When patience is not a virtue

Patience is a virtue. Indiscriminate application of patience is not.

When waiting for an egg to hatch, patience is our friend. Trying to get the chicken (or the lizard) out early isn't going to avail us much. On the other hand, watching a customer service agent go through our case in slow motion is definitely not a fit case for patience.

As processes and personal risk-avoidance become dominant, poor service and undue delays have become an epidemic not only in the government but also in the private sector. References to “process poison” and “process anesthesia” are not exceptions any more. Process-designers, instead of focusing on the service quality or timely outcome, quite often seem to emphasize due diligence and checks-and-balances, much to the delight of the auditors instead of customers.

People and their attitudes are important too. Having a stake in the outcome helps. Well-motivated individuals can delight customers despite process hurdles. Those who don't care, routinely take shelter in inane provisions despite well-designed processes.

That brings up two questions:

What if we teach discretion and application of thought to our children? That'll make them ask tough, uncomfortable questions. It would still be worth the trouble in the long run.

What if we reject patience as a virtue? It will need some discretion. It will be harder to do when we have something to lose; or when we need to get on with other things, but it will make a huge difference. Even the simple act of letting someone know that their behaviour is not acceptable will trigger a natural human behavioural change. Not everyone has a vested interest in tormenting us; those people will surely change for the better.

But then, can we overcome the other virtue we are taught alongside patience, such as unquestioning obedience?

Government outsourcing ailments in IT

Governments outsource IT / IT-related projects for three broad reasons:

1. Risk taking ability, work ethic, ability to deliver results
2. Superior technical skills
3. Work needs more people than the government has

It is surprising then, that having set out to outsource, the government procurement processes are tuned to kill two of the three reasons for outsourcing. Here is how:

• By laying down stringent (often one-sided) conditions, penalties and an overall attitude of "we don't trust you or your work ethic"; the bidders are often scared stiff into risk aversion.
• By insisting that they work to government procedures and work-style - convert the vendor's employees to government work ethic
• By insisting that vendor's technical work be reviewed and evaluated by internal / NIC people (see #2 above!)
• By weighing most projects towards the lowest-bidder. Even where QCBS is touted as the method, pseudo experts and lame duck consultants water it down to elaborate tabulations in the name of objectivity.
• By causing project delays with interminable paper work, refusing to accept responsibility for the delays and needlessly harassing vendors for payments.

The private sector, over the years seems to have adapted well. Effectively killing their own competencies. 

• Bid management teams are nearly exclusively focused on "winning the deal" - at any cost. Often this requires convenient interpretations of the requirements and taking short cuts that can "later be rationalized". As a result, #1 is left out in the lurch. Project outcomes are sacrificed at the altar of "win the bid first". 
• Blame the government and its procedures for all their compromises. Surely the government isn't innocent. But then, what about business ethics?
• Experts cost money. Good tools, technologies and methods cost money. Money that wasn't included in the bid. 

All this leaves only one reason to outsource. Not work ethic. Not result orientation. Not technical competencies. "#3: Work needs more people than the government has". Situation has deteriorated so much that it is not easy to recover from this downward spiral.

To get out of this quagmire, perhaps we could try:

Private sector reform its bid management approach. Bid to compete as much on quality as on price. 
Government stop trivializing technical evaluation. Hire experts and find ways to give weight to their opinion.

One last point for emphasis. Hundreds of technical evaluation criteria achieve only one thing. Unsurprisingly, that is not "best technical bid". They ensure that bids with glaring weaknesses in several areas can still get through - as long as they bid "some standard stuff". One would think that such an obvious possibility would've been apparent to all.

I would like to hear from you all - on what you think is wrong; and how you think they can be fixed.

Suffer silently, suffer repeatedly

Most of us dislike friction. Dislike to be dragged into unpleasant interactions. It is part of our personality that makes us social beings. It is also a necessary trait that helps us recognize that others' may disagree with us and deal with it in a civilized manner. However, there are many occasions where this approach should not be taken. Here are a few examples.

1. Stray dog menace in the neighborhood. Makes it difficult to go for solitary walks. Not easy to take our pet out. We are too busy to look up the concerned authority and complain. We may even try once or twice and give up with the other side doesn't pick up the phone or answer the email. We grumble and move on. We set ourselves up for repeated suffering.

2. Poor service when traveling. Airline staff. Taxi cabs. Ticket inspectors. We have a train / plane to catch; so we can't take enough time out to complain. They get away. Next time we go through the same place, we suffer again. Silently.

3. Government service delivery. We put up with apathy and other attitudes. "what can we do?" we ask.

4. Politics - local, regional and national. We don't like to pressured to pay donations. One particular action of a corrupt politician doesn't affect us directly, so we make a few glib comments among friends and move on.

Surely the world is full of such examples. We suffer silently. As a result, we suffer repeatedly.

Speak up. Even if you don't make a scene right there, use the internet as a medium to let your views be known. Send emails. Post on facebook. Complain on online consumer forums. Tweet about it. Ask like minded people to speak up along with you. Yes, there are huge number of people out there who will agree with you.

It is a start. An opening to make a difference. A great alternative to suffering silently.

Deep-rooted malaise

The analysis beans are back in action. So I picked myself up from a temporary bout of despair and angst and went about doing some root cause analysis - of the current state of affairs in the government.

I had already written about the negative impact of certain work-culture issues - starting with "The many management maladies". It is relevant here - as a huge first-part of the analysis.

1. Process and Protocol: established leaders in causing non-performance

1.1 Process: Process (nay, procedure... if you want to be anal-ytical), is the first and last refuge to every government-servant. Anything can be road-blocked using this. Oddly enough, "process" is only very rarely used to accelerate results - though we'll find any number of self-congratulatory PPTs to the contrary - especially if we don't want to look deep.

1.2 Protocol-and-ego cocktail: This is worse than the worst Molotov Cocktail. Most often, ego is very closely linked to and confused with "protocol".

My first experience of protocol was with a Japanese delegation; in any meeting only the senior-most person present would speak. I wasn't impressed then. I am not now. No doubt, that the senior-most person most often has the best judgement (okay, there are exceptions, but they are only exceptions) and the best broad-field perception of all issues involved. However, lack of in-depth knowledge of the matter at hand; combined with an ego that prevents openly consulting juniors / specialists in front of others - makes an excellent recipe for decision-making disasters.

This feeds quite effectively to the vicious cycle:

• subordinates routinely push matters upwards for consideration, decision, approval, you-name-it; while actively diminishing their own contribution (often taking perverse pleasure in it)
• bosses routinely micromanage; encouraging the subordinates along the downward spiral of non-performance, even while cribbing non-stop about how they can't get good help these days

2. Micromanagement: a most compelling solution for most result-oriented Managers!

Yes, we touched upon it already - but it is such a huge factor that it deserves separate attention. It both feeds-into and feeds-off the eco-system. The effects are so well known, that no more needs saying. The irony is that it is managers who want to achieve something who adopt this most!

3. Effective weeding out of any initiative and performance

Quick and decisive punishments are a hallmark of all *good* officers. It puts the subordinates in place, elevates the self-image of the officers concerned and results in all-round approving nods. 

It is an effective cure to anyone who dares put a toe out of line -- either violating a protocol (nay, ego) or making an honest mistake while performing one's duty. No wonder, one IT Manager told me not so long ago 

"Sir, we don't want the responsibility of taking backups because if we fail to restore even a single backup, we will be suspended from duty". So the eco-system effectively ensured that no backups were taken. Ever!! 

Joseph, a friend of mine, said recently: "In the workplace, I should have the right to be wrong; if I am going to be [punished] for [making a mistake], then ... ". I fully agree with him.

But then, even this honest-to-goodness recipe can be poisoned by the next and the most vicious factor.

4. Generations of finely-tuned culture of apathy

The value system has eroded so significantly that in the last two decades I've heard ONLY ONCE, that "Public Service is an honor and a privilege".

So this is "culture"? Nay, it is a disease. 

"Get a government job. Life will be good". I've heard variations of this theme uncountable times. It is so shockingly and routinely doled out by our elders - no less. With all due respect for well-meaning elders and their concern for our well-being, we must accord this particular contribution (to the malaise) its due "credit". 

No, let us not pretend that their advice is given with good intent and it is we who misinterpret it. I am old enough to know that the good intent has been wiped out over the generations of repeating this advice. Today, it is dispensed openly to promote "don't work; take pay; do side-business while being a government employee" and such ideas. Not even to glibly disguise it as "work-life balance". 

This is one malaise that I will keep working against, all my life.

Fortunately, unlike some other problems (e.g., The legacy of Brahmin), there is still some hope in this particular case. 

Dealing with unknowns

I am not sure what we are getting into. Let's not risk it!

We've all heard variations of this countless times. Yet, I'd think management pundits - nay practitioners, would've figured the best way to deal with the fear of the unknown. Yet, I find that this fear plagues management echelons in both the public and the private sector - in ever increasing proportions. 

Here is an example of how decisions with unknowns are taken routinely, based on "playing it safe".

Scenario #1: Data Confidentiality

A asks for some data that B has. B is not sure whether there are any provisions governing sharing of this data. Instead of finding out whether there are, he simply declines - quoting the contract governing the data. A, not knowing better, returns empty handed.

What happened later: 

A requests for a copy of the contract in question. Finds that the contract has not only expired 3 years ago, but never had any provisions of confidentiality at any time. When A shows this to B, he reacts defensively. "Well I never read the contract, but C told me that we had a contract. How can I be sure that I won't be sued for this? Who gave you the copy of the contract anyway?" 

Instead of saying "I don't know for sure, so let me play safe", B could've said "I don't know for sure; let me find out - and then I'll know whether I am doing the right thing".

Scenario #2: Decision on a new proposal

The board of company X is meeting. One of their executives E has presented to them a novel idea that needs an significant investment. One of the board member reacts "What about security? Have you considered that?". E explains to them how security is addressed in the new proposal. "But what about the market reaction? How will the competitors react? They are not going to sit tight you know?". E agrees that as with any new proposal, there are some unknowns. However, the best projections they have, show that success is the most likely outcome. After a few more interactions like this, it becomes clear. The board member does not have enough knowledge of the market - and would decide based on his fear of the unknown. 

While it may be argued that E may have done a bad job of explaining / selling the idea; it is also clear that when facing the unknown, it is important to seek more information; specific information that puts the fear in perspective. 

It is quite like hesitating to enter a dark room. Rather than opt-out, it is much simpler to seek the switch to the light bulb and turn it on. The light thrown gives a name to the fear. It clarifies that you need not fear unknown ghosts but the object in the way that you might trip on. Similarly, seeking information and giving a name to the fear, throws light into the darkness - and reduces the tendency to adopt "default decisions". 

However, I see more and more decision makers taking the easy way out. This, I believe is influenced - apart from other factors - both by the work culture osmosis that I wrote about earlier; as well as the declining inherent knowledge levels and compensating lack of application of adequate logic - also written about in re-engineered by google.

Sadly, the consulting industry, who are supposed to help managers out in such circumstances are themselves impacted by these factors - further contributing to this scenario. 

I wonder whether there is a simple fix to this malady. Of course, I could, in all my ignorance, do the typical Indian thing and say: "I don't know, but hey, I am sure things will surely turn around" (hope, the big remedy) or even "C'mon, things are not as bad as you say" (deny the unknown!).