 |
| The municipal laundry in Mumbai |
Last night I had dinner with Ramesh and Swati Ramanathan, the founders of Janaagraha. They are systems thinkers and they have been working in and outside government to improve Indian cities. There’s something about talking about policy, politics, government and implementation, with passionate and smart people, that causes me a lot of pleasure, and I had a fantastic evening.
Ramesh, for instance, is the technical advisor to a huge $25bn urban renewal programme (and while there are around 8 programmes like this, only one of them is focused on cities rather than rural areas, and only one has a technical advisor. I think the PM likes him!).
Swati, meanwhile, has been working really closely with the Chief Minister of Rajasthan on a strategy to conserve its heritage and culture (Rajasthan is like the Italy of India, with loads of heritage and cultural sites). She persuaded the Chief Minister to get personally involved with reviewing the work of departments every month, and to invest in short term projects AND long-term reforms, even though the long-term might not give a political payback in the tenure of the Chief Minister.
If that’s not enough, Janaagraha has set up IpaidABribe.com, to name and shame parts of local and national government that demand bribes.
In the course of the evening, we swapped ideas about how you get civil servants or agents working in a complex system, to think holistically.
Ramesh and Swati are convinced that citizen participation is essential.
Their early efforts at citizen involvement in administration (like budget setting) were enthusiastically received by citizens, but less enthusiastically received by councillors and politicians. They pondered why 2/3 of councillors in Bangalore were unwilling to listen to the views of their local participatory platforms, and came to realise that the problem was, the councillors didn’t have to. So they needed to change the law. They campaigned successfully for a completely comprehensive system of local participation, and persuaded the Indian government that States should only get urban renewal money ($25bn remember!) if they reformed their legislation on citizen participation. In effect, they brought the Indian village-based system of very local self-government, to the cities. “You can’t treat participation like scaffolding”, said Ramesh, “Just putting it up for a bit and then taking it down later.”
What struck me about this is that they were determined to work on structure. I heard all their wonderful examples of how they were forcing the system to respond more actively to citizens, and wondered, ‘but what if the civil servants deflect and resist the changes? You have to change mindsets to change the culture!’
Changing mindsets has been part and parcel of what I and others have been doing at the National School of Government for the last few years. Along with others, I’ve taught senior civil servants system thinking tools so that they understand A. That there is more than one point of view, ESPECIALLY the point of view of the service recipient; and B. One’s own understanding of the problem is limited by the frames one imposes on it. I.e. A. Pluralism, and B. Holism.
I described this to Ramesh and Swati, but also pointed out that while the civil servants went away from these learning experiences enthused, I doubted that their commitment to thinking holistically and pluralistically remained steadfast. I know of a couple who got so enthused they went on to learn more and more about systems thinking (some will even be reading this post!) but I fear that is the exception. When the minister is demanding ‘answers’ and ‘announcements’, offering a ‘process’ to build consensus and listen to plural views, isn’t exactly the most attractive proposition. Ramesh described my teaching experience like a steroid injection: a good effect, but it wears off quite fast.
So there’s culture. And there’s structure. And sitting here in my hotel room near the Mahatma Ghandi Road in Bangalore, I realise that I knew that already. In fact I teach it. (“You teach best what you most need to learn” said Richard Bach, author of Jonathan Livingston Seagull.) I adapted the 2x2 table below from Ken Wilbur’s ‘Theory of Everything’ and applied it to a government context, and I’ve used it in several ‘Achieving More With Less’ seminars recently. In effect, Ramesh and Swati were talking about interventions in the ‘external’ column, and I was talking about interventions in the ‘internal’ column.
The point, of course, is that if you want an organisation or a system to think more holistically, you need to intervene in all the domains: internal, external, individual and collective - even with the Ford insight that 'culture eats strategy for breakfast'. The citizen participation law that Ramesh and Swati have promoted is in the external/collective box. My teaching is in the individual/internal box, with the hope that that will effect the internal/collective box.
So what would be the interventions that would be structural (external/collective) to promote collaboration and a whole system view? “How do you create mechanisms to undermine the dominant culture”, asked Ramesh. Ones that we covered last night...
- A credible ‘independent voice’ or NGO that sits in the governance structure and provokes the system. Their role is to be ‘an irritant’ with power, but if possible with little vested interest save for that of the citizen. As I described here in my post ‘In Praise of Third Parties’...
- A senior political champion and a senior bureaucrat champion (Swati reflected that without one or the other, you stood the risk of things going awry in a hierarchical system)
- Strategies and plans with accountability and ownership, - as long as they are well followed up at senior levels and not just seen as bits of paper. One way of doing this is Swati’s twin track approach. In Rajasthan, every month, the Chief Minister reviews the short-term projects (the flyovers, the museums, etc... and there can be no more than 10 on the go at anyone time), and the long-term reforms. This reminded me of the Prime Minister’s stocktakes that I used to administrate, where he chose 10 priorities for delivery and relentlessly pursued these.
- An ‘Office of Administrative Innovation’ whose job it was to harvest all the good ideas and share them. This office would champion innovation and celebrate shared systems thinking. A bit like what IDEA are doing in the UK, but working at the federal or national level rather than just for local government.
- Following up the training on systems thinking with the participants committing to an intervention in their own work that would create a tangible outcome for that experience.
And that’s just the beginning...
2 comments:
Emily,
Your blog has really resonated with me and I've read with great interest your discoveries and subsequent thinking. There are two initial things I would share as a result:
1. Having spent years studying how to be or do Counselling and Psychotherapy, a very wise lecturer told our graduating class, "the most important thing you can do now is to unlearn everything you've just learned and realise that you know nothing. The client will teach you everything you need to know. Just listen".
2. The second thing is about the concept of Recovery, which was never mentioned in terms of my studying. I am just now getting to understand the concept of Recovery (yes in terms of mental health) but actually Recovery, it seems to me, is needed everywhere, especially in terms of the country and Government. You speak about involving citizens and getting them to buy into change. This is, as you point out, not the issue. It is the other in this relationship (politicians or government employees) who may well be the issue moving forward. Are they willing to listen and respond in a way that shows humility and vulnerability? But more, the concept of Umbuntu, "A person is a person because of other people". You speak about changing how politicians view and administer to the public and this is one of the key things you've been trying to do in your leadership training, getting them to think holistically, rather then in silos. I am interested in what you are doing and think this is hugely important. I would point out similarities in terms of introducing the concept of Recovery Based Practice into the Statutory and Voluntary Services who administer and support people who have mental health issues. The users of the services are convinced and have bought into the concept of Recovery, a system where the user or client is treated holistically, by everyone touching them in terms of offering "healing". That the Service is not in control and does not have ultimate power over the individual, but rather, works with the individual in an holistic way, which puts them at the centre of their own recovery process, they are the driving force, they are empowered to believe that they are able to Recover. The service, simply aids in this recovery.
In terms of Government, I'm curious about the faculties who are rolling out our politicians of future days, how are they being invited to change their lectures, their textbooks, their views. Perhaps there is work being done here that I'm unaware of? But having spent 6 years studying, at great expense, and only now understanding that I know absolutely nothing that is very useful in terms of "how" to be a psychotherapist, I wonder if we are continuing to turn out future government employees who think they know how to govern this country and that the power of effecting change lies solely with them? How many of them, should they be told upon leaving their various modes of studying, that they need to unlearn everything they have learned and simply listen and involve their constituents or public, who, after all, enable them to achieve positions of power, would accept this and enter into a mutually beneficial relationship?
The concept of Umbuntu, strikes me, is at the heart of what Recovery is about, and I sincerely hope that what you are doing in this Leadership Quest, by meeting the people you are, listening in the way you are and writing ultimately the findings for change, this will yield positive, lasting results.
I look forward to reading and seeing more, my friend. I salute you for raising your voice, for your courage in seeking and journeying to explore the polarities and your acknowledgement of "other than this".
This is a blog where you have to sit up and pay attention at the back, in case Emily speaks straight to you.
I am one of the enthused senior civil servants. I want to change the world, and I agree that means influencing both structure and culture.
The idea of teaching as an injection of steroids made me pull a face, though. Good teaching doesn't wear off fast, but it can take time to take effect. It might take a generation, but in organisations a generation is only about five to ten years, and that's not long. So, while learning, and as a way of learning, I too teach this way of thinking, including to people I think will be the next generation of leaders in my organisation.
Culture does eat strategy for breakfast; but breakfast is tomorrow. And just today, someone I've never met before sought me out because she is "beyond evangelical" about systems thinking and is excited to discover that it is becoming part of the way we do things around here - so I may not even have to wait a generation.
Post a Comment