The journey from organizational change to transformation is shaped by a simple belief: transformation does not happen by introducing change in isolation; it happens when strategy, people, processes, governance, technology, and capability evolve together. Even though sustainability comes in three pillars—environment, society, and economy, and theorists love to believe in the economy encircled within the larger periphery of the environment and thereafter cocooned within the social factors, where everything can be intertwined with digital technologies, in reality, the economy still drives our lives. Decoupling the economy is the best thing to happen, but it is still a distant dream unless decoupling provides economic benefits.
We need a clear understanding of short-term and long-term gains, and a greater understanding and assimilation of a life-cycle view, not only for the assessment of outcomes in non-economic terms but linked to the economy. Our mindset is still not mature enough to understand the importance of the life-cycle cost view, and that is why we limit our thoughts to life-cycle assessment of environmental figures. Our choices are still CAPEX-driven, and our organizational understanding has yet to foresee expenditures from a long-term perspective. Our organizations still believe survival depends on capital, and sustainable decisions are still made out of compulsion. So-called sustainable decisions are still largely made due to hidden financial profit and loss considerations, and not even considering long-term whole-life economic reasons. This is because immediate survival and sustaining the organization in the present take precedence over long-term considerations.
There is nothing wrong with it. Ultimately, organizations need to run businesses, and they are part of a wider national and international sociopolitical environment. We cannot blame organizations, especially business houses, alone.
Seeing life-cycle views of economic parameters is still considered a risk, especially in a world of high disruption, uncertainty, and volatility. One important point we must not undermine is that organizations, even though they want to make noble decisions, cannot predict the future with sufficient predictability and logical sensitivity.
Our geopolitical scenarios are becoming so volatile and polarized that countries are changing policies abruptly and altering alliances instantly due to internal and external factors, making it difficult for organizations to make any long-term plans and economic decisions while keeping the life-cycle view in mind. Nations are changing policies abruptly, and our leaders are breaking all international treaties at their own convenience. International institutions still exist, but our leaders have made them ineffective. Even if a particular nation or its leadership is trying to act with perseverance, keeping global peace, antiterrorism, and multiculturalism as priorities, they are also forced to take radical decisions as they are getting affected by ill-intentioned geopolitical leaders. The multilateral view is becoming marginalized, which is definitely affecting organizations.
Organizations and businesses are busy matching these changing volatilities for survival, rather than creating a long-term industrial view.
Will we remain puppets in the hands of global, powerful, and ill-intentioned leaders? Will we wait for some leader to choose to stop military wars? Will we wait for some leaders to stop funding terrorist organizations? Will organizations keep worrying about investing in different geographies with a fear that their shipments can be hampered due to the closure of any strait in the deep sea?
More research needs to be done on the possible solutions to get rid of the whimsical acts of our global political leadership. Just a food for thought: Can organizations across the globe come together around a common understanding that can strengthen their collective position and encourage political leaders worldwide to reconsider actions driven by their own self-interest? It is understandable that at the national level, the political leadership will put their best efforts into nullifying this organizational effort with all their claws and jaws. But their survival and funding heavily depend on organizations and businesses, and in the long term, they cannot ignore organizations unless organizations remain fragmented. If organizations want more predictable sensitivity and strengthened life-cycle economic benefits, the next level of organizational leadership needs a greater sense of co-opetition and issue-based coherence to push global political leaders to act more sensibly.
No comments:
Post a Comment