I read this interview of Vinod Rai, the CAG, who is retiring this month. He is one man who has made significant change in the Government system. Some of his comments are very insightful. 1> CAG reports to PAC chairman who is from opposition. In other words, the constitution itself has offered this objectivity to CAG. 2> CAG gives about 235 reports in state legislatures and Parliament - about 65 in Parliament and the balance in the state assemblies. The PAC can't take up all the reports. They pick up a maximum of 10-15 out of 65. > Audit is a hindsight report. It is meant to point flaws in the process. That is its nature.
When i was reading his accomplishments as CAG, I also remembered how T.N.Seshan changed the entire election process of India. As the Chief Election Commissioner of India he introduced major electoral reforms and redefined the status and visibility of the Election Commission of India. He was largely successful in curbing electoral malpractices in India and his name became synonymous with transparency and efficiency
If you are thinking that it is easier to change the system when one reaches the top, you are wrong. Jim Collins, who has studied 'great' companies of last century, found that the toughest problem for these "great" companies was to ensure that 'right people were picked up as leaders'. The system in most companies somehow 'picks the celebrity CEO's who put themselves ahead of their institution'. Great companies somehow manage to chose ' real leaders who put their institution ahead of themselves'. In short, to survive in such a Government machinery, and then to do what is right for the institution requires a 'miracle'. It does not happen in normal circumstances.
If you think that a man can change the system only when he has 'absolute positional' power, you are again wrong. Here are some examples. You will find people like Sandeep Desai, who is begging in Mumbai locals, to collect money to construct a school at Umarkhed, Maharashtra near Yavatmal. You will meet people like this Orissa collector,Vineel Krishna, who managed to fight terrorism completely bypassing the official system of governance. Or you will find a simple mountaineer like Greg Robertson, who just because of his passion for the Afghans, found out a real solid way to fight terrorism. There are countless examples like this.
But there is something common between the two category of people: People like Seshan and Vinod Rai who seem to have 'positional power' to do anything, and people like Sandeep Desai and Greg Robertson who seem to be operating only from the 'persuasive power' of passion and values.
Systems thinking can help us find how and when a small cause can create a big effect. Systemically, when one man is initiating the change, certain conditions must be met for him to impact a big impact. This big impact happens only when these five conditions are satisfied :
1. Such a man changing the system should be helped by a system that has reached a point of 'inflection'. Like Vinod Rai mentions that the society was at the right time to 'accept' his 'active' role in audit which is generally a laid back role. He also mentions that Anna Hazare's anti-corruption drive helped CAG to become central.
2. Such a man must get inadvertent support of the eco-system: Vinod Rai said in his interview that the support of 24/7 media, which we so often criticise for too much of sensationalism, has been central in taking the active role of CAG.
3. Such a man requires huge amount of effort to overcome the large inertia of a system: Be it Greg Robertson, or any other's effort, such a person requires to put in huge amount of initial effort to make the change 'sustainable'. This person requires unusual amount of resolve, and that too for a large number of years, to push ahead despite seeing no positive feedback for years. It requires much more than passion. It requires smart use of the eco-system.
4. Such a person must make smart use of eco-system to initiate and sustain the change: If you have seen the slow dying of the anti-corruption drive of Anna Hazare's campaign, despite its initial huge public attention it could garner, you will realise the importance of this fourth point. For instance, if Anna Hazare's group could have made smart use of "CAG's PAC 200 plus reports", it could have sustained its change effort for a far more longer time.
5. Such a person should be smart enough to break the big 'elephant' ( system) to eat it in pieces: Any system, by its nature, is huge. It cannot be tackled at one time. One has to be smart enough to bifurcate the problem into manageable chunks. Here is one attempt to show how corruption elephant could have been bifurcated by Anna Hazare's team.
Without satisfying these five conditions, if someone tries to change the system, he is bound to fail. Only passion, values are not enough to make the change happen. Thoughtless action and Actionless thought are both impotent in making any change happen. Both are required. Or a miracle is required.
When i was reading his accomplishments as CAG, I also remembered how T.N.Seshan changed the entire election process of India. As the Chief Election Commissioner of India he introduced major electoral reforms and redefined the status and visibility of the Election Commission of India. He was largely successful in curbing electoral malpractices in India and his name became synonymous with transparency and efficiency
If you are thinking that it is easier to change the system when one reaches the top, you are wrong. Jim Collins, who has studied 'great' companies of last century, found that the toughest problem for these "great" companies was to ensure that 'right people were picked up as leaders'. The system in most companies somehow 'picks the celebrity CEO's who put themselves ahead of their institution'. Great companies somehow manage to chose ' real leaders who put their institution ahead of themselves'. In short, to survive in such a Government machinery, and then to do what is right for the institution requires a 'miracle'. It does not happen in normal circumstances.
If you think that a man can change the system only when he has 'absolute positional' power, you are again wrong. Here are some examples. You will find people like Sandeep Desai, who is begging in Mumbai locals, to collect money to construct a school at Umarkhed, Maharashtra near Yavatmal. You will meet people like this Orissa collector,Vineel Krishna, who managed to fight terrorism completely bypassing the official system of governance. Or you will find a simple mountaineer like Greg Robertson, who just because of his passion for the Afghans, found out a real solid way to fight terrorism. There are countless examples like this.
But there is something common between the two category of people: People like Seshan and Vinod Rai who seem to have 'positional power' to do anything, and people like Sandeep Desai and Greg Robertson who seem to be operating only from the 'persuasive power' of passion and values.
Systems thinking can help us find how and when a small cause can create a big effect. Systemically, when one man is initiating the change, certain conditions must be met for him to impact a big impact. This big impact happens only when these five conditions are satisfied :
1. Such a man changing the system should be helped by a system that has reached a point of 'inflection'. Like Vinod Rai mentions that the society was at the right time to 'accept' his 'active' role in audit which is generally a laid back role. He also mentions that Anna Hazare's anti-corruption drive helped CAG to become central.
2. Such a man must get inadvertent support of the eco-system: Vinod Rai said in his interview that the support of 24/7 media, which we so often criticise for too much of sensationalism, has been central in taking the active role of CAG.
3. Such a man requires huge amount of effort to overcome the large inertia of a system: Be it Greg Robertson, or any other's effort, such a person requires to put in huge amount of initial effort to make the change 'sustainable'. This person requires unusual amount of resolve, and that too for a large number of years, to push ahead despite seeing no positive feedback for years. It requires much more than passion. It requires smart use of the eco-system.
4. Such a person must make smart use of eco-system to initiate and sustain the change: If you have seen the slow dying of the anti-corruption drive of Anna Hazare's campaign, despite its initial huge public attention it could garner, you will realise the importance of this fourth point. For instance, if Anna Hazare's group could have made smart use of "CAG's PAC 200 plus reports", it could have sustained its change effort for a far more longer time.
5. Such a person should be smart enough to break the big 'elephant' ( system) to eat it in pieces: Any system, by its nature, is huge. It cannot be tackled at one time. One has to be smart enough to bifurcate the problem into manageable chunks. Here is one attempt to show how corruption elephant could have been bifurcated by Anna Hazare's team.
Without satisfying these five conditions, if someone tries to change the system, he is bound to fail. Only passion, values are not enough to make the change happen. Thoughtless action and Actionless thought are both impotent in making any change happen. Both are required. Or a miracle is required.
