The widely
prevalent belief that many organizations lack focus on delivery and need to
work harder to bring about major improvements is borne out of the simple age
old philosophy that hard work leads to higher output. The philosophy is not
totally off the mark, except for the fact that it does not really differentiate
between remaining busy and deliverance.
Remaining busy
does not always imply delivery though delivery would invariably necessitate
remaining busy. The fine line between the two needs appreciation borne out of
experience.
All the
organizations that I have been associated with in the capacity of a head honcho
had people, almost the majority of them, who remained busy like hell and also
took pride in that. They were, with exceptions of course, generally all good
people with good intentions. Yet in their obsession with remaining or appearing
to remain busy, the bigger picture was lost sight of and delving in the mundane
occupied centre stage. Blaming peers, superiors, subordinates and also the constraints
of the external environment for failures to adequately deliver, without
realizing that an honest peek within, as Gautam Buddha said, would provide the
real answers.
And therefore I
often peeked within, looked for and fairly regularly found the right answers
within easy reach and also easily implementable. And answers were generally the
same regardless of the sector and its intrinsic technical or administrative
complexities. And organizations in general behaved similarly to external
stimuli.
One of the
biggest follies of organizations is adapting to an aggressive cycle of
management, a cycle during which reprimands and extensive monitoring at various
levels occupies centre stage almost all the time. A frenetic activity
unfortunately and also incorrectly gets regarded as synonymous with delivery. This
cycle assumes that subordinates do not know their jobs, are not to be trusted
and are to be always kept on their toes for them to be able to deliver, in case
deliverance is really aspired for, with trust being the biggest casualty,
almost always.
Lack of clarity
in how to please superiors remains another area of concern. Employees generally
desire that superiors, as they have the maximum impact on the environment of
the subordinates, should be happy and therefore they look for ways and means to
keep them so. Kowtowing to whatever the superior says or does, generally
appears to be the safest bet and therefore almost everyone at all times looks
for opportunities to agree with superiors, even at the cost of what is right,
or right for the organization. Rarely does one witness people having an opinion
and standing up for what they think is right.
The ridiculous
extent to which the processes have been generally complicated even for mundane
activities is sad and also damaging for organizations. And therefore the never
ending quest for super outstanding people who can bend, twist or subvert the
processes in order to deliver. This is at far variance with what one witnesses
in developing countries where systems are based on trust and processes are
simple enough to be handled by almost everyone.
Reforms therefore
need to address all these basic issues.
Organisational
culture is the first area to be looked at. Is it a culture built on sycophantic
behaviour with frills being at the core of almost all our activities? Are
people concerned about pleasing superiors or they are bothered about doing the
right thing and delivering? Are the men happy or are the faces drooping? These
are questions that need to be answered and then addressed. A no frills
environment devoid of petty ego’s that encourages a fearless working
environment indeed brings out the best in the human resource. We need to create
an environment where our men can stand erect with pride and at the same time
have humility and compassion towards their fellow human beings.
Reforms should
also address the core issue of deliverance. The supremacy of deliverance over
everything else except perhaps the human values needs to be grilled down the
organisation. That men being mere mortals would make mistakes in the process of
work needs to be appreciated. And the organisation should be invariably able to
differentiate between a genuine mistake and a malafide. The men need to be
proactively supported and cared for.
The processes
need to be simplified, ideally to the level of one thumb impression per
decision, but that may not be always possible. Yet a lot of simplifications is
possible, almost always in every single organisation. And the easiest way to
simplify is to delegate authority to the lowest functional levels. Yet letting
go of authority is easier said than done and resistance and road blocks to this
effort in the guise of concern for malpractices that may erupt if people are
trusted, needs to be handled with an iron hand.
Reforming the
structures should indeed come the last for what is a structure but a physical manifestation
of the process. The structure exists for the processes and not the other way
round. Ideal structures are like pyramids with a clearly defined apex in whom
the supreme power vests, and the apex is not meant to personally exercise
powers for everything under the sun, for that would bring the organisation to a
grinding halt, but should liberally sprinkle power over the various tiers of functional
authorities.
And lastly
choosing the guy at the apex level. While a lot of requirements apparently come
to mind, the one quality that really encompasses everything else is the courage
to stand up, at the right time for what is right. Fearlessness needs to be at
the core for the guy occupying the hottest seat.
Organisations
shall flourish with a liberal sprinkling of reforms and a courageous guy at the
apex level.
