 |
| @ bhagwad.com |
Most of our management concepts and theories have hardly anything to deal with Corruption. Many of our so-called Consultants and Management Gurus do not dare to tread upon such concepts. Probably, they think that it is outside the realm of their elitist body of knowledge and would rather dismiss this word by calling it a “Social Evil”.
Dear reader, let me sound a word of caution - this social evil has become a phenomena that is ‘widespread’ and ‘dominant’ and has gained great powers to influence whatever under the name of ‘management concepts’ that we have ever known till date!!
“Corruption” has become a socially accepted value. Why? Answer my question and you will know. Do you mind paying some extra bucks to get a ticket to see a blockbuster movie? Do you hesitate to shell a few rupees (sometimes more) to the TTE to get a seat in train? The answer is obvious. Whether you like it or not, we prefer to get the comforts even if it comes at an additional cost and this has become the rule of the game.
Corruption is an enduring phenomenon that has gained deep roots in our society. So, when organizations are working in the social environment, how can it be left untouched, nay, the management systems and structures? It is an integral part of our daily lives, be it the electricity deptt, telephone department or any organization that we come across.
In fact, without a thorough analysis of the impact of corruption in organizations, Management gurus lemme tell you that your potions and concoctions are not going to work. Organizations have mutely and demurely believed you and have tried to digest your medications but have only spurted out or have suffered severe constipation. Your prescriptions do not deal with this ‘undesirable’ yet ‘pervasive’ word. Sorry to say, even without any guidance and training from your end, we follow corrupt practices with ease and efficacy.
Wait a minute – What did you say Sir? There are lots of checks and monitoring done by bosses and they are responsible to put an end to this corruption. Well, let me respond. Regarding the role of monitoring agencies – they can’t do much, virtually nothing. Why? I will explain in detail. Actually it is not possible to eradicate corruption in our society nor does this article try to propagate the ideals of a ‘corruption-free’ society. Nor there is an idea to portray corruption as a “legitimate” phenomenon. A
The ideals and values of humanity hold true and there is no reason to discard them because we live in a society that has its own principles about life, religion and values. The knowledge and wisdom embedded in our society are representations of our cumulative experiences collated over a long period of time and in a way is our ‘inheritance’. However, we learn to act, think and behave in a way that is attested by the society which has its own ‘values’ that have been time-tested, recognized, accepted and are in consonance with the norms of the society.
Unfortunately, corrupt behaviours have been so well rationalized, justified and organized that they are getting accepted as the ‘right’ way to get work done.
Most of our organizations have either drowned or are submerged in corruption – be it Govt. organizations, PSUs, Private Organizations, NGOs, Law enforcing agencies etc. The worst part is that our efforts to control the menace of corruption are poised on a wrong footing. We believe that a ‘corrupt’ person is himself responsible for his unfair actions but according to my analysis, it is not always true. Another belief that punishing the corrupt officials would reduce or eliminate corruption also does not hold much water.
But let us first understand what is Corruption? It can be defined as “an intentional deviation from the prescribed norm that is motivated by factors that either tempt (pull) or coerce (push) to fulfil or advance one’s self interests”.
Corruption does not disappear (Girling 1997) as countries or organizations develop and modernize but rather they take up new forms.
Organizations have often failed to unleash the full potential of their employees by operating with systems that are not able to provide the motivational input or drive. Inflexible structures coupled with a redundant motivational system are primarily responsible for the growth of this phenomenon.
Inflexible Structures:
Most of our organizations are designed on the traditional bureaucratic model based on hierarchy, control and supervision. Many of such organizational structures are inflexible. The changing business markets demand the organization to be more responsive and adaptive to the changing needs of the customers. However, the old structures seldom try to adapt themselves to meet these challenges. The efforts come in only when other players have already entered the market and have started dominating. There is lot of inertia to change.
During such a scenario, the customers or employees associated with the organization are at continuous conflict. Customers demand faster service but employees are not able to provide because of the rigid organizational structure and the bureaucratic procedures that need to be followed.
There is little or no provision in the system to decentralize decision-making. The pressure from the customers’ keeps on increasing and employees also feel the brunt. So what do they do? They initially explain to the customer about the long procedures that is a must and extoll their importance and sanctity. But our customers cannot be pacified. They are perseverant and are constantly pursuing to cut short the long and cumbersome procedures and avail the service he/she needs.
The ground is now finally prepared for the ‘strategic behavior’ to take place.
There is a kind of unwritten, concealed and delicate understanding between the customer and the employee for a transaction to take place. The dynamics of corruption are moderated by the individuals own value system.
Stage I
An honest person may not yield in to the temptation to take favours offered by the customer. The transaction does not occur with him and the customer shifts his focus and tries to find someone else who is more “amenable”.
Stage II
If the person falls in for the “favours” to satisfy his/her greed, there is instant gratification and a sense of initial satisfaction. After sometime the individual values start to resurface and the person starts feeling a sense of guilt. The rationalization process starts and the person assigns reasons to justify his/her actions and the deviation from the values. If this process reduces conflict or internal stress, there is a high probability that the person would further engage in ‘corrupt behavior’.
The gratification percolates as the person expends/ utilizes the favour/ benefits.
However, even here, at this stage, if the internal conflict increases there is a tendency to regress to the earlier process where the individual values prevail and the person refrains from further indulgence in such activities.
A person has to cross over a threshold to embrace/ take recourse to corrupt behaviour. This threshold acts as a barrier and is created by the strength of his/her own values. Values like honesty, integrity etc are human values and are socially desirable while corruption is socially undesirable. The temptations are from the society itself that has become distressed and oppressed by the performance of such organizations. Do we not hear people saying – “O God, don’t tell me again, I cannot stand in the que to get an LPG cylinder. There is hardly anyone to listen to my request. The babu tells me to come after one week. However, if I pay some money I will get it through back door”. So there is some degree of “learned helplessness” that creeps into our minds.
Stage III
Now the person who has crossed the threshold once, is easily tempted to accept favours/ benefits. Little effort is required on the part of the customer to ‘bribe’ the employee. A growing need becomes the motivator and reinforces the behaviour. People are now in the process of developing the habit of indulging in corrupt behaviour quite frequently.
Corruption at Organizational Level
This phenomenon begins in organizations with the triggers provided by its own inflexible systems, cumbersome procedures & insensitivity to customers’ need and requirements (customer unfriendly procedures). More interestingly, the larger objective of such organization is indeed related to welfare of public but the procedures adopted by it tend to only harass the customers and put them to much discomfort.
The ‘bureaucratic’ model has been a failure. The long hierarchical, centralized decision-making and strong monitoring mechanisms have had many negative outcomes –
- Customers do not get ‘speedy’ service.
- Employees do not get motivated to make initiative to ensure good quality services.
- The system does not empower its employees.
- Remuneration is very less. Job security is very high.
- Any slight deviation from the norm can attract penalties.
- Performance evaluation and rewarding mechanism is not transparent and objective.
There has been very little effort to restructure such organizations. One effort made in this direction to improve the performance and effectiveness was to disinvest government equity and allow the organizations to raise money from the primary market and generate its own resources for further growth/ survival.
Once strategic relationships develop between the organizational members and significant associates parallel structures are formed that serve as a substitute to the formal structure. Most of the work gets done through this. The people who get associated develop “mutually agreed relationships’” based on sharing of favours/ benefits that accrue in the process. Each person has his/her share. There is a strategic move to bend the rules, formal systems and procedures so as to divert the customers to the parallel structure which becomes stronger with the involvement of more number of significant, resourceful and powerful persons. The parallel structure grows very quickly both up and down the hierarchy and across organization to ensure that the work gets done quickly and without hassles.
The traditional hierarchy does not give much leverage. The most common fallacy almost all bureaucratic organizations make is that their policies, systems and objectives are not well-linked to each other. Coupled with this fundamental mistake another serious flaw exists. The organizational goals are targeted with the traditional structures in place. Leaders put in huge efforts (often resorting to punitive measures) to get the maximum out of their employees. There is pressure on middle level managers to produce results, which are at times not supported by companies’ own policies. This stress shifts to the “Parallel structures” which develop as a consequence of inflexible structures and a pressure to show results. The bosses have to “give-in” or succumb to this pressure in order to avoid serious consequences or punishment.
Motivational Aspects
It has been observed that change initiatives in organizations do not generally succeed. The euphoria of having accomplished something great is very short-lived. Even though our systems, initiatives and “desperately formulated policies” laws are not able to build the process of helping the people to actualize their potential, even then organizations are performing and that too exceedingly well.
So what I am considering here is not the case of organizations that are entirely corrupted and are on the verge of extinction but those organizations where the performance is good yet there is no scientific or causal relationship between motivation, performance and rewards. I mean, given the plethora of knowledge available with us as on date I must ask this question to all HR professionals – “What prompts or propels the employees or the significant participants to work hard and give their best when there is no established linkage between their behaviour and rewards? There can be two situations – one where there is no motivational system marked by the absence of an incentive or a reward scheme by proper performance evaluation and second where the system per se exists but is not working in the right direction.
Keeping the above assumptions in mind that are mere manifestations of our own social values, when performance is evaluated based on systems that were not primarily designed to take into account the factors like age, seniority, experience etc the outcomes are bound create a ruckus. So we superimpose our social values on the work values and give rise to some dissent, which we feel, is justified so as to keep in tandem with the overall social structure in which we exist. So, a young energetic employee who is also a brilliant performer may not get promoted, as there is another older employee who is having more years of experience who is also due for promotion along with the younger person. Thus we begin the process of happily following the social norm and discounting the natural system. as propagated by Darwin – survival of the fittest.
