Why Businessmen in Power Become Reform Simulants
Do you mean reforms? Remember how to manage changes.
Since the times of the “market turn” an exceptionally persisting and harmful myth has nestled in people’s minds. It persists that people with experience in working for a real sector of economy show the highest efficiency in civil service. At first those were “experienced executives”, then “honest businessmen” and now these are “managers with western education/experience”.
It is natural – people are used to living in a fool’s paradise and set their hopes on hypothetical omniscient and almighty wonderworkers. And it is also natural that among those who seek a cushy job of civil servants and deputies and among their spin doctors there are enough people who readily exploit people’s naivety.
Yet, running a business and running a country need somewhat different competences. Of course, nobody abolished the triad of “expertise – decency – patriotism” (I mean patriotism that consolidates the society, not the extremist substitute). Still, in practice it is implemented in business and state administration taking some important features into consideration:
First, the system of “business” and the system of “state” have a different degree of complexity.
Business is to operate the categories of “assets”, “personnel”, “market”, “brands”, “cashflow” first and foremost. State administration has the categories of “citizens”, “freedoms”, “responsibilities”, “social standards” to recognize. Though there are things in common – “security”, “reputation”, “under the table payment”, “fixer”.
Anyway, “business” and “state” relate to each other like the particular and the general. And even the most skillful and successful businessman will fade away when asked to find a solution to the problem of the retired, the physically challenged, the unemployed, the imprisoned, the environmentally malignant enterprises and the endangered species by robbing the budget’s belly to cover the budget’s back.
Second, the scale and the frame of reference is different.
There are global corporations whose turnovers are equal to the revenue part of budgets of a dozen miserable states. They are above-level, their interests are loosely connected with national security (idea, project) of any country. Their CEOs are “global citizens” in the eyes of some people, “fat corporate cats” in the eyes of others or even “economic assassins” in the eyes of the third group.
And there are local medium or small businesses that are humbly contributing to the budget of their state. Their owners and “tops” can be more or less patriotic but are always weak compared to the state leviathan.
That is the mentality of people from various business model companies is absolutely different with regard to the state. And is even more different from the mentality of “sovereign’s servants”, i.e. professional civil servants who do not usually chose the fast track and always fear and favor.
Third, the aims are different.
Business is to make money. It is its nature and reason for existence. Social and ecological responsibility/efficiency are secondary for even the most conscientious businesspeople and, alas, are often used as a showcase.
The state is to please its citizens with stability, to help the weak, not to oppress the strong, to maintain its international reputation.
That is, by definition, the mission, aims and objectives of the state are less pragmatic than the same parameters of business structures.
None of these differences is understood, and if it is, it is not taken into account when forming the current team in power. That is why people of business descent crinkle their nose in disgust and run away like timid boarding-school girls when they are getting into the inmost recesses of the state machine. Or they crinkle their nose and adapt (which happens less often) and become none the less lively backhanders takers and reform simulants than professional paper shufflers.
Instead of honestly admitting their failure as statesmen yet staying and really trying to change anything. Because state reforms are like change management: just applied to a more complex, large-scale and non-pragmatic system. It means that instead of retreating with shouts of “I’m given no way ” or imitating a frenzied activity one can simply try and work.
• changes (reforms) are to be implemented in accordance with objectives, strategies and plans that are clearly and consistently understood by all the participants;
• successful changes (reforms) in the turbulent medium are parallel changes of strategies, structures and human behavior;
• changes are always opposed; it cannot be suppressed forcefully if one wants to achieve results;
• one is to find convincing arguments and get the reforms (changes) accepted by the majority of people to be affected by those;
• agents of changes (reforms) are to explain really, not formally each step to people who will be affected by the reforms – as honestly, openly and fully as possible;
• favorable atmosphere is a ticket to success of changes (reforms).
But it is difficult and hard. Especially if there are no skills of running a comprehensive business, no charisma and no genuine desire to change something in fundamental algorithms of the state administration system’s functioning. That is why things haven’t moved an inch forward in Ukraine for a year, moreover, they are moving back – in all senses.
http://nv.ua/opinion/oderevyanko/pochemu-biznesmeny-v-pravitelstve-stanovyatsya-reformoimitatorami--36907.html
Tags: Business; Reforms; State; State budget