Those in decision-making roles must be equipped with the necessary skills, attitudes, and awareness to meet the demands of their tasks
Problem-solving is more than an art. It is a matter of resources, teamwork, and timing. Behavioral interventions in problem-solving need to keep this in mind. This applies equally to training programs on problem-solving. Many training programs tend to believe that if their techniques are right the results will surely follow. This is a palpably comforting approach but with limited truth in reality. Amongst the foremost requirements of problem-solving is the need for all the people involved in the process to have the necessary skills to handle the job. The job itself has to be neatly reduced to manageable levels of skill clusters, and the persons allotted the responsibility for it must have the necessary attitude, skills, and approaches to handle the job. Unfortunately, not all in key decision-making situations have the competence to embrace this simple truth.
They seem to have arrived in that position either through regular promotion, seniority, hierarchy, or indeed, simply by chance. While the logic that brought them there is understandable, it does not meet the requirements for getting the tasks done. The result is therefore all to see. Not only do accidents take place, but delays and ineptness also become the hallmarks of a situation.
It is important to remember this while planning an activity. It is important to build this into training programs, and above all, it is important to remind those who control the resources to be conscious of this requirement. Even when all the skill columns and more are regularly accounted for, it stands to reason that the resources of the supply chain must be intact and in position. As it happens in organizational setups, the supply chain side and the engineering side need effective dialogue, communication, or exchanges with the human resources side, the skill formation side, and control and monitoring methodologies.
Thus, it is that ineptness becomes an inevitable part of the scene in organizations not so well linked together on these dimensions. It is therefore necessary to create a culture of effectiveness and an appreciation of the requirements to deliver. To deliver requires, to the extent possible, objective and manageable resource mobilization, skill availability, sensitive monitoring, and linking up with the results in the time set.
If this is not done, effectiveness is impaired, and others who can organize themselves will surge forward, and then the institutional returns of the defaulting group will continue to diminish. It may ultimately reach a point where there may be no surpluses to distribute even for salaries or to administer. This is a point of view to which no exceptions can be made. Considering this in the current and growing crescendo on reservations is something that can be avoided only at the grave risk of creating further problems for oneself.
Struggle for the decision-making process is often termed as ‘politics’ and political processes in a country like India are often determined by numbers. Hence, the push to enhance the numbers of one’s following and pander to political rising waves, even though it may not be sustainable in the long run. This is such an obvious warning and caution that it cannot be over-emphasized. The tragedy is, not only that so many people seem to overlook this point. It appears, at times, that many otherwise knowledgeable people do it purposefully to gain political advantage.
Little do they realize that what they gain on the swing, they will lose on the round. In this context, two observations need to be made, one concerning the constitution and the other concerning the practices of reservation for social equity in other parts of the world. The constitution in its initial draft was very clear and forthright on the reservation as a policy only for a limited period, even the period for which was indicated.
Gradually, through political compulsions and otherwise, the focus of reservation-affected communities was expanded till the Supreme Court had to step in and say that not more than 50% of positions could be made in the reserved category.
Pressure has been on for a while, in political terms, to loosen this limit. Should this happen, it could have implications, not just politically but also in terms of perhaps affecting the results of performance. This could jeopardize the total volume of resources, then, available for distribution.
To consider the issue of social equity in other communities and countries beyond India may be worthwhile. Limited examples may be found across the world where the total availability of jobs is parcelled off in reserved blocks. Some nations have a parallel stream for reserved categories and a definite stream where only talent could be a criterion for selection. This amalgam seems to have worked for both productivity and distributive justice. There is a clear case of streaming of jobs in India, being examined from this point of view also. Not to look at this option would be limiting the possibilities of growth with equity.
That may be risky and unwise. The logic of preferential treatment has many caveats, and one of them is that preferential treatment could become a matter of habit and expectations, and when not granted, it could be seen as akin to ’rights’ being violated.
The time has come to seriously ask whether the slogan-mongering of several political groups may not be tantamount to throwing the baby out with the water. Every approach can be considered for and against, but the ultimate solution should preferably incorporate requirements of universal equity, and sustainability amongst various criteria of performance and results.
(The writer is an internationally acclaimed management consultant. The views expressed are personal)
