Are We Seeking Approval to Be and Do Good?
Reflections on our societal and organizational culture of seeking and giving approvals, and how this can often hinder our progress
Hello Dear,
So, it has been a few days. The previous post in this #NotJust Newsletter was published four days ago. Why the gap?
For one, I was quite occupied with some responsibilities regarding the G20 Leaders’ Summit. But then hey, this is not a valid reason, right? I believe we will almost never get time in life for the things which matter. We have to make time for them.
And two, I was suffering from a reduced energy and motivation level. Which makes it all the more important that one keeps going, right? So here I am, even if after a short hiatus. Thank you for being here with me, I hope it is worth your while!
The Bureaucracy that is Everywhere
Let us start today’s post with a question. How familiar are you with the bureaucracy? A lot many of us may perhaps answer with a resounding and emphatic yes. Well and good. You may have had an experience of working in the government and hence might have had a taste of the government bureaucracy. Even if you have had not this experience, you may have had your own share of brushes with the bureaucracy. And more importantly, with the bureaucratic way of work and life, since you are a citizen who depends on the government system for availing many services which you need. And of course, besides this, you must have heard of countless stories and anecdotes from others and from your readings, about the culture of the bureaucracy.
But wait a moment. Can we really speak of “the bureaucracy”, as if there is one bureaucracy? As if the bureaucracy is something which is present in only one environment, in only one system, which we call the government system? A little reflection will show us that the answer is no.
Bureaucracy, like politics, is present everywhere. At the very least, it can emerge anywhere.
In other words, it is #NotJust “the bureaucracy” in the government which has bureaucracy. All large organizations, and even small organizations, can possess bureaucracy or can be or become bureaucratic.
Interestingly, I would say that bureaucracy can very well be present even in a small nuclear family, or even between two people. Here is an example which I happened to give two fellow IIS officers just yesterday. Suppose I get home from work, but my mind remains preoccupied with concerns at work, say about how to do better, how to reform government communication or on more mundane and humble and selfish concerns. Now, my daughter comes excitedly to me, wanting to tell me some interesting news from her day, or otherwise seeks my help, or just my attention. However, if my mind is all cluttered with work-related thoughts and if I am hence not able to give my attention to my daughter, then isn’t this a form of bureacucracy which my daughter faces? I would think it is. [Or maybe it is not? Maybe it is just one attribute of bureaucracy which gets manifested here, and not bureaucracy itself?]
Either way, I hope you broadly agree on the omnipresence of bureaucracy. As such, I am thinking it is more fitting to speak of “bureaucracy”, rather than “the bureaucracy”, at least when we speak of it as a system.
Let us now examine one particular aspect of this system, this culture.
Submitted for Approval, Please
It seems to me that one of the foundational aspects of the system we call bureaucracy is a well-laid-down process for seeking and obtaining approvals. In many contexts, there is a body of rules and regulations which specify the nature and extent of power which can be exercised by people occupying different positions of authority. These in turn define what lie within each person’s powers to approve, what do not lie, and who has to approve what is not within one’s powers.
Speaking of the government, we have what is known as rules for delegation of powers, which not only specify the default delegation of powers, but also specify how and to what extent these default powers can and cannot be delegated. Here is an interesting report on Delegation of Financial and Administrative Powers, written more than 54 years ago, in 1969 [I just discovered this report, hope to read it soon].
Now, we might have a body of rules and regulations, even a very detailed and elaborate one. But does that necessarily mean that those rules are being followed, that too in letter and spirit? Evidently, the answer is no. In fact, the more comprehensive the rules, in a sense, the more difficult it becomes to understand and assimilate, let alone follow them. And indeed, the more difficult it becomes to update them too with the changing realities and needs of the times, of the VUCA world we live in.
So, there is almost surely going to be variations between the ideal division of powers and the way they are being exercised at present. What does this mean?
We can see that this leads to different types of errors in the way we design our work organizations. Individually, each of these errors may appear to us as not so significant or harmful, i.e., something we can very well put up with or live with; but in the aggregate, I think these can erect almost insurmountable barriers for institutional revitalization.
What could these errors be, which are introduced due to improper delegation of powers and authority? One, a person in a certain position is given the power to approve something, but in fact, he or she should not have been given this power.
Two, the opposite error, is when a person in a certain position is being made to seek approval for something, but when the ideal is that he or she should be given the responsibility to decide for oneself. In other words, he or she is having to write the equivalent of “Submitted for approval, please”, when this pleading should not have been necessary.
Let us go into this second error a little more in detail. Let us start with an anecdote from more than five decades ago.
“I did my duty, did not care to follow the book of rules”
The incident is from March 1979, the last phase of the life of Indian independence activist and political leader Jayaprakash Narayan, known popularly as JP. Even as the veteran leader was battling for his life at Jaslok Hospital of erstwhile Bombay, news got spread that he had breathed his last. And it so happened that the then Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai announced his departure in the Lok Sabha!, thus mistakenly informing the nation and the world that Jayaprakash Narayan had passed away.
Well, our point of focus today is not this incident per se. It is rather how All India Radio, the nation’s public broadcaster, acted following this wrong incident, wherein the Prime Minister misinformed the nation. This is recounted in a book written by Indra Pratap Tewari, a late Principal Information Officer to the Government of India [the post of Principal Information Officer has now become Principal Director General (PDG), and now, we have three PDGs, who are all officers of the Indian Information Service, the civil service to which I too happen to belong]. I believe the said book of I. P. Tewari is his autobiography titled Life & Diary of Indra Pratap Tiwari.
So, here is the excerpt from the book, where the late PIO recounts how he acted when he was Director (News), All India Radio. And hence how the public broadcaster acted.
So, what do you think? The defining and important line, in my view, is the following.
"I had faced a crisis of my career and having taken a decision single handedly had felt relieved"
If I may, this brings us to the proposition I would like to share with you today, a proposition I have arrived at, based on my “experiences of inexperience” in the government.
Often, we / people seek approvals when none are required. Or more generally, we defer to authority when such deference is uncalled for. This is a major reason why things do not get done as they should (in government, and indeed in life as well).
In fact, I think it may not be far-fetched to propose the following claim.
The single biggest reason why we do not realize our potential could very well be our tendency to seek approvals where none are required.
Yes, let us pause for a while and think for ourselves. Aren’t there occasions where we should rather be taking the decisions ourselves, rather than seeking approvals or endorsements from others? In many cases, it is not just that others should not approve or decide for us, it is that they cannot and will not decide for us! So, by seeking their approval, we might have gotten into the culture and habit of standing in our own way. We need each other, no doubt, but in areas where we need to take the final call, we need to take charge and be the driver. What say?
Maximum Approvals, or Maximum Trust?
Speaking in the organizational context, I think it is important to continually ask ourselves whether our system of approvals is designed optimally or not. Are we making people seek approvals where none are required? Are we encouraging and allowing people to seek them where they are necessary?And how do we make these decisions regarding when approvals are required by whom?
But then, it is not just about the system, is it? We may very well build what we believe is the best system; however, to function effectively, the system is dependent on the organizational culture we create, nurture and live by. This is what guides whether our people cooperate with the system we seek to set in place. And perhaps more importantly, it is the culture which decides how we behave when we do not have laid-down guidelines or guideposts to rely on.
I think this is where trust comes into play. Do we trust our people? Do our people trust us? As leaders and people in positions of power and authority, do we trust that they will act in good faith, in the larger good of the organization and society? Do they trust that we are acting in their good and in the institutional good?
This reminds me of a book which I hope to be able to read this year: The Speed of Trust.
Is it Trust by Default, or Approval by Default?
Even as we seek to lubricate our systems by building greater trust, a question which we need to ask, in my opinion, is this.
What is the default tendency of the system? Is it geared towards approvals, or towards trust?
In the words of nudge theorists Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein, what scope do we have of designing our choice architecture so that we choose no approvals when that is preferable and approvals when that is the preferred option? Read more on choice architecture here.
Delegation: Maximum Possible, not Minimum Necessary
I am happy to close this post by recalling a recommendation and guiding principle pointed out in the 1959 report of the Administrative Reforms Commission, a report which I chanced upon serendipitously while writing this article, and yes, we already discussed the report in this article earlier.
A system of delegation will work effectively only if it is based on a trust of those working 'on-the-spot'. Trust begets trust. A system which is based on a nagging distrust of those exercising powers will be destructive of initiative, the exercise of which is essential on a large scale in this era of development. We have, therefore, stressed the importance of framing delegations on the basis of trust, or delegations to the 'maximum' extent possible rather than to the 'minimum' extent necessary.
Yes, let us delegate the maximum possible, at every level. And thus reduce the need for approvals where none are required. Let us free our people and ourselves, let us get out of their way, of our own way, let us enable ourselves to fly.
Ok then, let me stop here. Hope to be back soon, with the next post. Meanwhile, my heartfelt thanks if you read this far in this attention-starved world! This itself is something for which I should be indebted to you.
And yes, if you subscribe for free to this #NotJust newsletter, you would get new posts delivered right to your email inbox. And do feel free to spread the word too. Thank you very much. - Dheep.