|
|
|
 |
21 January, 2014: Original
27th June, 2015: Introduction added
The idea was largely articulated by Urbz in line with the approach it follows when working with individuals and organizations in the field of urban design, re-design and development. The approach is quite general and applicable to other types of initiatives.
The articulation is less about an approach per se but more about holding a certain attitude of mind when approaching a certain piece of work. Thus, for lack of a better word, it is essentially a philosophy. The fact that this articulation follows a certain aesthetic and experimentation is important. Experimentation did not follow the philosophy but the other way around.
I find this articulation relevant because fundamentally I can identify my style of approaching a given problem along these lines. Further, if we strip away ther remaining elements, at its core, the line of thinking is comparable to:
1. The principle of action and reflection
2. The bed-partnership between experimentation and theory-formulation in modern science
3. The aesthetic that emphasizes finding the universal in the particular rather than "deriving" or "placing" the particular within the universal (see here)
4. And if you prefer the folks of the eras by-gone, a faint and imperfect impression of the "shramanic" philosophy. Unlike the aim of liberation in the Shramanic version, the modern version has quite secular aims.
All in all, as an attitude of mind to adopt, it stands on the shoulders of reputed and weathered giants. It is unlikely that those who adopt this way of thinking will find themselves in a lurch. However, it is very much likely that those who adopt it will not find themselves in position of command and control because, today, the prevalent attitude among decision-makers that are moving or influencing things is quite the opposite.
Thus, a harmful side-effect of adopting this attitude is: since the dominant, common-day world philosophy goes against the grain of such an attitude of mind, those who hold such an attitude will most likely be forced to counter-act, re-act, defend and, in ultimate analysis, divert their attention (even if partially) to criticism, scepticism and cynicism of present order of things.
To avoid this, there is only a single anti-dote, which, however, the approach does not explicitly put forth. And, that is, to vehemently ask the question: To What End?
The end has to be defined in terms (that is in words and phrases) meanings of which are not derived from, correlates with, can be compared with, is analogous to, similar to the terms that are used to define the present order of things. If it is defined in these terms then eventually the practitioners of this approach have to face the dangers of creeping cynicism into their works. To avoid this creeping cynicism, one way the mind could react is to define the end in such a way that it becomes too narrow and restrictive with a resultant staying within the zone of preferences and comfort of the practitioner. In this case, the practitioner will be able to avoid the dangers of a combative and cynical attitude but risks not exploding the potential of this approach.
There is yet another danger which no practitioner will readily acknowledge: when you are engaged in any activity that runs counter to the prevalent norms, there is an underlying sub-conscious tendency to view that activity as somehow transformative, positive, leading to the better and, by implication, inherently superior to the prevalent norms. This tendency or assumption, many times, has actually no basis in facts or reality. However, the mind will need this subtle or hard, hidden belief because it is this unconscious thought that 'sustains' the desire for continuing to engage in a given activity. And once this unconscious thought starts approaching the conscious realm it appears as subtle conceit.
In a commentary to the Vatthupama Sutta (The Simile of the Cloth) states linked to conceit are highlighted. They are worth repeating. That is, conceit may give rise to makkha (denigration), palasa (domineering or presumption), thamba (obstinacy), sarambha (presumption, rivalry, impetuosity), atimana (arrogance or haughtiness), mada (vanity or pride) and ultimately leading to pamada (heedlessness).
The above caution is necessary because an approach like this is a highly valuable and sharp tool. But without knowing the dangers inherent in adopting and practicising it, it becomes counter-productive. A sense of properly defined purpose is needed to make this approach "skill-full".
One of the ideal solutions is: to define the end in terms that are at least one level of abstraction above the terms that are used to define the dominant order today. If the end is defined this way, then it encompasses and explains even the current order of things. This creates an opportunity for a more encompassing application of this approach.
When I wrote my comments to the approach none of the above considerations were explicit in my mind.
Eyes Wide Open [Rahul, Matias with help from Alexis]
We live in a highly inefficient world. Institutions of all types and shapes have to face today the challenges that they have been building for themselves for decades.
The fantasy of how the world should be and of how people should think is the base on which many decisions are taken and has created a fragile system. Tremendous amounts of money and efforts are deployed to offset those fragilities, and to make the world fit to respond the way he had fantasized it would. Unformity, scale, and replication for the sake permanently force-feed their customers to survive.
A simplistic system turns reality into a complicated problem.
On the other hand, accepting complexities can make life easier. What if the rule was to know how to make exceptions? What if the decision making was based on common sense? What if learning to deal with particularities was efficient, and not opposed to size, scale, or profit?
We believe a strategy for a project needs to be crafted in a context, taking into account the place, the people and all the elements that pertain to at stake, in particular. Thus, projects are based on intelligence, skills, communication and value, rather than on rules, averages, costs and production.
We propose to help organizations build robust, flexible, and dynamic projects by embedding them in a location with human dimension, the neighbourhood, and by anchoring them in the reality of the people living in it, the users.
We accompany individuals, associations, private company or municipalities who have a dream, an intuition, or a development route they wish to explore. We align projects to these objectives by defining them in a context, we connect with employees, beneficiaries, or clients by building a trust. We create capacities to build user generated, locally embedded projects, making organizations agile, robust, and deeply rooted.
Comments
1) In essence, the paragraphs above hint at (but do not explicitly call-out) making decisions with a certain aesthetic and that aesthetic can be labelled as a highly personal yet a highly reasoned intuition. That is, making decisions based on "ideas" that are "intelligently and deeply felt" rather than ones that, in most cases, are simply imported and force-fitted in the already accumulated mass of ideas. The organizations and systems appear (or are) fragile because the thinking behind them is fragile. So the sense of aesthetic implicit in the above paragraphs directly criticizes the method of thinking among the decision makers of today.
2) The question then is: what is the right kind of thinking that can lead to right decisions and hence to right systems? For that, I, personally, would start backwards from identifying what is the right kind of a system. To oversimplify and over-generalize, I would say the ideal system is the system designed by nature, i.e., a natural system. So any aesthetic of decision-making that keeps as its benchmark the "natural aesthetic" can be sure of progressing towards, or at least being parallel to, the best system that one's own personal experience can demonstrate to him/her today.
3) But today most individuals in key positions of decision-making tend to ignore their own personal intuition and their own experience. I would contend that it is more out of timidity, wanting to confirm to general trend rather than a lack of ability. To that extent I would say the systems are fragile because decision-makers have forgotten how to make decisions and have gotten used to only following. If one has to be blunt: it is that the entire compensation system rewards dumbness and accords freedom to think to only a select few.
4) So one of the direct implications of the EWO is that it is asking the decision-makers to be more relaxed, to trust themselves a lot more, and make a far more consistent and penetrating use of their intuition instead of confining their intuitions to dreams, fantasies, visions (all of which are also finally sublimated in a marketing rhetoric). It is a call for decision-makers to exert themselves more and be fully original.
5) However, there is, in most organizations, always one segment that is by circumstances forced to be original: this is the segment of the "last-mile". In case of the X project, it will be the sales guy, field officer, the guy who is pulling the wheelbarrow, the driver driving the truck, the guy packing the bags. I would even put customers into this last-mile stage. At that level there is a flood of daily events that one has to cope with, embedding, in turn, a set of highly valuable set of experiences in the minds of all these last-mile actors.
6) Some of these last-mile actors can convert these experiences into some kind of an initial system. Once these experiences are translated into an intuitive system of ideas, the outcomes from the application of these ideas are surprising at each step of the way. We are all so fascinated by the highly intelligent methods of thinking of Pankaj and other contractors because of this reason. And indeed, all the successful contractors [in the project X] were the ones that have applied uniformity, scale, and replication that is unmatched. So, to that extent, uniformity, scale, and replication is essential. But it is very critical to understand to what ideas should these operations be applied. They can be applied to ideas only at a certain level of abstraction and that level of abstraction has to be very deep. People like Pankaj may grasp at this abstraction through intuition borne out of experience. Not every decision-maker has the luxury of this experience.
7) This is where a venture like EWO can help systematically ferret out this intuition from the minds of individuals (or organizations) like Pankaj, and articulate it properly to sensitize the concerned decision-makers. Even beyond that, EWO can build capacities at the level of last-mile itself in terms of converting the mass of experience into a seemingly understandable and operationally manageable system. It is not that today it does not happen in organizations but it happens through a very limited lens (mostly that of economics and human resource management). Further, it is also not that organizations are not completely unware of these other lenses like those that were explored by Urbz in the X project. They are at some level aware that there is something more than meets the eyes. But if organization does not explicitly encourage exploring this "feeling of incompleteness" no one will be encouraged to think in that direction.
8) Thus, this entire last-mile intervention comprising of sensitization and building of intellectual and operational capacities is something that is very consultish in its approach, the value of whihc should be easy to demonstrate through case-studies, and it can be packaged as a structured engagement.
9) However, in my opinion, the last-mile intervention is not about celebrating complexity. It is about finding the simplicity that the complexity is hiding. For, if you look at every natural system today, it is a general rule that a robust, dynamic and flexible system that we aim to build is one that is built on a very few set of primitives or first-principles. It is impossible to create a powerful idea by an assembly of parts, however intricate that assembly may appear on the outside. So, the entire essence of any last-mile consulting is helping individuals make decisions taking account of first principles as far as possible.
10. However, discovery of powerful first principles requires a high degree of abstraction and that comes with training. So, to that extent, decision-makers will need help unless it is that rare individual who has risen through the ranks and has the priviledged benefit of training and first-hand insights that comes only through experience. So I would say, it is not about "accepting" complexities, it is about "understanding" them. If you really make an effort to understand them at the right level of abstraction, a complex system ceases to be complex, or at least the perception of complexity becomes less acute.
11. Now, as one moves higher up the last-mile, this sense of aesthetic (personal but reasoned intuition) dries up. One reason that comes to mind is the unwilligness to be original; another is the lack of requisite experience and training. But even if one has the requisite experience and one has the courage to be original there is still a problem. And that is that one has been conditioned by several factors that are very difficult to remove:
11.1) One is, fixation with a set of ideas (ideological), most common among MBAs as a class.
11.2) The second is, if not set ideas then a set patterns of thoughts and limitation of vocabulary to express newer ideas. For instance, in Y, there was a tendency of trying to express everything in P&L terms and viewing what was not actually a project as simply a project, and thus applying a project-level thinking to a vision-level activity.
11.3) Both points 1 and 2 create an inordinate amount of stress in carrying out any original program of thought like Alexis found time and again. On the other hand, for the time being Z seemed like he understood and was on side of the project. But I would contend that had the project continued for another 2 years, he would have "compared" the activity to the "business of microfinance" and, in doing so, created similar stress that Y did at a project-level.
11.4) The third factor is due to personal motivations of career. A man can understand everything yet do nothing if his only goal in life is to meet his profitability targets and get the next promotion due.
11.5) The fourth is temperamental: related to the personality of the individual. In big organizations, this gets evened out. In X, the fact that it was a publicly held company ensured that such idiosynracies would be kept in check beyond a point. But with smaller organizations, and with individual entrepreneurs, this more than anything else is the single biggest cause of organizational inefficiency. The smaller or more tightly-controlled the organization, the more it is a mirror-image of the personality of the entrepreneur.
11.6) [[I am sure there are many more...]]
12) What is the point of trying to list the above concerns? Because these are the very points that set physical constraints on the last-mile operations. So, if the last-mile consulting intervention has to work well it has to be complemented by a set of interventions that will influence how an organization will set physical constraints for the project.
13) There are several ways of influencing this. One way is of course to help the organization articulate properly the constraints. For example, for X, if the explicit goal was a more elegant and intuitive version of "Support the Affordable Housing intervention to build better cities" instead of to "Demonstrate the financial viability" of the project, it would have made at least some difference in reducing stress levels. This is something that is necessary and has to be done de-facto whether any client asks for this or not. It could be a series of workshops, discussions, or more creative ways along the lines that were under discussion as the project was wrapping up around December end.
14) Once the constraints are set, what is the guarantee that they are kept in mind every-time a decision is made? The very first sentence in the EWO write-up is that "We live in a very inefficient world." There are only two sources of inefficiencies: setting wrong goals, and, once the right goals are set, not internalizing them in a consistent way. Further, the more appropriate word may be "ineffective". The exercise in the earlier point can help the organization get a hold of what is the right goal like. But what after that?
15) One way to ensure that there is [some degree] of consisteny in adhering to the right constraints set at the last-mile level is to create a "buffer"; that is, a mechanism that channelizes the stress created by disconnected constraints from the last-mile activity. In X, the role of Alexis was precisely that. But this is a very unenviable role to play consistently across multiple engagements. Even if EWO does not play that role itself, it is simply not worth subjecting a few hapless individuals in the organization to play this role. It simply suspends stress and allows the last-mile to work well for sometime. But when the time comes to evolve the last-mile, relying on a buffer mechanism shows its limitations as the project demonstrated time and again when it came to communicating at multiple levels higher up in the organization. Further, once a point of stress is created in an organization, the organization becomes conditioned to misuse it. It is, in general, a bad habit to encourage and one that EWO should possibly try to avoid for its own peace of mind.
16) If we notice, all the key bottlenecks to setting the right constraints are in some way psychological. So the best mode of influence will be one which is in nature of a pyschological operation. And, in my opinion, the best psychological operation in an organizational context is what can loosely be termed mentoring (or coaching). This operation works at a very subtle level. It is about explicitly participating in all decision-making, major or minor, and tweaking things here and there a bit at a time so that over a sustained period of time a sense of consistency is built up, a sense of appreciation of why is the project given a particular goal, and, thus, a sense of confidence in EWO.
17) But does this point matter? Again coming back to the EWO write-up, the last sentence in the EWO write-up ends with "We create capacities to build user generated, locally embedded projects, making organizations agile, robust and deeply rooted." I feel this is the most powerful sentence in the EWO proposition to offer. However, as it stands, it is also extremely bold. Till this point, the write-up is talking about projects, and finally, here the link from project to organization is introduced (intended or un-intended). Moving from Managing a Project to making Organizations agile, robust and deeply rooted is practically not possible. In my opinion, it is at a level of fantasy. This can happen under only two conditions: one, where you have a chance to work with a mature, progressive, and a very stable leadership over a long stretch of time to change the pyschology of the leadership, and in turn, that of the organization; two, if the leadership is already rooted so no EWO is needed.
18) Getting a stable leadership and a pool of progressively minded resources to work with over time is very difficult, though not improbable. It goes without saying that firstly, there are very few organizations that even have a potential to be progressive; and secondly, of these few, EWO may get a foothold in a minuscule fraction of them to move from Project to Organization.
19) However, the intent behind this sentence is very powerful and should be kept firmly in the offering. Except that we can moderate it and understand that, at most, we can move from a Project level to inculcating an "aesthetic of decision-making" in a few individuals within a given organization so that it becomes a part of their pysche and that they learn to apply it immediately beyond the project to some other day-to-day aspects of the organization.
20) For example, it is worth imagining that Alexis along-side managing the project was able to mentor a few individuals in the intricacies and nuances of the project and from there lead them to change their of way of thinking [a bit]. The value of this could have been dramatic for the organization. Unfortunately, an individual has to be really self-assured and accomodative to allow that space to others to teach him how to think even after being several years in the organization and that too at a high post. Nonetheless, the premise of doing something like EWO really is that these individuals do exist. So we cannot afford to drop that premise, and hope, at this stage.
21) I, personally, feel that if EWO can achieve this (some moderate form of individual transformation) it is truly commendable. It is also something that can be more probable than changing an organization, and thus, for us, will also give us an immediate sense of satisfaction.
22) From a "marketing" perspective, then, there are two objects of intervention --- one, last-mile projects; and second, specific type of individuals. In line with these two objectives there seem to be at most three product offerings:
22.1) EWO can help design and deliver on specific types of last-mile projects (in our case the user-generated city theme).
22.2) EWO can frame the right organizational constraints.
22.3) EWO can mentor/coach/partner with certain individuals in enabling an operating environment consistent with these constraints. And, in doing so, move the individuals beyond the project and, through them the organization, and in some way, deliver lasting value to the individual at least.
23) The big question is: to whom should EWO 'sell' and what of the above should it really sell?
24) Of all the three offerings, the last is the most difficult to sell well. If sold to an institution, it will boil down to speaking about generalities (like organizations that will be dynamic, flexible, and agile), and possibly, ignored or accepted as a marketing rhetoric. To really communicate its essence will require a personal sell to an individual within an institution. In some ways, EWO is actually offering a learning and career development platform to that individual. The ones who really see it that way are bound to accept and sponsor the last product, and through that, the other two.
25) However, EWO should also sell just the last-mile project-basd offering (22.1 + 22.2) because most institutions would want this and ONLY this. But in that case, EWO should keep its expectations firmly in check and not expect any transformational change. Whether we like it or not, most institutions will use EWO for instrumental ends. As a consultant, it is not a pleasant feeling but then you always hope that even in a hopeless organization there is one individual you can pin your hope on.
| |
|