Sustaining organisational competitiveness demands realistic standards and unwavering efficiency, achieved through a strategic balance of judgement, data, adaptability, and contextual awareness in decision-making
Pursuit of efficiency is advocated everywhere. The pursuit of efficiency assumes the setting of standards, adequate resources, proximity to provision, and follow-up in an effective manner, which can produce sustainable results. These attributes may appear simple, but they are complicated to deliver.
It’s not a simple complication — it has deep psychological overtones. Many people expect the other person to be efficient. When it comes to themselves, they would like a more lenient view, euphemistically put across as “realistic.”
In operational terms, many subordinates expect their superiors to be understanding and often flexible in following standards. The expectation is to build into the system a resilience which is “accommodating.”
This plausible approach, if practiced at each level, can be a potent factor in loosening the system and making the setting of standards —and operating them — a matter of personal choice and accommodation.
One of the outcomes of this situation will be an impact on overall productivity and, very often, a decline in outputs at an aggregate level. This, in turn, can have a domino effect: The overall credibility of the organisation can deteriorate, and it can soon become a way of life.
This being the case, it is best not to deviate from standards but to make the setting of standards more realistic. This produces a dilemma.The dilemma is a tacit acceptance that the organisation cannot work at its best potential. Operationally, this cannot mean that suboptimal standards be set.
Even those suboptimal standards, as indicated above, can become resilient, and over a period of time, a downward trend could set in. This is dangerous in two ways: every organisation is part of a cluster of similar institutions, and if one is working at a level lower than the competition, it could lose the market, productivity, and profitability.
This would open the floodgates to an ultimate exit from competition. The proposition is simple: lowering standards has its price, and sometimes this price can make the organisation so dysfunctional as to edge it out of the market itself — verging on self-destruction. Hence, the classical dilemma remains: Finding an approach that is realistic but does not amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
This is where strategy comes in. Strategy is the bridge between policy and action that outlines an operational approach to everyday functioning. This requires judgment and an understanding of the competency of one’s colleagues. Unfortunately, there are only a few statistical tools, which provide limited and tentative inputs to the overall picture. The overall picture still requires judgment — indeed, deep judgment. This brings us to one of the major concerns in management: Where do operational tools work, and where does judgment work? Management as a profession has been divided between these two camps. People with an operations research and statistical background have a preference for quantitative methods, whereas people with backgrounds in softer disciplines like Political Science, Sociology, and History tend to prefer a judgmental approach.
The narrative above is an adequate illustration of what appears to be a simple proposition but is embedded in a complex setup of factors and options. This is where leadership and judgment become useful, and top management requires decision-making skills that go beyond statistical notes.
The nature of management, where efficiency parameters are concerned, is not simply one of high or low standards. It is about what works in the market and what will ensure the organization’s survival, productivity, and profitability.
All in all, it will require a merger of both experience and judgment. It will also require an integration of statistical tools and judgmental methods. It would require pilot testing and experimentation with a sound assessment of the potential of the organisation and its people. It will also need an understanding of the times, Government policies, and the context so that the course of action undertaken by top management survives the stresses of the times and makes the conditions of work not only attractive but also feasible.
The science of governance is also the art of governance. Together, they form the route to growth and survival. There are no easy answers, but that is never a reason to abandon the quest for a solution.
The narrative above shows the requirement for an integrative mind and a holistic approach to decision-making and problem-solving. This alone will encourage resource optimisation and give organisations a competitive edge.
Management, both as an art and a science, is closer to being a craft. It aids in adopting a course to ensure not only the survival but also the success of efforts.
Progressively and typically, the nature of management continues to evolve. There was a time when resources were largely viewed as “material entities” for giving a competitive edge to the organisation (through much of the nineteenth century).
The input of “material” resources began sharing its privileged place with “ideas” through much of the second half of the twentieth century. Organisational competitiveness became increasingly influenced by non-material assets. It did not stop there — ideas became important and started influencing the growth and prosperity of entities.
A stage now seems to be approaching where ideas are having to share their space with notions such as “intelligence.” The notion of organisations has evolved — and is continuing to do so — at a drastic pace. The typology of organisations today is far richer than before. This pattern looks likely to continue.
The writer is a well-known management consultant of international repute
