How to measure the progress of non-profits?

Here is an interesting article on a way of measuring the progress of non-profits. This article also describes the efforts that are being taken to create an industry based standards for measuring the progress.The two organisations that are involved in creating such standards are Sustainability Accounting standards Board and International Integrating Reporting Council.

More importantly, it describes the four simple steps that one can take to create a Report card of Non profits

1. Identify the social issues to Target ( say, Education to Underprivileged children)
2. Make a Business Case ( How to target it and how to measure it)
3. Track Progress ( Measure the progress by tracking the metrics)
4. Reassess the concept and identify new values ( Find new ways to Educate Underprivileged children)

If you are interested in funding a NGO, please ensure if it has gone through these four steps.

We have created hurdles in making social innovation happen

Dan Pallotta, an active fund raiser, talks about the five factors that together have successfully blocked the growth of social innovations through Non-profits ( I like to call NGOs as non-profits) It is a very good summary of how our systems ( that are good in some other area like business) have impacted the growth of non-profits and how the lack of growth of non-profits is impacting us as humanity.

The five factors that affect the growth of Non-profit organisations are poor compensation in Non-profits, Non-use of advertising as compared to business, non-encouragement in taking the risk, the time expectations  of achieving the result and the 'inaccessibility of market like stock market' to drive the growth of Non-profits. He highlights the small looking factor of compensation so vividly which makes me repeat it. The difference in compensation of a 10-year MBA working in business and non-profits is almost 5 times ( 84000 US $ as compared to 400,000 US $). Because of this difference, it is far more beneficial for a smart professional to work in business and donate every year 1,00,000 US $ to charities, instead of working in charities. Plus he gets more 'satisfaction' through another source. Because he funds charity, he sits on the Board of charities, while the person who is working for charities 'reports' to him. What would you do, if you are a smart professional? Would you utilise your brains to work for a charity or donate your money to a charity?

More importantly, Dan Pallotta highlights our invisible and unsaid beliefs about charities that have more powerful influence on the growth of non-profits. For instance,

• our belief that we must not spend money on advertising for non-profits is stopping us to increase the 'wallet share' of individuals and therefore grow non-profits. Non profits business are stuck. 
• Or, for businesses, we allow them enough time to show results such as when Amazon could wait for 6 years to make profits. But for non-profits, we want everything to start producing results from year 1. 
• Or we willingly give money to businesses for managing their business ( through overheads), but we want non profits to have very little 'overheads'.  

It is really shocking to see the hurdles that we have created in making non-profits work and grow.

More importantly, we need social businesses as much as need profit-businesses. Social businesses, which deals in invisible commodity like compassion, love, care, help also needs to flourish. But, like business, these commodities have no market. However, as human beings, we need both - money and love - together to build our lives. But we are creating our own hurdles that have stopped the growth of these invisible and invaluable commodities. Isn't it therefore surprising that we do not get both at one place?

Corruption has many similarities to Cancer

In early 1950s, Sydney Farber ( Pathologist  ) and Mary Lasker ( Social activist) launched an Anti cancer movement with much fan fare to eradicate cancer. They managed to bring in huge money to fund this initiative. In 2011, Anna Hazare ( social activist) and Legal experts launched Anti-corruption movement to eradicate 'corruption'.

Both movements had one striking similarity : Both movements concentrated on curative remedy, at the expense of preventive remedy: cancer movement concentrated on chemotherapy ( post-cancer) while anti-corruption movement concentrated on legal measures ( post-corruption). Both made the same mistake: Despite the knowledge that cancer , like corruption, is heterogenous (there are different type of cancers and therefore different causes); both marched on to find ONE UNIVERSAL CURE.

Despite pouring billions ( not millions) of dollars to find this universal cure, cancer remain 'undefeated' according to the Bailar report of 1994.  After 60 years, we know that several successes in cancer cures have happened due to one reason: Researchers identified and studied specific cancer pockets and found appropriate strategies to address it.

For example, colon and cervical cancer cures were reported due to early detection caused by new methods of screening. This is preventive remedy. Leukemia and lymphoma cures resulted due to better methods in chemotherapy. This is curative remedy. On the other hand, breast cancer mortality rates improved due to the mix of preventive ( mammography) and curative remedy ( surgery and chemotherapy to remove remnant cancer cells).

The reduction in lung cancer mortality happened due to preventive methods, which are beyond medical field. The reduction happened due to political activism ( FTC action on warning labels on cigarettes), inventive litigation ( cases to rope in tobacco companies) and counter marketing ( anti-tobacco advertisements)

What is one-liner lesson for us? That anything as big as cancer is heterogenous by its nature. It is necessary to identify self-contained individual pockets ( lung, cervical and other areas), study the causative factors in each of the pocket, and devise an appropriate mix of preventive and curative remedy to address that pocket.

Promise of universal cure, despite all the activism or good intention, cannot solve the problem.  It just wastes money, efforts and drives away the motivation. Mary Lasker, the activist, was not active in anti-cancer at all when she died in 1994.

If we do not have to sit after 60 years and mourn that nothing happened due to anti-corruption drive, what should we be doing?

Corruption, like cancer, is heterogenous.  It is important to identify self contained pockets, study them individually and devise appropriate remedy for addressing it. Tackling corruption at Passport and RTO offices require different mix of preventive and curative remedies than tackling corruption at 2G License grants. Every pocket of corruption requires a different mix of preventive and curative (i.e legal) remedy. While Company law corruption could be reduced by e-enabling of company registration, the same remedy cannot be applied to granting of non-agriculture land approvals. In pockets similar to lung cancer, such as anti-dowry or RTO police, we may have to adopt social activism to change laws and people's habits , and extend the remedy to include social activism.

Let us not 'simplify' the monster of corruption and believe that it can be tackled by one social activist and legal specialists. Let us become realistic and sane. Howsoever it may be tempting to get into action mode and do something, we must control our impulse and take meaningful actions. As Betrand Russell writes: Thoughtless action and Actionless thought are equally bad.

Source of inspiration: Siddhartha Mukherjee, The Emperor of all Maladies ( the biography of cancer)

Can a law arrest corruption?

Today I read in the newspapers about Anna Hazare's victory in his battle over 'Corruption'. He managed to convince the Government to have a bipartite committee over formulating the Lokpal bill. This Government's willingness will indeed allow to make an effective draft of LokPal bill. But can a bill/law enable a society to arrest corruption?

If law was enough to arrest a social evil, anti-dowry bill would have stopped dowry long time back. Anti-foeticide laws would have arrested the drop of female/male rate. Effective Road traffic laws ( RTO) would have increased the usage of autos and taxis.

However we all know that dowry in different forms is still rampant. Infact various innovative ways are devised to bypass the anti-dowry law ! We also know that Female/male ratios are alarmingly decreasing in the most developed states like Maharashtra. And despite all the regulations of RTO, every day citizens still fight with auto/taxi drivers as they refuse to ply at regulated rates. Infact this auto menace also has created uninintended consequences: Citizens have resorted to using own vehicles which is increasing the road traffic beyond manageable proportions.

We all know that such social evils ( embedded in social fabric) cannot be countered by formulating laws and bills. These laws can become effective only if rest of the supporting elements are also 'synchronised' with it. For instance, female/male ratio can be lowered only by support of another element: Education of women. One can easily see the influence of this Education in female/male ratio of a state like Kerala, where literacy rates are the highest in India.

Therefore, although we must hail Anna Hazare's victory ( that will help us formulate better Anti-Corruption law) we should not stop at formulating just this law. We need to understand the 'dynamics of corruption' and identify those elements which we can influence. We should tie these different elements together: some with law, some with advocacy, some with awareness.

Thomas Friedman's book Lexus and Olive tree has very interesting insights on this phenonomenon, which he calls as 'Kleptocracy'. In short, more thought is needed to identify and 'synchronise' these elements if we are serious about arresting corruption in India. Only good intentions and uncordinated actions will not help.

Orissa collector shows the way to fight terrorism

Today, I saw the news on TV about the release of Vineel Krishna, District Collector of Malkangiri, Orissa. The news showed huge crowds standing outside the house of Collector, waiting for him to arrive..

It was reported, that when Vineel Krishna was abducted 7 days back, the shops were shut down and call of bandh was given. No leader was involved in coordinating the crowd. Crowd just spontaneously came together. Two days back,tribals planned to attack Maoists hideout where the collector was supposedly held. Vineel Krishna has been reportedly working deep inside the district and has changed the face of district by implementing various development schemes. Some people in the crowd were vociferous about the work Krishna has done in Malkangiri. The spontaneous support of the crowd clearly gave signal to Maoists that they are fast losing their support base.

The news also reported that the collector and the engineer were freed by Maoists because Government have released a Maoist on bail. If development is offered to people through what the collector has done, what can freed Maoists do really?

This is a lucid example of how terrorism can be fought. It is time that Americans learn from this. Instead of spending huge amount on warfare, they could achieve their objective at far lesser cost, if they do it in right way. Or may be, the way is known, but we ignore the right way because it takes far more effort and pain to stick to the right way!

Lessons for Non Profits

I am reading Greg Robertson's next book Stones into Schools. It is a more detailed account of his CAI activities of opening schools in the toughest terrain of Pakistan and Afghanistan. For me, it was taking lessons of running a non profit organisation ! Here are the four big lessons i have learnt from Greg Robertson's experience:

Lesson 1: If you want to change anything, 'include' the people whom you want to impact right from the start. Greg Robertson does not not build a school and invite the kids to attend them. Instead Robertson opens a school only after the village offers him three promises: Land for the school, labour for building the school and 50% of girls enrollment in three years of time. This ensures that the school is not imposed by CAI, but becomes part of local community. Until Greg gets this promise, he waits. In one village, Chunda, it took him 8 years to convince the Mullah to permit a single girl in a school. Now it has over 300 girls in the school.

Lesson 2: Find a toughest terrain that needs a school very 'badly'. Greg calls this principle 'Last place first'. ( By the way, this is against the normal principle of a non-profit who like to start their activities at the easiest possible location!) He therefore finds a location which is most difficult to access & survive.

In change management, it is known that people who change are the ones who have largest number of 'pain points'. Where there is largest pain, the chance of making change is always the highest. Because when people have pain, they are willing to make many changes: changes in their schedules, have lesser reservations, and are willing to go an extra mile to make it work. Robertson's implicitly seems to follow this basic lesson of change management.


Lesson 3: Narrow the focus of activities but cover all the elements impacting the central element. This is against the practice of non-profits, as they typically focus only on their chosen area, whether it is providing education, or building roads, or offering medical aid. But Greg Robertson provides money even for providing water to the village, or building bridges. In change management, this is called 'wholistic coverage of all the impacting elements'. All the elements surrounding the core element must be addressed to have an impact!

Lesson 4: Use local champions to impact the local schools. Greg Robertson manages his entire school-building organisation through his local Pakistani and Afghanistan leaders. They know the local language and culture, they know what can or cannot be done, and they bring credibility to the entire activity. When one remembers that Trust and Credibility are the only currency in the hands of non profits, one realises that one cannot sacrifice this principle at any cost.

Summary: These lessons are important because so much money is riding today on non profits. Donor foundations are huge and executing foundations are even bigger. But what is shocking is the lack of fundamental principles they follow in achieving their results. It is not money that makes the largest impact on the results of these institutions, conversely it is the least. What is needed is application of holistic thinking and rigor to ensure credibility , i guess. But both need time, and donor foundations, like most of the organisations, will rather sacrifice 'results' instead of sacrificing 'time'. Isn't that paradoxical?

How educated get pulled in terrorism?

I was reading about the psychological profiling of suicide bombers. Ariel Merari and Marc Sageman are some of the researchers in this field. I was shocked to find that some of my beliefs were blown to pieces.

For instance, suicide bombers do not belong to any religious sects even though violence is carried out in the name of religion. They are not the ignorant and uneducated ones. They are not the psychotics who want to harm others for the sake of harming. They are not even the 'humiliated' ones who want to get revenge for their 'anger'. They are not brainwashed simple people who merely follow orders. They are not unmarried vagabonds; infact three fourths are married individuals with kids.

So who are they? Although, they do not have a clear psychological profile, they share one very common characteristics with all of us: our need of approval and meaning in our lives. We all have a drive to be part of something larger than ourselves, to see ourself as special, and to be part of a group whose well-being is more important to us than our own life. This need is typically met by 'small-group dynamics' , the term used by psychologists to explain this phenomenon.

In it's positive form, it is therefore seen in corporate world, where small groups achieve something extraordinary achievements ( I remember the book written by Tracy Kidder on the discovery of first mini computer). It is seen in wars when small group of soldiers launch almost impossible missions that no normal man can ever think of. Japan's suicidal missions in second world war is attributed to this phenomenon. But such small groups are also observed close in our society. Some of them direct people towards self service where young girls are married to God, some of them are driven to God's service by giving up everything, some of them drive towards a very narrow cause such as sport clubs!

But in its negative form, this small group dynamics can evolve unknowingly or get created by a zealot. When Spanish authorities put some of the 2004 conspirators on trial, they were found to be from neighborhood in Northern Morocco. Jim Jones example of Jonestown in California in 1970's is the example of a person who created such a community which resulted into a mass suicide.

Their favorite hangout is not mosque or church, but a cafe. They live in their parallel universe. They may watch Al Jazeera to find support of their beliefs. They marry one another sisters. Entry in this community may be easy, but remaining in the community is very very difficult.

The central feature of this small group is that they seal off the outside world. We normal individuals are always pulled by different opinions and directions of the world which prevent us from seeing things in unidimensional terms. These small groups, in contrast, are deprived from the signals of the outside world, either by design or accident. For them, their small world becomes their entire world. No opinion from outside world is tolerated !

Do terrorists come and find them? No, it is infact the other way around. They go and find terrorists to recruit themselves for a bigger cause !

I feel we need to make sense of such counter-intuitive observations because, if we do not do this consciously, our brain does this for us unconsciously. These unconscious conclusions unwittingly form our 'beliefs', which over a period of time help us take actions or prevents us in taking right actions ! If we do not engage actively in this sense-making, we also forego the opportunity to 'shape' our lives.

How & when to fight terrorism?

Now in India, we see terrorism so close to us. When the bomb blasts started in 1990s, it was a shock. After the initial shock has receded, we do not worry about the blasts as much because they happen in trains, buses, shops and cars. And we as citizens do not know what we can do to fight terrorism.

On the one hand, Government focus is on corrective measure: increase police security measures, install CCTV cameras, equip police force with bomb-detection devices, train commandos. Building awareness of citizens to spot a suspicious activity is where we can perhaps play a small role. But all these measures are corrective. They do not help us prevent terrorism because the source of terrorism is elsewhere.

Sociologists and Social researchers all agree that the root cause of terrorism is in lack of education & lack of employable opportunities for the youth. Fundamentalists merely use this 'root cause' by channelising pent-up frustration of youth towards a target through proven tested tools of religion and philosophy. Hitler used the supremacy of his sect to bring together largest population of army, while today's Taliban uses religion. In 1940s, the only known form of terrorism was launching war against the entire country, while in 200O the war is fought within the country in pockets. Although terrorism form has changed, its essence has remained the same.

Until we human beings therefore muster the patience to address the root cause, we shall have no respite from terrorism. We need to fight terrorism by using preventive measures, by nipping the bud of terrorism. Corrective measures, although necessary, are never enough. Most of us believe that preventive measures are costly.

Now look at the arithmetic of spending on preventive measures versus corrective measures. In the war against Taliban, some 340 missile hawks were used. While a missile costs 840,000 US $, a student's supplies for entire year in Afghanistan costs 20 US$ and teacher's salary is 600 US $ per year. ( And this is just part of war cost!) Greg Mortenson estimates that at a cost of one missile, about 20000 students in Pakistan would have been educated. With that must lesser availability of potential recruits, we perhaps could be spending far less today on fighting the war against terrorism in our countries. In other words, preventive measures are not costly.

However, as you would have noticed, preventive measures take time to bear fruit. One cannot educate a Pakistani youth in a day or month. It takes time. So one has to find the balance between spending time and effort on preventive and corrective measures. If Governments are spending on short-term corrective measures, we as citizens can spend on corrective long-term measures.

Luckily we have an option today. We can help an intrepid climber, Greg Mortenson, who since 1993 has build more than 50 schools in one of the toughest territory of Pakistan and Afghanistan. His site www.ikat.org shows the regions where his schools are running. If you want to read about his courageous journey, please read Three cups of tea. More surprisingly, he has focused on girl's education, which is even better in terms of addressing the basic cause.

We therefore are lucky that we can fight terrorism today by addressing the fundamental cause of terrorism, while Government plays it short-term corrective role. Based on our earnings, we can contribute as little or as much money to Greg Mortenson's institute for building these schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Is 3 idiots a copy of Chetan Bhagat's book?

My friend gave me Chetan Bhagat's ' Five point Someone' book to read because he argued strongly for his proposition that the movie 3 Idiots is 90% copy of the book. I had also heard argument from some other friends that 3 Idiots is as as different as chalk is from cheese. I therefore decided to read it.

Surprisingly, copyright law does not offer any guidance on this. In literature, copying even a small scene is considered to be a breach of copyright. In a song, however, even a small difference of drum beat in an original song is not considered to be a copy of the original song. Copyright in the field of drug and patent seems to be in a more firmer foundation, although some argue that it also needs overhaul.

And more importantly, in the field of arts, copyright seems to be ignoring the basic source of creativity. Creativity is about tweaking old ideas, combining two ideas in a different recipe or even just transforming the old idea in a new context of today. For instance, a song is about playing the seven sounds - sa,re,ga ma, pa, da, ni, sa in a different juxtaposition. One can claim that no new song can be created from the same components, if one goes by the strict definition of what is copy. Every new song today can easily be traced to some old song !

So is 3 Idiots ( 3 I ) a copy of Five point sometime ( FPS)? If we try to answer this question just by our emotions, we would be just pouring fuel to the fire without shedding any light. So let us use our head instead. Here is therefore an attempt to answer this question by using the basic principle of literature. In literature, a story is defined by four elements: theme, plot, characters and style.

- How similar are the themes of 3 Idiot and FPS? 3 Idiots theme is about 'Do what is close to your heart' or 'Live in today' while FPS seems to be 'Even an average score person is not-so-average in many respects'.

- How similar is the plot of 3 Idiots and FPS ? Basic plot of 3 Idiot ( based on 3 friends) is similar to FPS plot. However, there are many differences if we peel the onion. While the story of one protagonist ( Sharman) is very similar to FVP story, story of main protagonist ( Aamir Khan) is entirely different. While the story of antagonist ( Boman Irani) is similar to the FPS plot, story of third protagonist , Madhavan, is entirely different ( his painting interest has been brought out starkly to push the main theme in 3 idiots). Story of heroine in 3I is different than in FPS. Chatur's story is completely different in 3 Idiots.

Due to the difference in theme, some events in FPS have lost it's significance in 3 Idiots. For instance, although 'copying the paper' event is similar in both, it has been used very differently in 3 Idiots. In FPS, copying the paper is used for climax, but in 3 Idiots it is just an event to build up the climax. Heroine's sister's pregnancy has been used as a climax event in 3 Idiots.

- How similar are the characters of 3 Idiots and FPS ? Characterisations of main protagonist is dissimilar. Aamir Khan is shown to be extraordinarily intelligent than Ryan in FPS, but he shares the same characteristics of 'doing anything for friends' with Aamir Khan. Sharman's main characteristics of 'being afraid of the world' is not starkly brought out in FPS as it is in 3 Idiots. Boman Irani's characterisation seem to be very similar to FPS. Even the basic background of his son committing suicide is similar. Heroine's characterisation does not seem to have any similarity.

- Style of 3 Idiots versus of FPS. Although style is very different ( Flashbank versus first person style) this cannot be compared strictly simply because the mediums are different.

Given the above similarities and dissimilarities, my view is that 3 Idiot is very dissimilar to FPS, although many commonalities exist. What is your verdict?

Social changes cannot be made by law

In today's newspaper, an article showing a survey results was published. The article said that '54% of the women feel it is ok for husband to beat women', slapping was the most common abuse, abuse of women was also linked with education and so on. The coordinator who had conducted the survey said that 'this is truly shocking'. The paper mentioned that law is not enough to curb such domestic violence, and in the same breath, asked for concerted effort to convey the message that 'wife beating is unacceptable'.

This is what happens when someone tries to prescribe 'actions' by remaining outside the system. For instance, Mumbaites find it absolutely shocking that Delhi autos do not ply according to the meter and commuter requests and ask for 'concerted legal' effort to toe the auto drivers in line. Coincidentally, HC is asking Delhi Government what legal action is being taken to curb the rising accidents of Blue Line buses. And it asked for Government to explain 'how 9 offences were booked on the Blue Line buses when 96 people were killed last year'. As though, booking of more offences is going to curb the Blueline accidents.

It is most shocking to observe that 'Blueline exit' is being drafted to curb the 'blue line accidents'. As though substitution of Blueline buses with another government plying buses will solve the problem of accidents. This is the same belief that makes American Government believe that it can control terrorism by catching or killing terrorists. I wish the social system were like machine where one component's replacement can solve the problem.

Law or force is not enough to change social customs and crimes. Man surprisingly is still caught in this cause-effect syndrome of Newtonian's thinking which makes it easy to understand and remove the cause. We have still not understood that Einstein's law discovered in 1919 is governing social systems because everything is related to each other in a social system. Only after understanding this can one understand, why after years of anti-dowry law, dowry deaths occur even in the most affluent of the communities in India.

Deming took 45 years to convince American auto industry that its 'method of manufacturing automobiles' is not appropriate. And that too when business is governed by economic principles. And even after understanding it, American auto industry cannot replicate the method because it is so alien to their 'culture' of individualism. So what makes us think that one can prescribe actions without understanding the 'system'? Are we being naive or foolish?

Is vigilantism threat or opportunity?

After a series of incidents, especially in Bihar, vigilantism has come to the forefront. It is the word meant to signify 'active involvement of the society in taking actions against the social offenders'.

A paper carried an article about the mob in a village lynching 10 robbers after they were caught in the act. A news channel showed a robber being chained to a motor bike of a police officer and being dragged in another village. An article in the newspaper blamed that if the police do not quickly intervene and punish the 'mob', this vigilantism may become a menace that can devour the social fabric.

Prakash Jha's movie named Gangajal also brought out the effect of this unchecked vigilantism very starkly. And it also brought out the dilemma of a hero who unknowingly triggers the social action and finds himself helpless when the people go berserk.

Now view this from a different lens. A police force is effective only if it completely absorbs the 'variety' created by the dysfunctional elements in social system. For every citizen, one police is adequate variety, but not affordable. So police enhance their variety, by tracking 'criminal elements' and 'near-criminal elements'. Western police system relies extensively on documented systems, while Indian police system uses informal social network. In India, this works because of the Indian social system. What this means is that police uses the 'people' to catch offenders.

Vigilantism is extreme manifestation of society where people met out justice because the police system has lost their credibility. On the other hand, Police system uses the social system to catch the offenders. If you put 2+2 together, you will realise that police can use 'social activism' effectively, if they change their policing norms and beliefs. They will be able to channelise the energy of social system effectively. But this also means that they will have to relinquish the power which they are enjoying due to their position.

Is the policing system ready? And, equally important, is the society ready for taking up the relinquished 'power and associated responsibility'?

What happens when legal system ignores the feedback

Zahira Sheikh has been convicted for contempt of Supreme Court and is in jail. Satnam Bai is being prosecuted for giving false evidence on oath. Bharti Yadav has been declared as a proclaimed offender and may be soon made an accused. What is common in all the three cases?

They are victims. Zahira Sheik lost most of her near ones in Best Bakery incident. Satnam Bai’s husband was killed in 1984 riots. Bharti Yadav was going to marry a man who was murdered.

Legal system refuses to acknowledge and incorporate the feedback effect on the victims. Instead of incorporating the realities of the victim-survivors and the pulls and pressures they go through, the legal system adheres to their strict rules of evidence and procedures. In these cases, the issues of varying versions given at different times come up at the trial. The legal system refuses to appreciate the pulls and pressures of the victims that lead to these varying versions. For instance, the pressure on Bharati Yadav by her don-politician father and brother has to be factored in. Further the court makes it even more difficult for the victims by not allowing facilities like video conferencing for presenting the evidence, when Bharati Yadav seems to be pressurized for not coming in India. On the other hand, the legal system pronounces the victim as ‘proclaimed offender’. The pressure on the victim - worry about the child’s future, ties with the perpetrators of the crime, fear of the powerful people in the society, distrust of the objectivity of the police – in changing the versions are just ignored. The same is true in other socially-relevant cases like dowries, rape or domestic violence.

In cases of riots, where the crimes could be committed by high and powerful ones, legal system refuses to factor in the reality where the prosecution could be half-hearted in presenting the complete evidence.

Should the legal system incorporate this ‘feedback effect’ and help ensure justice? Should the legal system help the survivor-victim in teasing apart the strands of the case instead of putting them in the docks? Should legal system draft new rules of evidence and legal procedures to ensure that all the evidence is brought on the table? Surprisingly, very few legal luminaries are even concerned about these aspects of justice. Rakesh Shukla, a Supreme court advocate, seems to be an exception.

Because, when legal system does not incorporate these feedback effects, it unknowingly subverts justice, which it is supposed to ‘offer’ in the first place.

Social planners need non-linear thinking to generate better outputs with lesser effort

Because social entrepreneurs attempt to influence the ‘social’ system - be it anti-dowry, fighting child labour, AIDS, or causes like Narmada Bachao Andolan - which is much larger than one can encompass in an organizational boundary, they have to learn to use non-linear thinking to find better leverages to influence the ‘system’, otherwise they tend to spend disproportionate time, effort and money to exert any influence.

Their first obstacle in finding leverages is their linear thinking. Linear thinking means ‘x’ causes ‘y’. This makes them presume that social causes can ‘sustain’ on the strength of decibel level, if they have money. If they do not have money, they believe that social objectives can be achieved by sheer commitment and effort. Both are simplistic cause-effect relationships.

A social system is highly interrelated. Our beliefs, which are part of a social system, have a long historical history. They therefore are manifested in many of our behaviors, both private and social. Removing their ‘linkages’ with so many behaviors is not only time-consuming but evokes huge amount of resistance. Overt resistance can at least be addressed consciously, covert resistance is both difficult to notice and explicate. It is downright ‘impractical’ to assume that beliefs, howsoever wrong they may seem to some, can be ‘changed’ by rationale explanation, commitment of effort or just drowning people in the decibel level.

Understanding of social system- as objectively as one can do so – by explicitly accepting one’s own mental models is important for any social activist. But this understanding is not enough. It is equally important to map this system with a tool so that one can find leverage points that can drive change.

A non-linear thinking tool set is therefore a first prerequisite in the hands of social planners, activists, NGO’s and Government policy makers. Without this tool set, even a committed effort can result into nothing.

With no such tool set, many social entrepreneurs start with hope and noble intentions but end up with lot of frustration and struggle; and a lost cause.

Systems thinking is more useful for social planners

When I read that Warren Buffet has donated a huge sum of money to Bill Gates foundation for meeting social objective, I realized one of the curious anomalies that exist.

Systems thinking is more useful for understanding ‘open systems’ like society than closed systems like organizations. A foundation like Bill Gates foundation therefore needs to use 'open characteristics' of a system and exploit its characteristics. Unfortunately, these social activists and planners use the 'closed' system characteristics more than ‘open characteristics’ of a system, perhaps because all the 'management teaching' is based on closed system principles.

For instance, western police try to use closed system principles for monitoring criminal activities in a society much more than using the open system principles. It is well known that Mumbai police use social ‘networks’ better to monitor criminals instead of using the highly advanced technological systems used by Western police force.

An article on Trichy police, Page number 47, in Business World of 3 July 2006 explains how open system principles can be used with advantage.

The above article shows how the community itself can be used effectively to monitor criminals and perhaps even prevent them for becoming criminals. Some of the ideas quoted in the article are

• Using police to help community in street lighting and other issues to gain the community’s trust and confidence
• Inviting community to become part of the policing system, through use of suggestion boxes
• Creating a system to complain, even anonymously, so that community believes that it is being heard
• Using NGO's like self help group of women to counsel women ( who are divorcees, who are wives of difficult men like drunkards and small criminals ) to help them start new businesses
• Using NGO's to address the specific professional issues of fisherman to help them avoid criminal activities
  Running an ex-convict rehabilitation program with NGO to ensure that criminals do not 'return' to crime

This is an excellent example of using the open-system nature of society to achieve social objectives at lower cost. Of course this will entail changes in the way we have organized police force, in the principles by which we train the police force, and above all, by the way we view social governing systems.

Historically researchers in Systems thinking have always found application of systems thinking more in social systems than in organizational systems. Urban transportation, population dynamics, ecological systems have been a favorite hunting ground for systems thinkers.

Despite this large amount of ideas, social planners, NGO’s, policy planners and Government officials have not used systemic thinking in their work. In this blog we shall explore the different facets of systemic thinking useful for these individuals.