project fails in some way.

The user’s frustration and anger of the unintended consequence is directed towards the red sock: The leader blames the employee.

The red sock faces reprimand as it is the user who is in power: The employee at fault is reprimanded.

The other red sock is also useless now: The employee’s performance suffers in other projects too.

It was never the sock’s fault in the first place: It was not the employee’s fault. The leader failed to select the right person for the job.

Its loss is justified by the user in hindsight: The leader justifies the reprimand on the pretext of working for the benefit of the organization.