|
|
|
 |
31 October, 2015
This document uses the term VIKAS to mean every organization linked with VIKAS as well as the entire team of VIKAS. The write-up was written on eve of ruminating on the way forward for VIKAS. It was a set of personal observations that served, in a limited capacity, as one of the several inputs. However, it is unlikely that the significance of some of the observations stated would have been fully absorbed because they all pertain to the 'habits and characteristics' of an organization. These do not map neatly onto more harder 'strategic' terms. As a result their significance will mostly be grasped by those who while living these observations also have the ability to remain sufficiently detached to introspect. In general, an articulation of the 'habits of organization' is something that does not come naturally to those within a given organization.
CHARACTER AND TEMPERAMENT OF VIKAS
The trait of VIKAS will depend on who is looking at VIKAS and from what distance. From very far away VIKAS is one of the several development sector organizations in Gujarat. From a little nearer VIKAS is a story that has sold and can continue to sell: how a development sector organization has worked with marginalized communities in some pockets of Gujarat over a long period of time. This is true for many organizations that have a long history to their credit.
Getting attracted by this story those who venture closer will instead be disappointed to see VIKAS as a confused cluster of activities, programmes and entities. Those who overcome this initial disappointment, step inside and take the effort to understand VIKAS will see a certain contribution (small but interesting) made over a sustained period of time. Having overcome the initial disappointment and refurbished their faith in VIKAS if one were to live day to day with VIKAS one will again be disappointment --- this time the disappointment will be laced with marked irritability. Because one will encounter an organization that is temperamental, apparently constantly shifting, some times moving here and other times there, refusing to sit still.
If those who have stepped so much inside, have the wherewithal to ask what makes a coherent, beautiful story from outside a difficult to understand entity from inside, they may possibly step upon an answer after a persistent process of close observation: a certain type of creativity to finding solutions.
What sustains this creativity? The simple, and probably also the correct, answer is the character and competency of the founder(s). It is a foregone conclusion that every organization is ultimately a breathing replica of its founders.
Creativity is a very broad term. What type of creativity does VIKAS possess? It possesses that creativity that loves to imagine solutions as a dynamic combination of moving parts. It is also a creativity that is marked by empiricism: it has a natural and rightful distaste for elegant theories that cannot be tested in the here and now. As a result, it is a creativity that avoids extremes. It is also a creativity that tries to convert ideas to practice in an impatient manner: that is, it is a creativity on the run, and as a result, always chasing a shadow of itself.
If one were to ask why this creativity is the way it is one will be led to conclude that it is at the end of the day driven by a specific aesthetic: an aesthetic of order. This aesthetic enables the mind of the organization to look at far reaching trends, implications and the changes that they could introduce. This aesthetic does not accept these changes as a given but craves, struggles, and persists to understand these changes in terms of the multiple causes that drive these changes. This aesthetic then tries to derive a sense of pleasure, satisfaction and exhilaration by caging these changes in a framework to understand them. Using the same framework it, in turn, also tries to 'mould the very changes' it has tried so hard to grapple with.
Paradoxically, an aesthetic that seeks to impart order to a dynamic field is never content once it has determined the correct explanation and figured out the right way to order things. The simple reason is that if the aesthetic was satisfied it would be satiated and then there would be nothing left for it to do. The craving to continue to probe deeper always exists. It is this constant craving for constant control and order that fundamentally defines the reason for existence of an organization like VIKAS.
Hence, pushed by this craving to seek the 'pleasure of order' VIAKS begins anew to find order within the order it has created. In the process it disorders its earlier order and attempts to re-order it. And this process, for better or for worse continues.
A classic example of this ype of aesthetic is the march of mathematics. Mathematics has moved from the symbol '1' to extremely abstruse and complex formulations. Those who are not mathematically inclined always find mathematics fearful, disdainful and ugly. Those who have grown up to love mathematics clearly see the inherent simplicity and beauty of the logic of mathematics: moving from a 'mere symbol' to an 'equation that takes upon itself the task of understanding and acting on the world' through the process of constant generalization and abstraction. Unfortunately, the march of mathematics is never ending and, after a point, to the casual observer will appear futile. The journey of organization like VIKAS has in itself something analogous to the never ending march of mathematics.
ESSENCE OF VIKAS
But possessing an aesthetic is not enough. Every aesthetic needs conditioning and moulding. How does any aesthetic find its home? It finds its home through the primary force that lies behind every kind of aesthetic (even the aesthetic of the vulgar, the demented and the ugly): sensitivity. The stronger the sensitivity the more deeply ingrained the aesthetic.
And the more deeply ingrained any aesthetic is, the more restless it is. If no home is given to it, it will ensure it finds one out for itself or creates one. In case of VIKAS, the home that its aesthetic has stumbled upon is the form of a 'development organization'.
How did it stumble upon this form? Because its sensitivity perceived an imbalance in the immediate society through physical senses. Not everyone notices this imbalance: partly due to a different base of values, partly due to excessive preoccupation with self, or maybe, due to reasons of individual circumstances at a given point of time.
Of those who do, many choose not to act on it. Why is that the case? Because the imbalance that they observed has not really affected their sense of fairness. Maybe they do not possess that kind of sense of fairness. Or, even if they possess it, that sense of fairness is not deep-rooted in their consciousness.
Those few who do choose to notice as well as act on this imbalance, see it as something that affects their sense of fairness and, hence internalize it as a personal affront. Thus, we have a situation where ones own sense of self-respect and pride has been hurt. That triggers an internal revolt and it is this revolt that provides the ideal breeding ground for any aesthetic to find an outlet in a real and tangible form.
Every personal and organizational transformation has to be preceded by a sense of personal hurt. Without it there is no impetus for action. Without an impetus for action, there is no impetus for a conscious thought process to commence. And withoutut a conscious thought process there is no room for an aesthetic to constructively and creatively intervene.
Those people who have undergone this process should realize that they were fortunate to go through this process. They should also realize the talent that they possess. That is, the talent to feel sensitively to issues of immediate practical concern to those left at the sidelines of humanity. It is like a scarce economic resource that needs to be preserved, conserved and transferred when the time is right.
Different organizations will preserve this internalization of sensitivity to 'social imbalance' in different ways. Some will preserve it as a hard-line fringe ideology. Some will preserve it as a steely resolve and a temper that can take an aggressive turn at times and make them 'boxed' in one way of thinking. Some will fritter it away through getting over-excited and fighting battles that cannot be won. Some will resort to intellectualisation of the pain. Some will resort to 'emotionalisation' of the pain and be pre-occupied in finding more and more refined manners of expressing this pain. In today's world of impact investing, those who are flush with cash (and chasing more cash), will resort to 'investisization' of the pain.
In some other cases, individuals will happen to stumble upon the root cause of this pain: that the pain is nothing but a persisting and nagging 'feeling' and these individuals will attack the pain at this level itself: the level at which you take the feeling by the neck and ensure that it does not turn into an emotion. And this is best done through the faculty of reason. VIKAS has chosen this method.
But this leaves a question: is it the sensitivity to the poor that is driving the organization, or, is it the need to create an order through reason? Technically, it is not an appropriate question to ask because both sustain each other. However, if one has to make a choice, the choice would lean in favour of the 'aesthetic of reasoning to create an order'.
That is, the purpose of VIKAS as stated on presentations and mentioned in discussions does not truly reflect its essence. VIKAS is first and foremost to be looked upon as a 'feeling', 'thinking' and 'creative' organization. Only secondly should it be looked upon as an organization that uses all its mental and physical powers to work on solutions to rectify social imbalances.
How far will VIKAS go? Unlike some development organizations it is not an organization that will ever claim to completely to solve the problems of the communities it is working with. It will go as far the 'need to satisfy its own intellectual and aesthetic craving' will permit it to. That is, it will not be bonded to external constituencies. Rather, it will be chained to its own internal psychology.
This is a critical point. As long as VIKAS is fully conscious of and comfortable with this facet of its personality it will not go off-track. It will not try to be a social enterprise or a mission-driven NGO. Its identity will remain that of an artist who is first and foremost satisfying her own need and in the process creating something that may be of use to others around her.
Is VIKAS unique? No. Does it have some trait(s) that are not very common? Possibly. All development sector organizations are borne out of sensitivity (towards others), grow on ideology, sustain on creativity, decline on repetition, and die on rigidity. Death of an organization need not be physical. An organization can grow, have larger and larger budgets, have visibility but yet be dead because it has forgotten to 'feel'. The unique facet of VIKAS, if it can be called as such, is that it has retained its creativity, sensitivity and eccentricity through and through during its long tenure of existence.
It's 'aesthetic of reason and order' is both a boon and a bane for it. It is a boon because it keeps VIKAS fresh. It is a bane because VIKAS will never be content and rest with its work. It will want to constantly 're-order the order'.
THE KEY ORGANIZATIONAL QUESTION(S) BEFORE VIKAS
So, if VIKAS has to choose an existential challenge for itself it could choose the following questions:
How can VIKAS remain creative? By looking at what has driven its creativity over the years. In turn, the simple answer to that question is: constant sensory (not intellectual) contact with that social imbalance on the ground which in turn keeps sustaining that deep felt sense of unfairness and insult to one's own self. This sense of personal insult needs to be kept alive.
And the only way it can be kept alive is to find more people in the team who take upon themselves to personall feel this sense of insult beyond the founding team. This requires a degree of emotional fortitude that not many possess. That is, not everyone's unconscious is capable of storing and understanding the pain of others for a long period of time. After a point most people will find an escape in the statement "It is not my problem".
Thus, the organizational challenge before VIKAS is really how to transfer that pain to these individuals fully and to ensure that these individuals continue to be pained in the right manner for time to come. The real challenge thus is a people's challenge: how to cement the bonds of such individuals with the essence of VIKAS as it exists today.
How can VIKAS minimize the volatility that is inevitably associated with a creativity of this nature? VIKAS is like the stock market. To use a famous quote (by Benjamin Graham): "In the long-run the stock market is a weighing machine, while in the short-turn it is a voting machine". In the long-run the stock market rewards good ideas, good bets. In the short-run a good-bet can also prove disastrous.
The track record of SAVE Public Ltd. since its inception in 1995 helps understand this. Over the long-run SAVE has managed to conserve capital and has delivered a quantifiable and distinctive measure of impact. However, in the short-run SAVE has undergone periods of poor results and at times lack-lustre performance. The same characteristic has been true of VIKAS.
Could this performance have been bettered? There is always a scope for improvement in hind-sight. But it is difficult to see if there could have been a 'fundamentally' different trajectory of growth. If one has to be creative one has to live with volatility of output. Where VIKAS has been consistent is in its very early identification of changing fundamentals of society and trying to create institutional responses to it.
Thus, the challenge for VIKAS is not one of not taking risks, being conservative, paying more heed to the market than its own instincts moulded by feedback from the field, listening to funders more than what is strictly necessary.
Rather, as outlined above, it needs to maintain its contact with reality. This is the only manner in which it can continue to sharpen its instincts and design creative solutions. However, what it has to be more conscious of is to take calculated risks in a manner that does not compromise its financial survival.
But at the same time, its decisions should not be overtly influenced by financials. For instance, some initiative may actually be financially disastrous but would still need to be pursued because it adds to VIKAS' ability to deliver long-term impact.
To come back to our earlier stock market analogy: VIKAS would need to continue to work on developing a temperament and capacity to not try to make quick money or cut it's losses through short-term trading but remain a conservative but productive long-term investor.
WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN IN PRACTICE?
Practically, it boils down to few very simple, in fact dull, things:
1. VIKAS should assume that it has a very long life going forward. So that every decision it takes today, it takes with an eye on its implications for the next 2 generations.
2. It needs to over-invest in its team to inculcate the sensitivity and the ability to internalize the real context on the field so that it can prioritize and safeguard the interests of the communities it is working with over everything else.
3. It needs to strengthen FIG urgently to ensure that every decision (however small it be) does not lead to diminution in VIKAS's ability to create long-term value. A single decision appears small but a series of small decisions add up. FIG is needed to not just examine a decision from the fulfilment of the immediate project or deliverable, or to reach the financial measures of the current year, rather to see how a given decision can open more possibilities, strengthen the capabilities of people as well as positively lead to wealth generation for VIKAS and the people it is closely working with.
4. At the level of the field, it should refrain from trying to build too many systems and processes. Some are essential. But it is OK for the field to be inefficient. However, it is NOT OK to be ineffective. For the field to be effective, its ability to perceive and interpret changing circumstances is of the utmost essence. It can do this best if it is allowed the liberty to develop its own individuality. To its credit, VIKAS has tried to adhere to this line. It should trust its own experience and instincts in this regard and continue forward on the same road.
All of the above is very mundane and straightforward to understand as well as to implement but extremely difficult to consistently adhere to. The best way to describe this approach is: People try very hard to find the best stocks (ideas) to put their money behind. People zealously track which mutual fund schemes return more than the other. However, if you have a 30 year horizon the best thing to do is to simply put as much money as you can that simply tracks the BSE/Nifty Index. It is the most cost-effective, least time-consuming and not to mention pyschologically relaxing. But how many people do it? Not many. Because it is excruciatingly boring. Human nature wants activity and excitement. In the process, it willingly sacrifices results.
So, if VIKAS has to really deploy its creative faculties going forward it has to figure out how to be boring and disciplined yet interesting. The next phase of value-creation for VIKAS will not be about discovering new ideas (though that will still matter). It will be about how to consistently deploy the principles and values that it has discovered over the course of its approach to helping others. VIKAS is not a choice of profession (or career). Rather it is a place to be constructive, creative, and fully accountable for the resources of society that it uses. It has done admirably in the past and there is no evident reason to doubt it cannot do so in future.
There is a quote by Benjamin Graham that best sums it up: "Everyday I wish to do something foolish, something creative and something generous." Notice that "foolish" comes before everything else. No point taking life too seriously, even it means that life is all about helping others in serious need.
| |
|