Elections are a
costly, gruelling and time consuming process in any country. Yet, India has
been ahead of developed and developing nations in holding countless elections
nation-wide, and keeping democracy alive and vibrant. The just concluded
elections in certain States of India is one more endorsement of this tremendous
capability in India. India’s Election Commission, and other constitutional,
governmental and political structures and systems deserve a lot of credit for
the election engine that the country has fine-tuned. While there are many
criticisms that things could be better on key factors such as turnout, manifestoes,
practices, candidates and accountability, this blog post is not about either
those issues or solutions for them as the author believes that there are more
competent experts and agencies to communicate and work on it. The purpose of this blog post is to consider
the concept of elections in a broader perspective and in a digital context.
Election is a
mandated right of all citizens in a democracy of expressing, individually and
confidentially through a structured process, their considered opinion on
performance and potential of a ruling dispensation. It is, in a sense,
applicable to every forum, organization or entity where a few leaders govern
the rest of the members based on either agendas or promises. Every organization
must start appreciating the election process for what it means to people and
introspect as to why they do not integrate the good points in their structures
and systems. The several theories in management literature on feedback,
accountability and leadership styles do not come anywhere near providing a
meaningful template for embedding the power and relevance of a formal election
process, in a manner contextually relevant for organizations. Despite huge
progress on digital technologies and social media, most organizations are yet
to work on, let alone realize, this promise.
Democracy matters?
The fundamental
principle of extending an electoral process into an organization is that
democratic and inclusive feedback is an important aspect of competent
management and leadership processes. There are arguments for and against it,
which are based on the perceived behaviour of members. The author would like to call these Theory X
and Theory Y of Organizational Democracy (OD). For ease of reference, we will
use the nomenclature XOD and YOD, respectively.
XOD runs on the
following behavioural assumptions of members, all of them in negative interpretation
of employee mind-sets and capabilities:
- Given a choice, a typical employee prefers to avoid
responsibility rather than accept it.
- Not all employees are equally knowledgeable and responsible
to opine constructively.
- Averaging equally expressed opinions misguides managers like
the average depth of a river does.
- A leader’s job is to govern based on structured plans rather
than unstructured feedback.
- Grassroots feedback places undue power in the hands of those
whose job is to follow directions.
YOD runs on the
following behavioural assumptions of members, all of them positive about the
ability of employees to fulfil higher responsibilities:
- Given a choice, a typical employee accepts responsibility
rather than avoid it.
- Irrespective of knowledge, employees will be constructive and
responsible for progress.
- Collective opinions provide a powerful guidance on
organizational health and strength.
- A leader can reinforce his plans, however thought out they
are, with employee feedback.
- Grassroots feedback empowers those who execute with
participative ownership.
YOD assumptions
clearly are more positive and have the potential to energize an organization
towards a positive culture.
Digital deficiency
Most
organizations are well equipped digitally. They have evolved information
technology departments. Every organization has an intranet which is open to its
members. People have regular access to computers, tablets and smartphones as
well as wifi and cellular data services. People attend meetings with their devices
invariably in toe, or mostly utilizing them. The digital infrastructure is
designed and operated typically as a one-way path from the management to
employees rather than the other way. Required information which makes a member
more knowledgeable and competent is provided through the intranet: messages
from leaders, codes of conduct, organizational policies, standard operating
procedures, training materials, team accomplishments, and so on. It is rare,
however, to see the available digital infrastructure being utilized for
equitable two way communication.
Intranet
invariably identifies responses and feedback with persons. Unless the feedback
process is entrusted to a third party surveyor like Survey Monkey, it is quite
possible that confidentiality is compromised and people will be reluctant to
provide candid feedback. If leaders and managers accept the YOD assumptions,
and members have self-worth to be confident and self-disciplined to be
constructive, an organization’s digital highways and intranet portals can be
effectively utilized to collect analyse feedback on a 360 degree basis. Some of
the issues of leadership conduct encountered in certain non-governmental
agencies and autonomous entities would have been discovered and evaluated in
time with digital democracy in such organizations. As with any transformative
exercise, the change for a culture of digital democracy and honest feedback can
begin with a few small steps.
Experimental steps
There could be
several small experimental steps to usher in organizational democracy. For
example, as one logs into his or her computer system, the administrator could ask
a set of five simple questions: what do you set out to do today, how motivated
you are to carry out your taks today, how supportive is your leader expected to
be, how confident you are with your team today, and how happy you are with your
organization in the overall today. These are pretty universally applicable
questions that would fit any business or operational context and any level.
These can be expressed in the past tense as day-end questions on the computer
before one logs out. Participation in the questionnaire could be made mandatory
by making login and logout impossible unless these questions are answered.
These five
questions help the company answer the following central themes: goal focus,
self-motivation, leader support, team alignment and organizational morale. If
each organization can find a way to encrypt these responses one would feel more
confident to provide candid and authentic feedback. An organization and
business savvy data analytics group can pick up important perceptions and
suggestions from the feedback. While daily responses may not be conclusive, the
management will certainly get to know what is trending. As the organization tastes
success and builds confidence, questions can become more specific to issues,
businesses, projects and people. Over time, digital democratic highways become
great instruments of widespread organizational participation and ownership.
Governance
Digital
feedback is especially useful in promoting corporate governance. Monthly
executive leadership committees, usually headed by the CEO of the company, and
quarterly board of directors meetings, usually headed by the chairman of the
company, are the key institutions that facilitate and influence governance. It
would be great if at the beginning of the respective meetings, there could be a
digital feedback session `which asks certain key questions: how prepared are
you in addressing today’s agenda issues, how collaborative the team has been
internally to discuss cross-functional issues prior to the meeting, how
supportive you expect the CEO to be with respect to your key concerns, how
confident you are with your team on execution, and how happy you are with the
overall direction of the organization.
In respect of
board meetings the key questions could be: how informative the company has been
in preparing the directors for board meeting, how prepared the directors have
been for the board meeting, whether sufficient time has been accorded for
discussions for all topics, whether all directors have had a chance to express
themselves, whether the board committees have fulfilled their roles, whether
there is satisfaction on the strategic direction and execution of the company,
and how happy one is to serve on the board of the company. At the end of the
meeting, the same questions can be asked in the past tense with appropriate changes,
for the executive committees as well as the boards. Taken together, the entry
and exit polls would enhance the members’ awareness of their and the company’s
conduct in furtherance of the company’s and their aspirations.
Leader elections
The higher step
in an organizational setting would be to usher in total organizational
democracy through the digital means. Every leader may, in such a system, have both
the right and responsibility to seek feedback from the members. Would such a
radical system wherein leaders are elected by subordinates lead to loss of
authority to execute? Would it force leaders to downplay people performance
issues and reward members irrespective of performance just for leaders to stay
in position? The answers to these questions may depend on the level of maturity
in an organization, and the periodicity with which such leadership elections
are held. There could also be other less disruptive or threatening options to
the classical organizational hierarchy and power system, such as a collegium
system of leadership selection. However, as typically, intellectuals are
involved in organizations responsive and responsible electoral systems are
probably better.
The ultimate
step in a virtuous digital democracy is to elect national representatives
through digital processes, anytime it is required. Though difficult to imagine
now, a few decades down the road, wifi may be so pervasive that instantaneous
digital elections through smart devices may indeed be possible. A more
practical and intermediate step would be to create a huge national governance
portal, in all national languages, wherein citizens can post their likes and
dislikes, convey their issues and seek solutions, and provide feedback and
ideas. With the biometric based Aadhar gaining ground and newer end-to-end
encryption technologies emerging, it should be possible to ensure authenticity in
the digital feedback. A huge data analytics infrastructure would, no doubt, be
required to support this but it must be viewed in the perspectives of
generating its own higher level employment and organizations, society and
nation, creating higher value through better leadership and citizenry with
mutual accountability.
Posted by Dr CB
Rao on May 17, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment