Breaking Ceilings/Building Camps

                                                                       (PC: ChatGPT)

Many a times I come across moments in my professional life when I confront an uncomfortable question: Is it ok to be someone's person, or a system's person?  As such it seems to be a matter of professional alignment but reflecting upon it one realizes that it is an ethical dilemma that many professionals face. It is an ethical dilemma that silently molds the conscience, credibility and culture of a work space.

I realized that this question becomes layered when I look at academic institutions because these work spaces are imagined as spaces of empowerment, intellectual freedom and collective growth. Reflecting further, I notice that there exist invisible networks of loyalty-circles of "someone's persons"- who have achieved influence not from merit/contribution but from being in proximity to authority.

Being someone's person can be reassuring at one level as it offers belonging, protection and accelerated opportunities sometimes. Such people find a comfort in being seen, supported and included. However you have to pay the cost of this. When one's loyalty to an individual begins to override the commitment to institutional values the consequences are dire. They are never immediate-but mostly cumulative.

In such a situation, merit begins to erode slowly, almost imperceptibly. Once this begins decisions are never about who is most capable but who is most aligned. The voices that question or critique are sidelined, by gifting them labels like "difficult"/"uncooperative". Over a period this leads to a culture of silence-where speaking is riskier than staying complicit.

The disheartening fact in a work space is that how much of such dynamics can replicate the very hierarchies these institutions challenge. Exclusion is produced rather than fostering solidarity. Compliance is rewarded instead of nurturing leadership. It is difficult to ignore the irony in workspaces where there are a majority of women: instead of empowering women, these work spaces becomes sites where power is selectively distributed and tightly held.

Contrast to this is a "system's person" who offers an ethical anchor because systems-rules, policies, procedure-promise transparency and fairness. All these provide a framework within which one can justify or contest their decisions. For people with integrity, systems are a form of protection and the path to remain accountable to principles instead of individuals.

One bitter truth is that systems can be bent, bypasssed or selectively applied and yet they are not infallible. The worst part is the strict adherence to systems without sensitivity to the context can make one rigid, even isolated. A system oriented person may find themselves excluded from decision making spaces altogether in the environments where informal power overrides the formal structures. Here the dilemma deepens because neither rigid proceduralism or blind loyalty offer a solution. What does one do?

The answer lies in cultivating a deeper commitment to values, not in choosing between a person and a system but a commitment to fairness, to integrity and to the larger purpose of education. Institutes must learn to navigate with strategic integrity: where one is able to remain ethically grounded with a contextual awareness. 

One can build alliances, but not at the cost of your judgement. If required to speak, speak up with discernment. It needs a commitment to one's task and to the students, even whether one is recognized or not. Above everything one must have a quiet, persistent refusal to be a part of the practices that shrink the institution even though such refusals come at a personal cost.

Becoming "someone's person" may grant you short-term visibility but it rarely grants you lasting respect. When you are a "system's person", it ensures your moral clarity, but remember its a lonely journey. Between these two: "someone's person" and a "system's person", there is a more demanding but more meaningful position of being a person of principles.

In an academic institute or in any work space- the real evaluation of one's place is your contribution to purpose not your proximity to power. Institutions may erode gradually through the everyday compromises; nothing happens overnight. But they can definitely be rebuilt everyday through acts of integrity. 

The dilemma is not at all about choosing sides but it is about what you stand for in your life especially at inconvenient times. 

Ultimately, the idea of Breaking Ceilings/Building Camps goes down to the list of choices that you make within the institute where you work. The camps that you build will offer you comfort, loyalty and short-term security but they silently fracture collective growth and true empowerment is limited. To break the ceilings you require courage, fairness and a commitment to your values that supersede personal affiliations. In an academic institute where you promise to bring transformation and inclusivity, your responsibility to rise above the narrow loyalties is very crucial. 

Remember, institutions are not made of policies but of the consistent acts of integrity, accountability and openness. It is a reminder to us that the culture we create is a reflection of what we choose to stand for.