The Hindu Business Line : Individual self-interest overrides system's needs

THE electrocution of Anish in Bangalore and the deaths of the children in the Kumbakonam fire highlight the severe consequences when public officials fail to do the job they are paid for. But the lackadaisical work ethic extends to the private sector too. Perhaps, the causes lie in the Indian pursuit of self interest in all areas without a concern for the society or system of which he is a part.

Two recent incidents in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu illustrate, in a rather glaring manner, the impact of how an individual attitude and work ethic drastically affects the life of others in the society. Anish, a seven-year old boy on his way back from school, was crossing the road in Indira Nagar, a residential area of Bangalore, to get back home after buying a packet of biscuits on the afternoon of July 12. He came in contact with a low hanging television cable that had been strung between two electricity poles, was electrocuted and died.

Just four days later, on July 16, disaster struck Kumbakonam, in neighbouring Tamil Nadu. A fire started in the kitchen of a private school where the mid-day meal was being prepared. It quickly spread to a row of thatched roof classrooms. Over 90 children in the primary classes died, trapped when the roof collapsed, and constrained from escape by a narrow exit passage.

In the Bangalore city administration, sufficient rules exist that stipulate how television cables have to be strung, and how the work has to be supervised, and by whom, and what permissions have to be received. In Tamil Nadu, there are sufficient rules that stipulate the nature of structures that are permitted for schools, the number and size of exits from fire safety point of view, the procedures for granting permissions, and so on. Yet, the two disasters took place because the existing rules were not followed by the private individuals, and the concerned `public officials' were not performing the duties for which they were drawing their salaries.

An immediate target for the public's anger is usually the bureaucracies involved. An assumption is that the various officials in these organisations must be corrupt and have by-passed the rules that they are responsible for enforcing. This could be true. But bureaucracies are elaborate in their rules regarding supervision also. Inspections are a means of checking and making sure that systems are being followed. When supervisors review and inspect the work of subordinates, they are performing a role that a bureaucratic system has incorporated for the efficient functioning of the system. The bureaucratic system of checks and appeals to higher-level officials about the functioning at lower levels is meant to take care of lapses.

Residents in Anish's neighborhood mentioned to reporters that they had complained to the authorities about the low hanging cable a couple of days before the accident but no action had been taken. Thus, we have a bureaucracy that was not functioning; either it was slow moving or inefficiency had moved to fairly high levels in the organisation concerned. But, in any event, 100 per cent inspections are not possible and should not be required. Industrial engineering tells us that if all the products need to be inspected for quality, then it reveals an inherent failure of the production process.

Meanwhile, the respective State governments moved to deal with the issues. Ministers visited those affected, compensation amounts were announced. Candles have been lit. In a knee-jerk reaction, the Bangalore Electric Supply Company (BESCOM) went around town cutting cable wires that had been strung from electric poles. The Karnataka Government next issued notice to cable operators to ``regularise the illegal drawing of cables from electric poles". Concerned engineers were suspended for dereliction of duty. In Tamil Nadu, the school officials were arrested on grounds of negligence, and a commission under a retired judge has been appointed to investigate the fire. Meanwhile, the government has issued notice to all schools in the state to dismantle thatched roofs.

The actions taken by the government make us feel good that something is being done. Yet, they are tactical reactions to a crisis and not solutions to the problem. Neither the actions taken by the respective governments, nor the genuine shock of all (including the officials) has woken them to look at other areas where laxity in enforcement of rules can cause similar disasters. Or to ponder about why the rules are not being followed in the first place.

Anish's case is exceptional in the sense that it is surprising that many more such tragedies do not happen. I took a walk down Sampige Road in Malleswaram, Bangalore, a busy shopping street, within days of the Anish electrocution and found that almost every lamp post had wires sticking out from the base, connections had been loosely taped together and exposed not only to the elements but to all passers by. And low-hanging cables existed between electric poles. Two weeks after Anish's death, a tourist from Oman staying in an apartment in Bangalore leaned over from the balcony, came in contact with protruding wires, and was electrocuted. Within days of the Kumbakonam disaster, newspapers reported how the gas cooking stove at another school exploded and fire was narrowly averted by the students and the teachers. Government's, even in democracies, don't seem to learn lessons.

Internal inquiry by BESCOM has blamed a ``failure of the system'' for the accident. They got it wrong; the system did not fail, it was the people who ran the system who failed to follow it. The attention being paid to illegal television cables and thatched roofs in schools begs a more serious issue: whether there is something in the Indian work culture that makes us not follow an existing system. And it is not an issue that pertains to public officials alone. The private operators providing television cable connections in Bangalore were not following a system to provide efficient and safe service but were trying to manipulate the public system by stringing their cables along electricity poles. The private management of the school in Kumbakonam decided to flout a system that provided for fire safety rules.

This inherent flaw in our behaviour is revealed in several areas. By flouting traffic rules, individuals try to get through traffic on our streets to the detriment of the flow of traffic in an area. Individual householders desirous of keeping their home clean don't mind dumping the trash on the street right outside their home creating a mess in the neighbourhood. Individuals in positions of power and influence flout rules to get their work done, and thereby set up a belief that rules are meant for `others' who do not have influence. One possible reason for the desire to flout a system for personal gain without concern for others could be a quality of `individualism' that drives an overwhelming self-interest. Hofstede, a Dutch researcher, who pioneered studies into national culture calculated that India was in the middle on an individualism scale. It was neither as high as in the US nor as low as in collectivist societies such as Singapore or Taiwan. In highly individualistic societies, everyone looks after himself or herself and the immediate family. On the other hand, a collectivist orientation would find people integrated in cohesive groups and caring for extended families. But in the high and low collectivist societies mentioned, people largely follow rules.

Perhaps, by falling in between this range, we find the Indian individualistic enough to want to maximise his benefits and caring for his family, but without a concern for what effects it may have on others belonging to the same society. He does not draw a distinction between where his personal space ends and that of others begins.

By extension, we can hypothesise that the Indian sees a system as devised by `others' for `others'. If he can violate the system to reap the maximum benefit for himself and his family, so be it. The ferry boat owner who overloads the boat and capsizes is fully aware that violations can harm the public, but is not concerned enough to adhere to the rules of for the larger good of society, and lets it affect his work ethic. If only we can channelise this individualism and desire to break the rules into more creative areas to find solutions to our nagging problems, we will have a safer and more robust society.

(The author is professor of international business and strategic management at Suffolk University, Boston, US. His Internet address is cgopinat@suffolk.edu)

More Stories on : Insight | Accidents | American Periscope

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Tinkering with tariffs

Individual self-interest overrides system's needs

Engineering solutions to inflation

Fixed maturity plans: Managing interest rate risks through them

Energy security — Devise alternative strategies on war footing

Gandhi's torch

On savings in a season of lending

Age limit

Essential drugs