If you have grown up with modern management theory, you are probably obsessed with "systems" - those magical things that ensure everyone has the same experience with an organisation.
Travel Management systems ensure that everyone travels according to their eligibility (read: Their place in the pecking order). Requisition systems ensure that everyone at the same level has similar access to corporate resources, and so on.
What happens when a person plays the system? Immediately, additional safeguards are put into place to ensure that the said breach does not happen again.
Iterations of this ensure that the system becomes progressively more rigid, harder to use, and so on. Until, of course, the system becomes a data entry mechanism and things continue pretty much the way they do on the ground.
Many Western employers find this exception seeking behaviour of Indian employees quite frustrating. It is as if we were born with a more than healthy disdain for following rules.
How do Indians manage uniform access and systems approach?
We don't. For us, each individual is unique. One's access to resources is determined by their personal equity. Not by their place in the pecking order.
The Indian business system inherently recognises the power-authority equation, and combines both when determining the access level of an individual. Unlike the systems based approach, where only authority is recognised and power, though acknowledged, is not official recognised.
What happens when a person plays the system?
In the Indian system, we don't fix the system. We fix the person. The person is called in to understand what happened, and why. After that, a suitable retribution is awarded, either publicly or privately, but such that everyone knows what happens to those who try to play the system.
And thus, everyone knows what to not do in an organisation.
Because the talent pool was limited and closely knit, what happened to one employee made it to the grapevine quickly enough. It acted as a deterrent. There was no need to "idiot proof" the system. We "tampering-proofed" individuals.
And that, I think, is a diametrically opposite view to correction management than the "Make our systems tighter" approach.
So, dear Indians and Westerners who wonder why Indians don't follow rules, please understand that our traditional systems give us privilege based on our power + authority. We inherently don't understand this One-Size-Fits-All method. This is also true of most high context cultures, where collectivism is so high that it is possible to easily bring errant individuals to compliance. Where each individual is under the spotlight so that the overall pattern appears perfect.
Your thoughts?
Travel Management systems ensure that everyone travels according to their eligibility (read: Their place in the pecking order). Requisition systems ensure that everyone at the same level has similar access to corporate resources, and so on.
What happens when a person plays the system? Immediately, additional safeguards are put into place to ensure that the said breach does not happen again.
Iterations of this ensure that the system becomes progressively more rigid, harder to use, and so on. Until, of course, the system becomes a data entry mechanism and things continue pretty much the way they do on the ground.
Many Western employers find this exception seeking behaviour of Indian employees quite frustrating. It is as if we were born with a more than healthy disdain for following rules.
How do Indians manage uniform access and systems approach?
We don't. For us, each individual is unique. One's access to resources is determined by their personal equity. Not by their place in the pecking order.
The Indian business system inherently recognises the power-authority equation, and combines both when determining the access level of an individual. Unlike the systems based approach, where only authority is recognised and power, though acknowledged, is not official recognised.
What happens when a person plays the system?
In the Indian system, we don't fix the system. We fix the person. The person is called in to understand what happened, and why. After that, a suitable retribution is awarded, either publicly or privately, but such that everyone knows what happens to those who try to play the system.
And thus, everyone knows what to not do in an organisation.
Because the talent pool was limited and closely knit, what happened to one employee made it to the grapevine quickly enough. It acted as a deterrent. There was no need to "idiot proof" the system. We "tampering-proofed" individuals.
And that, I think, is a diametrically opposite view to correction management than the "Make our systems tighter" approach.
So, dear Indians and Westerners who wonder why Indians don't follow rules, please understand that our traditional systems give us privilege based on our power + authority. We inherently don't understand this One-Size-Fits-All method. This is also true of most high context cultures, where collectivism is so high that it is possible to easily bring errant individuals to compliance. Where each individual is under the spotlight so that the overall pattern appears perfect.
Your thoughts?
