One of the observations that struck me of the very
interesting Satya Nadella interview serialized in various newspapers is:
“One of the things that drives me
crazy is anyone who comes in from the outside and says, “This is how we used to
do it”. Or if somebody who has been here for a while says, “This is how we do
it”. Both of them are such dangerous traps. The question is how do we take all
of that valuable stuff and apply it to create in the current context and raise
standards.”
This is striking because of exactly opposite reasons of Nadella’s. Having worked in the government and knowing how it works, if there
is one thing that can be considered a norm: anything that has been practiced
and accepted overtime. You are always encouraged to do what has been done before, in the way it is used to. This has, in fact been institutionalized. When the
government frames a new legislation, there are entire teams of draftsmen of the
Ministry of Law to ensure that no new words other than what has been already
used in some statute goes in the new one.
The way today’s governance is practiced and structured, anything
that has been done before is kosher! To do anything new is tough. It calls for
formidable persistence, management and other skills and an energy required to
move a mountain!
Here is what a colleague at sufficiently senior level in the
central government had recounted the other day. In a department which holds the
vicarious responsibility of welfare of the working employees of the government,
she tried to introduce something new- to celebrate ‘women’s day’. The question
that was asked to her will not come as a surprise to anyone who know the
government system – “Why should we do anything for the first time?” And this
question came right from the top. Credit goes to this colleague who pushed it
through. It is now being observed every year. Now the challenge will be to
change this practice!
The Hindu gave a perceptive heading to report the Nadella
interview: Finetuning has limits, it’s time to create. Satya says: “It is time
for reinvention… future is not about our past success. It is going to be about
whether we will invent things that are really going to drive our future”. Fine
tuning has its limits!
This is the core problem of governance. Hierarchical,
bureaucratic organisations are amenable only to finetuning. They are not
designed to generate radical changes that will have impact on people’s lives.
So governments could never be creative.
But there is a bright side to this inertia of governmental
structures. Creative organisations are inherently unstable. The corollary is
that non creative bureaucratic set ups are stable. As Nadella points out,
mortality of a company is higher than that of a human being. There are few
companies alive that are more than 100 year old. But governments have been
running for centuries. Their non-creativity is their strength. This is why bureaucracy’s
steel frame is the backbone of governments.
There is another bright side to this. Their staying power
gives the confidence to private enterprise to flourish within the certainty of
rules that they put in place. The legal system that does not use new words,
that which is predictable, is exactly what private enterprises and
bureaucracies want. They both do not like uncertainties. This may be a typical
case of what the doctor ordered and the patient wanted being the same!
This is where most often the politicians who head
governments have to pay a price. Elected leaders in democracies have limited
time and they have to face people again. People have aspirations. Unless they
are creative and deliver on these aspirations, they will not get re-elected. The
politicians, therefore has an unenviable task. They have to deliver through a system
which is ‘built to last’, in essence through a non-creative system. Most of the
anti- incumbency factors that throw out governments are the result of
this.
This gets exacerbated in the networked world. In the
cyberworld everything is instantaneous and people are used to it. Everyone
wants everything at the speed and ease of Google! This is brings in unprecedented
challenges for the politicians who has to deal with a change resistant
bureaucracy. They have to deal with people’s aspirations that call for
providing services to the public through innovative organizations, which is not
possible within governmental structures.
In todays India where 50% of the population is below 25
years who relate to the world through web interfaces of Facebook and the like, only
way to meet this challenge is to make the government smart. The only way to
make the governments smart is to convert all citizen interactions and service
provisions through web interfaces. Otherwise citizens will never feel the
smartness of the system. Removing human interface is the best way to root out
corruption as well.
Having spent almost 25 years in the government, I have
become a fan of the republican idea of limiting the role of government. Government
should do what it is really good at: legislation, regulation and oversight. Governments
will have a role in areas where market does not operate or provide incentives
to private enterprise. Governments are good back offices. The rest should be
left to innovative organisations that can ensure service delivery.
You may call me a neo liberal. I prefer being called names
rather than be on the receiving side of an unresponsive bureaucracy!
