More lessons on institution building for sustainable & empathetic outcomes

Last week, I mentioned some of the lessons of institution building. I wish to take this discussion forward here because there is a crisis in many institutions of excellence in public, private and civil society sector. One of the major questions the students of institution building ask is about the progressive dilution of values with which institutions often start. The answer is not far to seek. If the institutions depend upon individual charisma of the leader, then decline is inevitable. The only way one can avoid it is by embedding these values in a distributed manner and among agile processes and systems. New people are inducted from time to time but if they are inducted properly into the deeper inviolable values, the institution becomes just an organization. The former is led by internal commands while the latter is led by external demands. In the institutions, people do what they do because they feel that to be the right thing to do. In organizations, external motivations, incentives drive the agenda.

It is obvious that institution building requires wider ownership of the goals and the means to achieve them. The connection with the people for whom the institution was set up stays strong. One of the early indications of alienation is that more time is spent in intra-organizational communications rather than communicating with the people. I have argued that horizontal accountability that is towards communities and clients/constituents cannot exist without vertical accountability, that is answerability of the top bosses to the floor shop or lower level of functionaries.

Sometimes, we confuse means and ends. Events replace deeper processes and engagements. Leaders start listening to those who agree with them and tell what they want to hear. Critical voices are silenced, silence is the rule in various meetings.

It is not surprising that the files and decisions start moving upwards. When institutional processes are weak, people avoid talking decisions and shift responsibility upwards. When a pile of files accumulates at the top, one starts delegating decisions to not necessarily the most competent person but the one who is closest or trusted for whatever reason. Sometimes, negotiations take place within the internal coterie and they decide who has said in which matters how much. Such a situation obviously doesn't remain masked. Performance suffers, goals diffuse, leaders dither, and communities suffer.

Despite the fact that open innovation is ruling the world, many countries, companies, and institutions continue to be closed and impervious to learning from outside. Inversion is a sign of decline too. Instead of seeking ideas from outside and different levels, reliance on a few chosen one is recipe for disaster.

The rise of secretiveness, short-circuits, lack of transparency obviously will add to the decline. How can one arrest such a process and then reverse it if one sees that happening?

One can appoint ombudsmen, who can hear anyone without favour or fear. One can also seek special feedback from those who have been for long with the institution and assess if they feel likewise.

Meeting the old clients/communities/individuals who have seen the organizations from the close quarters for long, need to be listened to.

In a nutshell, listening, learning and leveraging critical insights can help in arresting and if possible, reversing the decline. The ratio of self-driven decisions to top-down decisions can also be monitored, similar contribution towards public and common good is another indicator of socio-cultural embeddedness. The download to upload ration also shows how much is the institution central to societal learning and value orientation.

Will be happy to hear from others as t what lessons they think we need to add in the kit-bag of institutional rejuvenators as well as builders.

The author is founder of Honey Bee Network & visiting faculty at IIM-A
anilgb@gmail.com