|
|
|
 |
September 2012
This was a presentation that I had prepared that defined what "Tapas India Foundation" would stand for in its support to the not-for-profit sector. This should be read after this document.
During transcribing in the html version, I was surprised that I held these views then. I still do, except with greater determination based on verification of these views with personal experiences. I take it as evidence that the unconscious dicates and the conscious faithfully transcribes. I also take it as a given that there is not much of an "I" left to take blame or credit for. It is a liberating thought with dangerous side-effects. If not checked, it could lead to vanity camouflaged as humility.
Ease slide is presented as a heading followed by a set of points.
RECOGNIZING THE NON-CORPORATE
1) There are over 3.3 million registered NGOs and analogous institutions in India. An important fraction of them are individual-created and led initiatives.
2) Even if you exclude the "noise", as a collective, the contribution of these organizations to the fabric development of this country has been immense. In particular, the unparalleled breadth of issues and geographies covered by them remains unique.
3) This has created invaluable intangible social assets on the ground --- linkages with communities, creation of permanent alternative "identities" for the marginalized, awareness in mainstream of significant rights, "volunteering" as a culture, etc.
4) Of late, as a form of intervention, they are increasingly side-lined in the mainstream debate that is disproportionately focused on economic growth and scale.
5) There are evident deficiencies within the sector --- some very serious, some self-inflicted. Nonetheless, the kind of intangible capital they can generate is strictly necessary.
6) But it is hardly a cut and paste "replication job". It requires a specific type of organizational "history", "character", and "temper" to make it happen.
QUESTIONS
This leads NGOs and other strongly socally oriented institutions to a cross-road where they are faced with three important questions:
1) How to institutionalize efforts & presonalities of individual entrepreneurs to preserve continuity of social capital formation?
2) How to achieve this without diluting the intrinsic "character" and "sensibility" of the respective organizations?
3) What should be the identity & role of these organizations in a climate of single-minded focus on economic growth as a universal panacea?
There is a need for a formal institutional response that is grounded in a conviction that institutions driven by an EXPLICIT SOCIAL MANDATE have much to add, and one that helps individuals and organizations to resolve these questions within their specific contexts.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES
1) Development as important (if not more) as growth and scale. Add to (not replace) the vocabulary of "character", "values", "rights", and "equity" with language of "business model".
2) Government of India retains the largest constitutional mandate for social equity. Strive to constructively criticize and support rather than substitute, subvert, or write-off its role.
3) Strictly bottom-up, incremental approach --- micro-reality should inform practice. Be frugal in application of latest "intellectual / populist fads", especially when disguised as elegant and top-down macro theoretical constructs.
4) "Social" does not mean charity or free. Demand and display full accountability for every rupee spent and, of course, spend with prudence.
5) Finally, keep a relationship-based rather than transactional approach with all stakeholders including the junior-most member in the client organization.
6) On things that deeply matter, each concerned client stakeholder knows and will always know more than any outsider. When discharging advice / support, try to exercise humility --- by default be in interrogative rather than assertive mode.
FAQ 1: HOW DO YOU WORK WITH YOUR PARTNERS
We consider ourselves co-owners of organizations we associate with. As owners we feel there is a common set of questions WE have to address. Our mandate, though, can and will extend much beyond these.
1) Does the entrepreneur have the right view of the nature of the organization? Does the current organization structure reflect this view?
2) Is the financial accounting system consistent with that view? We will help design and install the relevant accounting architecture.
3) Is there a culture of honest and disciplined book-keeping and detailed, monthly financial reporting? May take anywhere from 3 months to a year to build-up.
4) Are there any inter-personal dynamics that can impair the "character" and "values" of the organization? Requires us to act as a sounding board on an on-going basis across ALL LEVELS of the organization.
5) Are key personnel short of specific hard skills? Requires incremental capacity-building of relevant personnel and regular vetting of key decisions.
6) Are there non-obvious operational fault-lines? Requires us to act as "auditors" and do periodic, highly critical due diligene of at least key operations.
7) Has the social contract with the "community" weakened? This is the one that would concern us the most as it is the essence of our partners. Our role is to strictly ensure every important decisions is thoroughly weighed against this consideration.
8) What risks do the temperamental & behavioural attributes of the entrepreneur pose to the organization? The pysche of the entrepreneur needs to evolve with the organization. We have to be a genuinely caring but a blunt personal counsel.
FAQ 2: IS THIS PRACTICAL?
1) Long tenure of engagement and specific role chosen (hands-on constructive critic) likely to result in strong disagreements at times.
2) Difficult to avoid such situations but can easier to handle by focusing disproportionately on developing a trust-based culture as opposed to one of fulfilling a contractual commitment.
3) Effectively, move beyond an investor-investee or client-advisor relationship to that of a "tough marriage". In advisory terms, it has to be an "inside-out" rather than the typical "outside-in" approach.
4) Above all, ability to execute such a program requires building an internal culture that is in essence "volunteer-like" in character rather than "employment or career-focused".
5) As thing stand today, as far as attracting professionals is concerned, this idea will not acquire "marketability" for quite some time. It will be perceved to have more shades of the "romantic and idealistic left" than the "practical and necessary right". To the former, it is fashionable to exhibit an attitude of haughty cynicism in professional management circles. In reality, though, any such program is always a confusing admixture of the left and right.
6) Thus, to build an institution around this idea means "discovering" individuals with a certain sensibility (and some idealism, not a lot) and at the proper "stage of life" at the right time. That, in some sense, is a matter of luck. But that does not preclude an effort.
| |
|