I will address the challenges of organisational transformation in the next few columns. Did you ever wonder about the origin of the expression “touching a raw nerve”? It refers to the exposed raw nerve when a protective layer called myelin gets eroded. Myelin is the fatty protection/insulation around the nerve endings and facilitates fast and efficient transmission of signals. For example, how the farm bills have touched raw nerves through the erosion of myelin.
While transformation is essential, any organisational initiative carries the risks of demyelination. Transformation must do good things in the right way; done at the wrong time or in the wrong way, even good ideas can misfire. Having worked for two venerable institutions—Unilever and Tata—I have experience of transformations.
A society or organisation is like the human body. It comprises a complex network of nerve fibres through which communication signals flow. Organisational transformation has the potential to disturb corporate myelin—informal communication channels, water-cooler talk and hidden apprehensions.
In this article, I will illustrate demyelination during three transformations, all in the public sphere rather than corporate.
Family planning: Early in my career, Hindustan Lever assisted the government by selling condoms, manufactured by Hindustan Latex, to retailers in the east, with, if I may add, some comical outcomes! Family planning was a national priority. DAVP, the government’s communication specialists, developed a two-minute film for cinemas, depicting a just-married couple. An ominous voiceover stated, “Congratulations, but please don’t have your first child for five years.” This message impacted the myelin layer of society because social pressure on a young daughter-in-law to expand the family was great and probably still is so.
The film massively flopped and was dropped. A new film depicted a joyous couple, holding their first baby, with an avuncular voiceover, “Wait five years before your second child.” Magically, the population growth started to dip. Hindi: The adoption of Hindi was hugely controversial during the Constituent Assembly debates. Even during the 1930s, Madras Presidency had opposed Hindi. When the Constitution demanded immediate adoption of Hindi as the sole language, R V Dhulekar of United Provinces demyelinated people’s nerves by making an explosively ridiculous statement, “People who do not know Hindi have no right to stay in India….”
Reluctantly, English could continue with Hindi until 1965. In 1963, implementing Hindi-only was still considered tough. So Nehru announced that English would be extended indefinitely. However, Home Minister Gulzarilal Nanda insisted on accelerating Hindi usage and, not unexpectedly, Tamil Nadu erupted into riots. Some commented that this was a local Tamil Nadu issue, a bit like the current farmer protest is thought to be a Punjab issue. The Central government repealed the 1965 deadline.
With both the language bill and farmer bills, observers misjudge because a small part of the population is protesting, while the majority seem to be indifferent. Such misjudgement invokes the law of unintended consequences. Farming: T T Krishnamachari, one of those who drafted the Constitution, insisted that agriculture should be a states-only subject. Its regional and complex nature made the states better custodians of law-making for agriculture. His clairvoyance was amazing.
Whatever the intent behind the farm laws, the implementation has suffered from mistiming and execution gaps. Right after passing the three farm acts, the Centre imposed restrictions on onion exports, much to the disappointment of Nashik farmers, who enthusiastically eyed soaring prices.
Farming is VUCA—volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous—with overtones of economics, sociology, psychology and, above all, politics. For 70 years, farming solutions have been piecemeal. For the first time since Independence, a government (NDA) published a New Agricultural Policy in 2000.
Thereafter the government (UPA) appointed the Swaminathan Commission, which recommended an updated New Farming Policy in 2006. Their fate is unknown, but regrettably, the nation has not achieved the aspirational 4% agricultural growth for the last two decades. In 2020, India has announced a New Education Policy, Labour Policy, and Science Technology Innovation Policy; maybe it is time for a New Farming Policy, 2021. A holistic and systems approach had been contemplated in the policy documents of 2000 and 2006. Decisions on complex subjects evolve through experimentation, trial and error. It is not a win-lose game.
As it became necessary with other misfired decisions, the new farm laws may also be thought through de novo. When one seeks pathways through trial and error, there can be no ego. Farming unquestionably needs reform in areas that have been explicitly outlined in both the earlier documents. India is blessed with fine specialists in agriculture, irrigation, economics, but all in silos of specialisation. By consulting and involving states and farmers, India can better implement a holistic reform for agriculture without danger of demyelination.
(The author had served as Director, Tata Sons and, before that, as Vice Chairman, Hindustan Unilever. In a research collaboration between a practitioner and academics of SPJIMR, Mumbai, he has co-authored six books on Shapers of Business Institutions, covering HDFC, Kotak Bank, Marico, Biocon, L&T and TCS)
R Gopalakrishnan (rgopal@themindworks.me)
Author and corporate advisor