Growing Calls for Reforms from within
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th Oct. 2016
These are interesting times, but for the management consultants & political analysts. Whether in politics or in business or judiciary, there are growing calls for reforming organization structures to cope up with demands of public in modern times. The armed forces are changing colours in terms of their response to stimuli and we have Socio-political organizations – changing their dress code. Then of course we have the finance and banking sectors, hard-pressed for showing improvement in stressed assets restructuring without impairing the net worth, off-course. Challenges for leadership, in almost all organizations are mounting except for bureaucracy, which keeps its jobs even though there have been little improvement in much flaunted ‘ease of doing business’. Then we also have the municipalities/local government, which refuse any sort of reforms or swachhta or structural re-organization, although efforts to make smart cities continue full steam in our media with all the global attention and participation.
Politically speaking, the ‘To be’ organization structure would vary from person to person. This is because it allows them to maintain dominance. It also helps them to maintain confusion, so that they can claim that they delivered, whatever was sought to be delivered, if questioned at some stage; and also put others at discomfort whenever required. Our media almost never questions the ‘to-be’ picture and roadmap from such people and in fact such questions seems to be gross indiscipline and have been permitted to be so by the senior members of the society. This is because if such questions are allowed, that would mean greater scrutiny of nearly all seniors. Then we also have a bevy of ‘shayars and kavis/poets alongside authors/columnists’ who would go along to advise people to enjoy the path rather than the destination. A good question is that- why life as a path could not have several well defined destination (with possibilities of course correction in given situation), but no one seems to be thinking about it. Such a proposal would perhaps throw much more clarity to general masses but summarily rejected as absurd by the big-wigs, keen to maintain dominance.
With the rise in demand for ‘change’ coming from within, only those pursuing careers as management consultants and political analysts, seems to be weighing their careers, for a shift. Earlier, people in these careers would have held important advisory roles often educating, encouraging and guiding such a change including various pathways for execution. Now several people from within organizations seem to be taking up such jobs, but of course execution seems to be tawdry including held ransom for the want of a consensus. This is the other skill that seems to be lacking viz. consensus-making, although this may be because people are seen attempting consensus over a course of action without first arriving at a ‘to be’ picture. Once a ‘to be’ picture is agreed for, then only decision is execution path which could several. There could be path of least resistance, the shortest one, the tedious one, the practical one etc. However, the moot point is if people in your organization have broad consensus about ‘to be’ picture…
By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th Oct. 2016
These are interesting times, but for the management consultants & political analysts. Whether in politics or in business or judiciary, there are growing calls for reforming organization structures to cope up with demands of public in modern times. The armed forces are changing colours in terms of their response to stimuli and we have Socio-political organizations – changing their dress code. Then of course we have the finance and banking sectors, hard-pressed for showing improvement in stressed assets restructuring without impairing the net worth, off-course. Challenges for leadership, in almost all organizations are mounting except for bureaucracy, which keeps its jobs even though there have been little improvement in much flaunted ‘ease of doing business’. Then we also have the municipalities/local government, which refuse any sort of reforms or swachhta or structural re-organization, although efforts to make smart cities continue full steam in our media with all the global attention and participation.
Politically speaking, the ‘To be’ organization structure would vary from person to person. This is because it allows them to maintain dominance. It also helps them to maintain confusion, so that they can claim that they delivered, whatever was sought to be delivered, if questioned at some stage; and also put others at discomfort whenever required. Our media almost never questions the ‘to-be’ picture and roadmap from such people and in fact such questions seems to be gross indiscipline and have been permitted to be so by the senior members of the society. This is because if such questions are allowed, that would mean greater scrutiny of nearly all seniors. Then we also have a bevy of ‘shayars and kavis/poets alongside authors/columnists’ who would go along to advise people to enjoy the path rather than the destination. A good question is that- why life as a path could not have several well defined destination (with possibilities of course correction in given situation), but no one seems to be thinking about it. Such a proposal would perhaps throw much more clarity to general masses but summarily rejected as absurd by the big-wigs, keen to maintain dominance.
With the rise in demand for ‘change’ coming from within, only those pursuing careers as management consultants and political analysts, seems to be weighing their careers, for a shift. Earlier, people in these careers would have held important advisory roles often educating, encouraging and guiding such a change including various pathways for execution. Now several people from within organizations seem to be taking up such jobs, but of course execution seems to be tawdry including held ransom for the want of a consensus. This is the other skill that seems to be lacking viz. consensus-making, although this may be because people are seen attempting consensus over a course of action without first arriving at a ‘to be’ picture. Once a ‘to be’ picture is agreed for, then only decision is execution path which could several. There could be path of least resistance, the shortest one, the tedious one, the practical one etc. However, the moot point is if people in your organization have broad consensus about ‘to be’ picture…