Fooled by Politicians

I had been following Times Now on the recent CWG mess quite regularly. The editors did a good job of making the right noise day in day out on why CWG was in a mess. Fingers were pointed at the Organizing Committee and whosoever connected with it. Quite a few interviews were done on the general rut - accountability, responsibility, nation, pride, etc.

But something was quite startling about it. How politicians were able to fool the situation and were able to manufacture consent. Every time a question was asked on what happened in the past, they would deflect it to future selling a rosy picture. Invariably people fell for that. Q: Mr Kalmadi, its a shame that the games village is not ready and athletes have started pouring in. How do you explain this? Why was work not done in time? To such questions Mr Kalmadi would take a very measured, always works, approach. Firstly, he'd say that it is not a matter of concern (DENIAL) as we have stepped up our preparedness. No one is complaining and athletes are having a good time. (After having denied the history, he'd deftly take a futuristic stance that obviously no one can say with certainty will happen or will not happen). Let me tell you Mr Such & Such that we'll deliver an excellent games (SOLD A ROSY FUTURE). And the athletes and the officials and our countrymen will have a great time. Ah! this completely shuts out further allegations. So next question logically would be - Do you still expect the games will go on as planned. Here the politician (Kalmadi in this case) has won the battle. He has quite successfully sold the idea of a brighter future and no more is he going to be pained by questions on roof leaking, dogs found sleeping on the bed, paan stains on the floor, shit in shit pot and everywhere else ... Having successfully fooled the audience, he'd now move to seal the debate. To the question whether the games will go on as planned, he'd say definitely two hundred percent. There is no question about that. Wah! a victory. Editor having fallen for the bait would now defer their judgment call to the 'let the games begin' day. Everyone is assured that the games will start as planned.

Compare this to others managing the games but playing the support role and not really at the helm. Rather, what separates a Kalmadi from the Balbir Singh, Mehnot, etc of the world. A Balbir Singh or a Mehnot sometimes fall for the bait and answer the question that media prompts them to. They get into explanations. So Mr Singh, dogs sleeping on the bed what do you have to say? Mr Singh would respond, well MCD should have taken care of this but its a minor problem (DENIAL, but after ACCEPTANCE). Wrong strategy surely. If Kalmadi were to respond, he'd say that we have a week to go and let me assure you it will be a stray dog free games and our countrymen, athletes, officials are going to enjoy this game. Ah! victory again.

Why management consulting interventions fail?

Why management consulting exists at the first place? The reason for consulting to exist is very fundamental to human nature. You'll agree that our mind is not programmed to do an objective evaluation of ourselves. For example, take up the task to describe yourself in one sentence. You'll find very difficult to answer this question. Ask a friend of yours the same question. She'll find it difficult too. Now ask her to describe you in a single sentence. This, she'll not find as difficult. Certainly, she has less information about you still she is able to assess you better. Take this example to an organizational set-up. Here, managers know much more about the existing ways of working but seldom are they able to objectively evaluate areas of improvement. Because they have biases about own processes and systems. Like your friend, here the consultant (rather a seasoned one) is of help as she'll be able to objectively diagnose and bring out problems for everyone to view objectively. That's precisely the reason why consulting exists.

So, why then does it fail on most occasions?

The key reasons why interventions fail also happen to be very fundamental in nature. To understand this we need to visit the process of consulting. Client hires a consultant for a defined scope of work. Consultants start work by appointing a project manager to coordinate activities. Once identified, they start the fact finding mission by speaking to managers in the organization and analyze data to understand the situation at hand. Then, they formulate their findings and validate the same with employees / managers. Post which they present their findings to the top management / steering committee. Upon approval from the steering committee, they start work on formulating changes required in processes, strategy, organization, etc. As a final step, they present the change imperatives to the steering committee. Most often, if the work is up to standard, the steering committee accepts the recommendations and reaffirms its intention to get the changes implemented. At times, it also initiates search for the project manager to initiate changes.

All this seems pretty much the right thing to do. Then why does it fail. To understand this lets revisit the process. A careful thought would surface the lack of involvement from the client team. Here is a team who has to implement but has not been involved all through. The team is not bought-in. All this while, client team has either provided data or set-up meetings but has never done the thinking-through. Now, for someone who has not participated in the process, it is very difficult to accept and implement changes as envisaged. Even if an honest attempt is made, multiple roadblocks surface, that consultants had not envisaged, to disengage the team. Once disengaged, it can never hit the road running.

Unfortunately, most consulting firms operate in a manner that does not adequately involve the client team. And the client team is then given the responsibility to build a home they never dreamed of. Do you think, one can ever build a home without first dreaming about it.