The Power of What We Don't Have

"The grass is always greener on the other side".

Because it is human nature to undervalue and overlook what we have. Something that holds back not only individuals, but many families, organizations and entire societies as well.

An equally serious problem is the failure to realize and tap the power of what we don't have. To count the blessings we don't have (yet). Let us reflect on how fatal this can be, in an organizational context.

Complacency

An organization which is not aware of what it lacks is easily misled into believing that it has everything that it needs to perform. This complacency is often contagious, and can be a very powerful force in defending the status quo. And in further closing one's eyes to what the organization does not have. Thus feeding on each other.

The social pressure and tendency to conform can make this blindness particularly entrenched. Leading to a situation where everyone tells everyone else: All is well. A sure-shot prescription for obsolescence.

Low Aims

The inability to appreciate what we lack is often responsible for (very) low aims and aspirations. Forget the stars or even low-hanging fruits, organizations might end up aiming at the roots. 

This is aggravated due to a planning handicap. I have seen this happening in project after project, in an organization I am familiar with. The leaders at the very top articulate high aspirations and give sufficient autonomy to the next leadership level to meet them. However, the leaders at this level, who have to execute the project, end up being highly conservative, laying down very low aims. Aims which sometimes don't even better the past.

Why do they do so? One reason I have observed is this. They take the resources they have (at present) as the starting point. The aims flow from - and hence are determined by - this. This approach not only limits what the organization can achieve, but also confines the ambition and imagination of everyone. 

The leadership should instead have taken the (lofty) aims as their starting point. And then figured out what resources (and processes) were needed to attain them. As Gary Hamel and the late C. K. Prahalad say, "Competitiveness is born in the gap between a company's resources and its managers' goals". By fitting their goals to current resources, the managers above fail to bolster the competitiveness of their organizations.

Thereby killing innovation systematically, though (perhaps) unwittingly. 

What can be done

Some humble pointers.

1. Make an inventory of the resources the organization has, and how they align with its processes and priorities. Understanding what we have is perhaps the best first step in understanding what we don't.
2. Keep looking outward as well. Analyze not only competitor organizations, but competitor industries and processes as well. And well, potential partners/collaborators too. 
3. Apply the Johari Window to the organization.

4. Keep asking: 

   Questions #innovators love: What are we (really) doing? What (all) are we not doing (today)? #Innovation #ChangeLeadership
   — Dheep (@TheDeepServant) March 10, 2015

5. Aim high. Stretch resources, processes, systems, people. And of course oneself.
6. Based on the above audit and the stretch goals, make an inventory of the resources the organization needs, but does not have.
7. Figure out how to make use of these resources to meet organizational goals.

Does this make sense? Please share your thoughts. Thank you.

'Perfect' Design for an Imperfect World: A Recipe for Failure

"The entire system is so bad and hopeless, no one can change it".

"How dare you blame me? This is what the system teaches me to do".

"This is what our system is. इधर  सब चलता है (everything is acceptable here)".

"It is a good system, designed with good intentions. But what to do? People have ruined it".

Most of us would be familiar with these gloomy statements. Let us explore what, if anything, we can do to lessen this gloom. 

Systems Everywhere 

Indeed, systems pervade modern societal life. As the volume, variety and complexity of human interactions increase, we would need more and more systems. They help organize, structure and lend predictability and reliability to the business of our lives. Thereby making our lives more efficient, effective, productive and fruitful. They are a huge force for good. 

Oh wait! I just forgot the opening lines. That is what "good" systems do. "Bad" systems do just the opposite. While good systems can nurture and build lives, bad systems can kill dreams as well as lives. And make our lives miserable.

What is it that makes a system good or bad? 

A crucial and fundamental aspect of a system is its design. How it is designed. 

Now, every system will have to be designed based on some facts and some assumptions. 

There are multiple failure points here, such as factual errors, ignorance of facts and wrong assumptions. We look at the last one, and how a particular wrong assumption is often nothing less than fatal for many systems.

Assumptions about Human Behaviour

One class of assumptions has to do with how the people involved will act, once the system is deployed. An assumption that designers seemingly make often is:

The people will act in line with the goals of the system.

An example: Departmental Performance Appraisal 

Something I have observed firsthand. 

A system has been put in place in a large organization, whereby each Department puts in writing, their goals for the coming year. The goals are broken down into objectives, along with quantifiable metrics/standards against which the attainment of those objectives can be objectively measured. So, a (crude) example is:

Construct toilets: 500 (poor), 1000 (fair), 2000 (good), >3000 (excellent). 

What I have observed in some cases is this. 

1. The Department chooses objectives which are superficial and do not really do justice to their mandate. 
2. On top of this, the Department officials set ultra-conservative, very low targets for these sub-optimal objectives

So that both the kind and the degree of under-performance are condoned, and are passed off as excellent!

Designed for a Perfect World 

This is nothing but (moral) corruption. It appears that the designers of this system assumed that the top officials entrusted with this goal-setting exercise would behave as we think they should. Setting targets which marry ambition with reality. Which flow from their commitment to professional excellence, imperative for public service and sense of responsibility as leaders.

The idealism of the designers, flowing from their honest intentions, seems to have led them to assume that everyone else would act with the same intentions. In the larger organizational and societal good.

However, they did not anticipate that many people might find it convenient to rather protect their own personal turf. With minimum effort.

Need for a Different Design Approach

So, what do we do? Here are a few humble suggestions:

1. Design the system in-situ, appreciative of existing realities. Not in a vacuum, in an ideal world.
2. Actively explore the assumptions we are making, and test them out, to the extent feasible. 
3. Adopt co-creation in design and operation of systems.
4. Make the system itself flexible, and self-learning. 

The above call for using insights from behavioural economics, design thinking and systems thinking in making of systems and policies. Please do share, and spread the message, if you find this worthwhile. Thank you. 

You may like to read: Public Policy Design and Assumptions about Human Behaviour

Government's Innovation Imperative

To innovate is a fundamental and universal organizational imperative; for continuous improvement, learning and rapid adaptation; in an external environment that is changing at lightning speed; in an age of ever-increasing uncertainty.

Here we explore why innovation ought to be a top priority for a public sector organization.

1. Innovate or Die: Just as in the private sector, failure to innovate continually and adapt to fast-changing realities would lead to a gradual obsolescence, irrelevance or eventual death of an organization. The death may perhaps arrive slower than it would in a market system, but arrive it will! This therefore makes the failure to innovate that much more dangerous; as the decay will persist longer before it is set right, and the death may happen more abruptly when it does happen.
2. Part of a bigger whole: Even more importantly, one Government organization's failure to innovate could affect the credibility of the Government, with possible ripple effects on citizens’ trust in other Government institutions as well. Further, it could also call into question the ability of the state to be an efficient and effective service provider. Indeed, exactly the opposite, and salutary, outcomes would occur if the organization performs very well. 
3. Actions with huge potential impact: The state is often called upon to expand and strengthen its role as an enabler, as distinct from its role as a service provider to the citizen. In this enabling role, the state is responsible for nurturing and building ecosystems, networks and systems of systems. The actions of even one public sector organization thus may have the potential to make a huge impact in the lives of millions of people. An innovation deficit would thus have a very big social cost, and for a long time to come. This cost is compounded many-fold if the service provided by the particular organization is either an exclusive preserve of the state and/or if the state is best equipped institutionally to provide that service. The negative externalities due to inadequate delivery of public services can thus be monumental. Well, so can be the positive impact of the work of a high-performing innovative organization.

I might have missed some other imperatives for innovation in Government. Please do fill the gap. Thank you.