Ban-ishment Vs Management

Ban-ishment Vs Management

By: Amit Bhushan Date:26th Nov. 2015

We seem to be again moving towards retrograde bans in name of appeasement. This is with complete knowledge that Bans really do not work but just enhance corruption besides opportunity loss.

The case in point is liquor ban in a revenue scarce large state. This is despite knowledge that an industrial state has struggled to impose ban on liquor. What mere happens is transfer of revenue due to huge leakage and growth of corruption, besides growth of unscrupulous liquor with attendant risks. What has perhaps not been tried is innovative ways of managing liquor.

Say if all liquor can only be served (at pubs) in a state rather than sold in bottles. Would that lead to increase in jobs besides curtailment of consumption (in sealed bottles)? Would public drinking curb habit to 'get drunk', in such public drinking scenario? Would advisory about state's plan to educate and curb "liquor consumption" get a revenue boost due to creation of numerous pubs who would be forced to comply with additional service tax besides taxes on liquor. Such situation make liquor costlier for buyer, but not out of reach and so lowers tendency to go to unscrupulous players. However political leadership is more bothered about either-or debates for political ends as though there is just one solution i.e. Ban.

Some of the other state have shown than such bans are in-effective and need to be retracted soon. Yet political engineers refuse to budge from their stance for political reasons. For some odd reasons our commercial news media always manages to fend debates from creative solutions and well towards the agenda of politicians and yet wants it to be credited as "independent".

Why do all news anchors and editors think alike is for anyone to guess.. We have ban of betting and gambling (for most parts of India). This doesn't even stops commercial news media from publicising the going rates, and encourage public to make bets. Similarly gambling also continues unabated for those who want to indulge in the risky sports. The management of these sectors is outside the ambit of government machinery and led by a different set of "leaders". But the state or politicians do not seem to be any hurry to draw any lesson as of yet, in a rush to score political brownie points.

What goes in favour of such politicians is perhaps an emotive public, which rallies around clarion call of Total Banishment, a kind of mob mentality rather than rationale thinking. Since politicians use such mechanism to Loot votes, so they are posted with follow up on such calls by "opposition" as well as commercial news media including vested interests. This is sometimes coupled with urge for brinksmanship to play "whiter/better" than the rest of the lot, over rationale thinking. The result is a colossal loss of opportunity for the entire state, rather than positive development.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

When it comes to addressing issues within an organization, two primary approaches often come to the fore: banishment versus management. Banishment, which involves the outright removal of problematic elements, can seem like a quick and decisive solution. It allows organizations to swiftly eliminate disruptions or threats, ensuring that the environment remains stable and focused on its goals. However, this approach can be overly simplistic and may overlook the complexities and nuances of the situations at hand. Banishing employees, for example, can lead to a loss of valuable talent and institutional knowledge, and it can also create a culture of fear and insecurity, where employees feel that they are disposable rather than valued.

On the other hand, management involves a more nuanced and strategic approach. It seeks to understand the root causes of problems and address them through training, coaching, and policy adjustments. Management recognizes that many issues can be resolved through effective communication and the implementation of supportive structures. This approach can foster a more inclusive and resilient organizational culture, where employees feel supported and are encouraged to grow and improve. However, management can also be time-consuming and resource-intensive, and it may not always be effective in every situation, particularly when dealing with severe or repeated misconduct.

Ultimately, the choice between banishment and management depends on the specific context and the nature of the issue at hand. While banishment can provide immediate relief, management offers a more sustainable and holistic solution. Organizations must weigh the short-term benefits of quick fixes against the long-term advantages of building a supportive and adaptive environment. By carefully considering the implications of each approach, leaders can make informed decisions that align with their values and contribute to the overall health and success of the organization.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

Ban-ishment Vs Management

By: Amit Bhushan Date:26th Nov. 2015

We seem to be again moving towards retrograde bans in name of appeasement. This is with complete knowledge that Bans really do not work but just enhance corruption besides opportunity loss.

The case in point is liquor ban in a revenue scarce large state. This is despite knowledge that an industrial state has struggled to impose ban on liquor. What mere happens is transfer of revenue due to huge leakage and growth of corruption, besides growth of unscrupulous liquor with attendant risks. What has perhaps not been tried is innovative ways of managing liquor.

Say if all liquor can only be served (at pubs) in a state rather than sold in bottles. Would that lead to increase in jobs besides curtailment of consumption (in sealed bottles)? Would public drinking curb habit to 'get drunk', in such public drinking scenario? Would advisory about state's plan to educate and curb "liquor consumption" get a revenue boost due to creation of numerous pubs who would be forced to comply with additional service tax besides taxes on liquor. Such situation make liquor costlier for buyer, but not out of reach and so lowers tendency to go to unscrupulous players. However political leadership is more bothered about either-or debates for political ends as though there is just one solution i.e. Ban.

Some of the other state have shown than such bans are in-effective and need to be retracted soon. Yet political engineers refuse to budge from their stance for political reasons. For some odd reasons our commercial news media always manages to fend debates from creative solutions and well towards the agenda of politicians and yet wants it to be credited as "independent".

Why do all news anchors and editors think alike is for anyone to guess.. We have ban of betting and gambling (for most parts of India). This doesn't even stops commercial news media from publicising the going rates, and encourage public to make bets. Similarly gambling also continues unabated for those who want to indulge in the risky sports. The management of these sectors is outside the ambit of government machinery and led by a different set of "leaders". But the state or politicians do not seem to be any hurry to draw any lesson as of yet, in a rush to score political brownie points.

What goes in favour of such politicians is perhaps an emotive public, which rallies around clarion call of Total Banishment, a kind of mob mentality rather than rationale thinking. Since politicians use such mechanism to Loot votes, so they are posted with follow up on such calls by "opposition" as well as commercial news media including vested interests. This is sometimes coupled with urge for brinksmanship to play "whiter/better" than the rest of the lot, over rationale thinking. The result is a colossal loss of opportunity for the entire state, rather than positive development.

This political article is a masterclass in persuasive communication. The writer's writing style is remarkably incisive and authoritative, cutting through complex issues with clarity and conviction. There's a palpable sense of purpose in every sentence, driving the argument forward with intellectual rigor. The structure of the piece is strategically designed to build a compelling case, carefully introducing evidence and counterpoints in a way that maximizes their impact. Each section contributes meaningfully to the overall narrative, leading the reader towards a well-reasoned conclusion. Critically, the clarity with which the political landscape and proposed solutions are articulated is exemplary, leaving no ambiguity about the writer's stance or the implications of their analysis. This is not just reporting; it's a powerful and accessible contribution to public discourse.