HRD-MFI: 'STATIC' vs 'DYNAMIC' ORGANISATION

HRD-MFI: STATIC VS DYNAMIC
(MFI = Material For Introspection)

We come across statements from many eminent and successful personalities conveying that ‘CHANGE’ IS THE ONLY ‘CONSTANT’.

Understand that the ICICI Chairman, Mr V. Kamath, quite often conveys to his team that NO CHANGE CAN BE BROUGHT ABOUT IN STATUS QUO. [Application: We all set some goals or targets to achieve like ‘we shall increase our turnover to 5000 crore by 2015”. Having consciously set the targeted turnover, we must prepare ourselves to the demands of a 5000 crore organization vis-à-vis our current status. We must do a SWOT analysis, brainstorm and eventually plan the strategy to reach the targeted position by 2015. Every department and every staff must be tuned towards the target set. Necessary resources, training, changes, … will have to be planned and provided. In short, there has to a conscious and planned effort to reach the target. All these will not happen in status quo. We have to bring-in and accept the desired change(s) continually.]

If an organization does not adapt to the changing business scenario, it would become a static organization.

A dynamic organization on the other hand adapts itself to the changing business scenarios, prepares every department within the organization to sync comfortably with the changes, harnesses the suitable technology to keep itself ahead of others in the industry, … and the like. All these are continual exercises and efforts in a dynamic organisation.

A non-dynamic organization would be static one. A static organization would initially imply ‘no further growth’ , followed by ‘gradual downfall’ and eventually to ‘extinction’ (if no action is taken to revive/correct).

Every organization must consciously imbibe and maintain dynamism in its attitude, culture and everyday activities. Organisation represents its manpower among other assets. Thus, every person working in an organization must understand dynamism and practice it. Only then, will the employees co-operate, collaborate and corroborate among themselves.

Moreover, the dynamism must percolate from the top level to the lowest level in an organisation’s hierarchy. Many a time, changes in attitude towards work and life are desired. A concerted effort is required in bringing-in such changes.

Human body is indeed a great source of inspiration. An analogy can be drawn on invariably any aspect of perfection, even in this ‘static’ vs ‘dynamic’ concept. For instance, let us take the case of a lunatic that we find on the roads; he does not take bath, lives is very unhygienic conditions, …. He will stink (at close distance) but his body does not decay in a week or month. But, when a person dies, no matter how hygienic and clean he was (throughout his life), his body will begin to decompose (immediately after his death), and within a day (if left unattended), the foul smell (due to the decomposition) will become unbearable. When the person was alive, his entire system was dynamic but, when he died, his system became static. Static thus entails decay and extinction.

If this analogy is applied to an organization, a static organization will eventually become bankrupt and redundant, if no corrective actions are taken.

Some such thing happened in General Motors, USA. It was a great organization earlier. All marketing books in 1970s and 80s quoted examples of General Motors, like we find reference to Infosys or Wipro in contemporary books. But, due to some ‘static’ aspects somewhere, General Motors (USA) recently approached the US Government for financial aid to revive and sustain. That’s the reason, dynamism in an organization has to be ‘continual’; not a one-time exercise. A (once) dynamic organization/individual can become static, if the ‘continual’ aspect is missed out.

A good example of dynamism is the ITC Group. Earlier, about 80 per cent of their turnover was from tobacco-related businesses. Few years ago, ITC management decided to reduce its dependency on tobacco-related business (foreseeing the anti-tobacco advertisements and campaigns). Today, tobacco division contributes less than 50 per cent to its turnover. This change did not happen in status quo; there was a conscious and concerted effort in ITC working --- right from the Directors, to the HoDs, to the managers, to the assistant managers, … to the last level in their hierarchy.

Problem with success is (that) it has high probability of complacency setting-in (unknowlingly) --- in an organization as well as in individuals. General Motors, USA is one such corporate example. Individuals who bask in their past glory (of excellent performance) could fall prey to the ‘static’ state (unknowingly).

Articles/notes of this nature (,I hope,) assist us (discreetly) to introspect (whether we and our organization are ‘dynamic’ or ‘static’) & take corrective action (wherever required).

Jaikishan (7th Nov, 2009)