To be or not to be - Part 8 'GET it Right or DO it Right ?'

Managers can be classified into two broad types. Type 1 consists of managers who want to make things happen, who give priority to what is good for the organisation (not just in the short term), for whom private agenda is second priority, who is willing to give his best to the job, motivates and supports his team members,who is willing to take responsibility for his actions and who takes pride in what he creates for its relevance to the organisation and to the society Let us call him the “Doer”

Type 2 consists of those who like to put-in minimum effort for maximum glory, for whom private agenda is the top priority, who spends more time in massaging the ego of his boss, who sees his team as just a means for his end, who is happy to take credit but finds ways to shift blame for any failure and for whom the output is just a means to self beatification. Let us call him the “Passenger”

I agree that being Doer or Passenger is not a binary option. They are two ends of a continuum and we fall somewhere in between. We may also move left and right in or take position based on circumstance, stage of life and personal experience. In this post I have categorized them into two buckets with Doer being more than a 50% doer and vice versa.

Every organisation will have both doers and passengers. Doers give priority of what they contribute for the organisation and the passengers give priority for what they get for themselves. Doers often put their head down and focus on deliverables while passengers are on the look out for personal credits (In our school life also we would have seen these two types; those who burned the midnight oil to complete the project / assignment and those who were smart to ‘copy paste’)

The Doers are looking for continuous improvement, looking for ways to make things better, to find a better solution, to better serve the customer, thinking of ways to to empower the team and to strengthen the organisation so that it continuous to deliver even after they are gone.

The passengers are focused on maximisation of short-term glory which can be quickly monetized, on avoidance of problem, are too happy to maintain status quo and take no decisions. They don’t care what happens after they are gone.

Eventually in most organisations the passengers do grow faster than the doers because they are better at managing their environment and more than willing to sell their souls for a price.. End justifies the means with ‘end’ defined as maximising personal agenda. They are too happy to live off the hard work of the doers and smart in edging out the doers in due course.They graduate from passengers to pirates.

Eventually the passenger/ pirate ends up being in the driving seat and the doers leave. This is aided by supervising bodies who are happy to certify technical compliance than try to understand and act upon deeper issues and root causes. Then the passengers will maximise their private interests leading to long tern ruin of the organization. If the organisation is operating in less volatile industry it may live a little longer.

This is the real world and in this world which course should I take? If I can respect what I am then I should be a Doer, If I judge myself on the riches and glory that I have amassed, then it is better to be a passenger. The choice is mine and I will pay the price for the choice I make.This could be what we may term as the the conflict of pragmatism and idealism


‘Laws’ control the lesser man. ‘Right conduct’ controls the greater one. ~Chinese Proverb

“Half Full or Half Empty?”

Most of the days when we open the newspaper early in the morning, the headlines that stare at us are that of some scam or the other. In the last few months we had Aadarsh Housing Society Scam, Common Wealth Game Scam, Telecom 2 G Scam, Illegal mining scam.

What do we read from this? One way to look at this is to feel disheartened that our society, government and bureaucracy is in a state of continuous degeneration and the world in general and our country in particular is on a slippery slope. A slope that is leading to moral disintegration and anarchy; a modern Sodom or Gomorrah awaiting fire of destruction from heaven!

Another way to look at this is that we have had such scams all these while and the increased activism by citizens, judiciary, and news papers supported by technology tools are help to unearth and unravel more of these. Better reach of news through print, television, internet, blogs, facebook and tweeter is helping better dissemination of these stories far and wide and make many of us aware and alive.

I believe the most powerful of all is the transparency and exposure that could help to bring about better social deterrent and citizen vigilance. This increased transparency could and is becoming some sort of a check to many and could bring about some sort of discipline and moderation in our society.

If we take a deeper look, most of the scams and injustice that will catch the attention of the wider press are those that are sensational and it involves political and bureaucratic elite, celebrities or because it is gory. But what affect the life of the majority are the corruption, callousness and lack of service orientation of the institutions that facilitate our day-to-day life. It could be getting a land title certificate, a birth and death certificate, paying our electricity bill, getting a mistake rectified in by Income Tax Assessment, getting a ration card and due ration against that card, treatment at a government hospital, getting complaint redressed by the police man and so on.

When it comes to areas where stakes are very high, the corruption or lobbying, which is often a sanitized version of corruption, often is there to influence decisions and policies. This happens in most places in the world. But many countries successfully manage to make the life comfortable for our day-to-day needs. This helps to reduce waste of time and gives peace of mind for the common man.

It is in these areas that we are quite backward compared to many others. Is it because we don’t pay the officers and employees a decent wage that they have to resort means of corruption? Is it because we don’t have proper checks and balance in service delivery that deters inefficiency and insensitiveness? Is it because service orientation is not a part of our culture? Or a combination of all?

Citizen activism and exposure can have a larger impact in this area. It is here that the technology tool can be a great support to each of us can play a role in building a social momentum. “I PAID A BRIBE.COM” is an excellent initiative in this direction. It accepts the fact that there are times we have not way except to pay our way through. It gives an option to anonymously present our experience. It also gives us an option to recognize instances where we could get work without bribe or when we got an opportunity to resist.

If a larger cross section of the society joins in such initiatives we will definitely see some results. We don’t have to give too much of our time nor do we have to inconvenience ourselves by being seen as a trouble maker or a whistle blower (which often is bad for the concerned though good for the society as a whole) or be a martyr. We don’t even have to take a moral stand of not paying a bribe to get what we want. We just have to anonymously share our experience and encourage our friends to do so. At the least it will help the next person to find out what the market rate (of bribe) for a service at a certain location. As an economist would say efficient price discovery!

“It is better to light a candle than curse the darkness” Unknown

Moon shot and Mouse trap

Once upon a time a mouse decided to take a walk out of the burrow. As he came out of his burrow, he saw a lion lying there in the shade. His first instinct was to scram back into the burrow. For some reason he decided to stand there and take a look. The lion had just finished a sumptuous meal and was in a good mood. He called out to the mouse.

“Hello little mouse, what are you up to?”

“Oh! Just trying to see if I can have some fresh air” little mouse replied

“What is the big deal about fresh air? If you decide to come out of that hole you can always have as much of it”

“It is easy for you to say that. You are so big. So nothing can happen to you. But for me, I have to be very, very careful.”

“My life is a misery. I have to be always on the lookout for the cats, the dogs the foxes and all such creatures who are trying to make a meal out of me” The little mouse continued.

“Oh! Is that all? The solution is very simple” The lion replied

“Really? Please oh king; please tell me what to do”

“Just become as big as me” The lion replied.

“But how is it possible?”The mouse asked

“That is for you to figure out. I am the king, I only make policy decisions” Lion replied

***

“I believe this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish." President John F. Kennedy declared in his speech to U.S. Congress, May 25, 1961.

“We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.” Later he described so about this audacious goal at a speech in Rice University, Houston.

In 1969 Luis Armstrong walked on the moon.

***

What is the difference between the above two stories other than that one is a made up story (not by me) and the other is a true story.

Both were tough challenges and ambitious goals. The first one was set by a leader without thinking through the competence of his team, what is realistically possible with the resource available; a wishful thinking.

The second one was founded on understanding on what could be achievable, supported with the right kind of resource allocation, and total commitment by the leader.

We see samples of both among our corporate leadership. Some set whimsical challenges for the team based purely on bravado or the latest management fad. Then they squeeze the team hoping that this pressure, threat and fear will deliver results.

Some set the goals founded on what the team is best at, what can give them a dream to strive for and then give them the necessary resources and training, induct complementary talent, give a free hand to deliver and extend them a hand of support when they hesitate.

This I suppose is the mark of a visionary leader. And the wisdom to see this difference is what we need to pray for.

''There is a wide difference between true courage and a mere contempt of life.'' Unknown

Bureaucracy – Nature or Nurture ?

One of my good friends is a senior civil servant. As he joined government service straight from the college and his career experience was only in the government sector. He is a very diligent officer and likes to give his best to the assignments at hand. He is familiar with the general public complaint about government servants that they are bureaucratic, slow, process oriented than result oriented, corrupt, insensitive and so on in contrast to the private sector which is result oriented, quick on their feet, nimble and innovative. The difference portrayed is often that of hellhole and heaven.

Recently he had an opportunity to work in a team, which consisted of civil servants and veterans from private sector, offering a public service. He was excited about the opportunity to work in such a dynamic team which combined best of both worlds, working for a common purpose, to make a meaningful contribution to the society. He looked forward to working in a place which mixes the divergent ideas and culture. In this post I take a peep into one of the interesting observation by my friend regarding the working style of people from both sides of the divide.

As per my friend, he experienced very similar bureaucratic tendencies even among the representatives of the private sector. “What is the big difference that you guys talk about?” he asked me. He confessed that he may have been expecting magic or may have had excessive expectation from the experts from private sector.

My take on this is as follows. In private sector creative and entrepreneurial people set up new companies and new businesses. They get a team to work with them to implement these enterprises. As the companies get bigger, more of the managers and the employees that join the team are normally risk-averse and are happy to do what they are told to do. Some organizations maintain the dynamism and have dynamic growth while the others settle down to maintenance mode.(Read “Be Relevant or Perish – Part II for some more thoughts on this)

In government too we see similar pattern. Outstanding and dynamic officers set up new departments, new organizations, new services or new ideas. Then they move out and maintenance managers take over.

In both cases, when the organizations get to be under the control of managers and administrators comfortable with ‘status quo’ the service level deteriorates and the organization becomes moribund. The big difference is that in private sector, the competition and limited entry barrier for new ideas, may force the dinosaurs to extinction and new and vibrant companies will eventually take over. (Unless they are sort of utility companies existing as natural or legal monopolies).

But in government sector neither the moribund institutions or departments die nor new departments are created in competition with the existing ones. (Have you heard of competition for police, registrar of companies, pollution control board, land registration department etc?). This could lead to eventual degeneration in service quality. Sometimes a new dynamic officer comes in for a stint and situation improves till he lasts. The cycle goes on.

As far as the public is concerned their experience shows that they have to deal with a large cross section of non-performing government departments which frustrates them in their day-to-day life; both for normal living and in their business ventures. They have no other option or competing choices. On the other hand, when they deal with private sector service providers they have different service providers, which give them a choice, freedom to demand service and walk out if they are unhappy. (There are many cases where the private sector can get away with shoddy service levels).

So in the end what drive this divergent behavior? Nature or Nurture? When it comes to risk taking every human being lie somewhere in a continuum with extreme risk averseness on one end and extreme risk taking on the other end. Risk averseness come out of our basic survival instinct of the human ape. As we progressed the survival has grown to encompass survival in the society, protecting our economic security, pride, career, acceptance and so on. Risk taking comes out of the other dimension of survival that tries to find new opportunities for food, a mate and position which in the modern society also takes the form of riches, social standing, prestige and so on.

Majority of people are risk averse in nature and their actions are determined by this need to reduce uncertainty, what in corporate circle refer to as CYA (Cover You’re A…). Such people try to play by the letter of the law, make no judgment calls, or tilt the apple cart. This means that it is in the nature of most of the human beings to build up rigid, straight jacketed restrictive systems. On the other hand there are some who are very comfortable in challenging the status quo. They try to venture to road less travelled and create environment that encourages many to follow. This means it is also a matter of nurture.

The companies, institutions and society need both; a healthy ecosystem that safeguard its citizens from excessive uncertainties in social and economic spheres at the same time encourage and support innovation and risk taking, The challenge for the leadership is to find this healthy balance with the right mixture of rules, norms and incentives.

"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people." Eleanor Roosevelt


If you liked this post, share it with your friends