The objective, relevance and effectiveness of punishment

Foreword, prelude, disclaimer, pre-clarification, setting the context or whatever
This blog was motivated by the recent developments around the Salman case hit and run case. Truth be told, the seeds of this post and many more that is sure to follow in future were sown when the collective mind of the nation was gripped by the Kasab trial.

At present, this blog will read like notes jotted on the back of an envelope. And it is so. This is thought-in-progress. The thought - and the blog - are developing. So, until then. Read on. And comment. Thanks.

The post (draft no. 1)
I remember a line from Kevin Costner starrer: Robin Hood: Prince of thieves - "what do you do when the only way to uphold justice is to break the law"? The Indian legal system was created by the British and needless to say it was designed as a maze of statements to manipulate the situation and confuse the layman primarily to prevent justice from being delivered. Understandably it suited the British. But wily Indian politicians will not allow the system to change because it is a powerful tool that helps them get away with murder. What we need is justice and not law. And we dont need the police, lawyer or a judge to deliver justice. I am not talking about "kanoon ko apne haath mein lena". I believe in the power, supremacy and purity of human conscience. I believe that a guilty conscience is more effective than all the laws of the world put together. I believe criminals are not afraid of justice, they are afraid of laws. Criminals plead 'not-guilty' not because they are bad people. But they do so because they too dont trust the logic of law. Just for the sake of discussion - what did we achieve by hanging Kasab? Will that stop a jihadist who is anyway brain-washed to give up his life? On the contrary would justice have been delivered if Kasab was asked to take care of the elderly parents of a young man he killed? Coming to Salman's case, what do we achieve by meting out irrelevant punishments like imprisonment? Will that solve drunken driving amongst us? Question is, can laws do anything at all in matters that reside in the realm of the human conscience? Let us ask ourselves this - 'do we speak the truth because there is a law? Will we start lying if there is a law that prohibits speaking the truth? Or do we do so because our conscience says so?'

Addendum 1
What is a 'good' punishment? I recently attended a talk on 'environmental laws' delivered by an official of the 'Pollution Control Board'. When he was talking about punitive measures/ penalties I couldn't help wondering how monetary fines and imprisonment would help clean up the mess that the violator had made. For an erring business/ businessman, nothing would hurt more than a dent in its/his/her finances. So, at best the fine and imprisonment could be relevant deterrents. But after a violation has been made, what about the polluted water/ air/ land?

Therefore what should be the objective of punishment? Is it to simply give back a tit for a tat? Sort of an eye for an eye? Is punishment just a legal way of payback? Or can punishment be something else? Something other than a different way of hurting? Should punishment be something else?

Punishments have always been (and still are) designed to be a preventive deterrent (almost always), a predictive deterrent (sometimes) and corrective deterrent (rarely).

MBI and MBR – Welcome a new brand of MBA

Some people don’t make good managers and leaders primarily for two reasons – their management styles and their life philosophy. In this satirical article we shall identify the traits of such managers, why they behave like they do; what are the implications for employers and the society and how they can address these issues.

Although a lot of people pursue and secure an MBA qualification, the management they practice is MBI (management by ignoring) and MBR (management by reaction).

Management by ignoring

Whenever they are faced with a situation or a problem that needs their attention, their immediate response is to ignore it. Ignoring doesn’t mean lack of acknowledgement of the problem. It doesn’t mean lack of responsiveness. Of course the person would lend a patient ear and in most cases unnecessarily long periods of time to hear things out. But then this is followed by inaction. This inaction is shrouded and packaged under the veneer of ‘mulling over’ or ‘thinking over’. And this behavior is generally accepted and respected even because of the negative connotation associated with immediate response.

This brings us to a very important cultural belief about venerability and speed of response. Centuries of cultural conditioning have made some people associate slow speech with thoughtfulness. Depiction of sages in movies, teachers, advisors, religious heads and generally wise men in the media such as movies and other electronic media is proof of this belief. A wise man is not supposed to speak fast. Fast speech is perceived to be a sign of lack of contemplation. This stereotype is so strongly ingrained in the psyche of both the perpetrators and the audience that even the most uncouth politician gets rapt attention and awe-filled respect generally reserved for and deserved by erudite academics when he utters the most mundane statements in measured words interspersed with dramatic pauses. Histrionics at its best.

Indian dignitaries have taken this veneration for unhurriedness to a whole new level. Tardiness and unpunctuality has been honed into a fine art. Being late and slow becomes a medal or a hat that a person is supposed to wear as soon as he or she rises in life. As the level rises, the medals become heavier; the hat becomes larger.

Coming back to the practice of ignoring, the higher our manager or leader is in the pecking order, the more rampant; the more frequent and the more intense the ignoring becomes.

There is also another reason why such a manager or leader prefers to ignore a problem. And that has got to do with the cultural take on permanency of power. Democracy has meant that some leaders know that change or transfer of power is imminent – an undeniable fact of life. They know that they will have to relinquish their post and power soon. Soon enough for them to conveniently ignore the problem and allow it to fester until it becomes the next person’s headache. So, there is an ownership problem. Whether it is the executives in professionally-run corporations or ministers in the government or bureaucrats of the Administrative Services lack of ownership is evident.

The executive has the option of a job hop when the going gets tough; the bureaucrat has the specter of transfer; the minister has the luxury of elections.

For instance, family-run businesses have, are and will be the most stable and successful enterprises in India because the captain is not going to abandon his ship at the first sign of trouble.

The MBI syndrome is largely observed amongst those in top management.

Management by Reaction

Another interesting practice amongst some managers and leaders is reactive management. This sounds contradictory to ‘management by ignoring’ but it is not. ‘Management by reaction’ implies symptomatic treatment of the issue. It means the habit and practice of applying immediate quick-fixes without making any attempt to get to the root cause of the problem – a trait common among some managers and leaders.

This trait does not contradict but actually complements the ‘management by ignoring’ trait in as far as any balm and Band-Aid that makes the problem ‘go away’ in the immediate thereby buying time to ignore the problem is always welcome.

So when and why does such a manager or leader resort to reactive management and symptomatic treatment?

There is an interesting explanation for the quick-fix style followed by these managers and leaders. They have a very different childhood compared to children from other parts of the world. The immense importance placed by society on education has meant that as children they rarely enjoy their childhood and youth. The pressure from parents and teachers to secure higher marks has traditionally meant that some people spend the first two decades of their lives immersed in text books and tuitions and classes. This means that they never enjoy adolescence the way children in other countries do. Interactions with the opposite sex; sports all take a back seat. This has a psychological effect on them. This deprivation means that the unfulfilled desires remain dormant.

Added to this is the belief in some cultures that a good education is a ticket to a comfortable life. Higher the qualification, higher is the position that one could and should expect in life. This belief is not only constantly drilled into the child by the family from an early stage but is also constantly reinforced by teachers, peers and society at large. What this ultimately means is that highly educated people in every field make every attempt to secure the comfort that they have been conditioned to expect. And this means that these people associate the word position with power and authority and not with responsibility. The child is constantly lectured and made to believe that two decades of sincerity; discipline and hard work will buy them a lifetime of pleasure, power and paycheck.  By the time the person becomes a manager he would have sacrificed so much that he would have exhausted all his energy as well as intent to remain responsible. And this has a direct effect on his time management skills.

The notorious lack of time management skills is to blame for management by reaction. How this affects management skills is depicted by this illustration:

The non-Indian’s daily schedule

Arrive in office at	8:55 AM
Prepare a cup of coffee and get ready to begin work at	9 AM
Focus on work till	1:00 PM
Lunch break and socializing with colleagues till	1:25 PM
Get back to work at	1:30 PM
Work till and leave office at	5:30 PM
TOTAL WORKING HOURS	8 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN OFFICE	8.5 HOURS

 The Indian’s daily schedule

Arrive in office at	8:15 AM
Check personal emails and browse the Internet (Facebook etc), socialize with other colleagues (discuss politics, sports, movies) , coffee break till	10:00 AM
Start work at	10:00 AM
Work till	12:30 PM
Discuss lunch options till	1:00 PM
Lunch break and further socializing with colleagues till	2:30 PM
Get back to work at	2:30 PM
Take a coffee/ cigarette break at	4:00 PM
Get back to work at	4:30 PM
Focus on work till	8:30 PM
TOTAL WORKING HOURS	8 HOURS
TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN OFFICE	12 HOURS

This shows that some managers needs to make time every day to accommodate all those pleasures that he has kept suppressed all these years. The manager, who has ‘earned’ the position in life through sacrifices, cherishes his privileges a lot. He is now a free bird and values this new-found freedom. Problems and challenges are minor irritations that are best done away with. Enter the reactive manager. A quick-fix here so that he can go home early (it is already 8PM); a Band-Aid there until the problem gets solved by itself.

The MBR syndrome is more commonly observed amongst middle level managers.

Why does this mentality exist in the first place?

To understand this better, one has to understand the ‘chakra’ or cyclical philosophy. Amongst some cultures the cyclical nature of things is deeply entrenched. Some call it the cycle or play of karma. When an Indian wins a jackpot, he will definitely be thrilled immediately, but very soon his joy gets tempered down by the belief that his gain today was because he had a major loss earlier and/or his gain today could mean that he could lose this all tomorrow. The Indian’s response to a loss too is quite similar. When faced with adversity or a crisis, an Indian sooner or later rationalizes thus – this adversity is a punishment for something that he had done earlier and/or a crisis today definitely means relief tomorrow.

This fatalistic attitude means that Indians rarely or never internalize the issue and look within themselves, but blame external factors for their problems. They irrationally and inexplicably hope for some magic wand; hand of fate or stroke of miracle to make the problem go away.

What does this mean for all of us?

The writing on the wall is clear for different stakeholders.

For Indian parents –

-          Allow your children to have a happy, healthy, wholesome and natural childhood and adolescence.

-          Teach your children that the purpose of education is to perform one’s duty towards society and become responsible members of society

-          Do not promote two decades of education as sacrifice with a promise of heaven

-          Do not portray professions as destinations but as the start of a serious journey

For Indian society –

-          Start venerating people based on their punctuality and respect for time

-          Value people based on their responsiveness and not oratory skills

-          Do not settle for immediate benefits and short-term gains. Demand a permanent and relevant resolution to your problems

For corporations and governments –

-          Democracy is not always about fundamental rights. It is high-time that fundamental duties are enforced strictly in all offices

-          Convey clearly that jobs are not privileges, but responsibilities

-          Ensure that fatalistic philosophy of Indians does not percolate decision making amongst managers