Can we learn from Satyam?

Satyam Computer Services grew from its 1987 roots to become the face of India's IT juggernaut with tens of thousand of staff spread across the globe.  It all came crashing down early in 2009 when Satyam founder and company chair, Ramalinga Raju, revealed that, in essence, the books had been cooked.
 
His oft quoted observation, "it was like riding a tiger, not knowing how to get off without being eaten,” is somehow comforting. We can understand it...what a fearsome, lonely ride, we might think.  Well, celebrity continues with a cover shot on Business Week and the inevitable "India's Enron" seen in The Economist.

Deeper truths: humans make up systems

There is a collusion, conscious and unconscious,  that is required to deliver the kind of catastrophe seen at Satyam. The human capacity to choose what to see, believe and act on is probably what keeps us sane in the daily struggle to navigate through the workplace...but it also destroys the soul and enables  malfeasance.

We see this every day at the water cooler... the subtle sniping at "them", justifications for injustices small and large, the fatalism that in turn justifies petty ways to get one's own back.  This provokes disgust and disappointment in those that hold one viewpoint; from another, the revulsion is reserved for those known to be opposed to such behaviour. They are painted as uncooperative, weak or not one of the team. 

Both views coexist and often both groups step into their "member of the larger group" mindset to shut out the minutia that reveals the truth of an organization in favour of the prettier and well marketed picture that is adopted to cloak reality.

Behaviours within organizations are often miles apart from the image presented in vision statements and governance models, development programs, international award receptions and campaigns to sell that image.  The image is, after all, good for business.  The reality is...awkward.


In my view, the greatest and the riskiest thing is to build capacity within the organization to recognize the incongruities at the smallest levels of human interaction as well as the systemic level as forces in the business as well as impacts on human beings.  Then, take that consciousness and engage in trustworthy development of corrective action--individually and collectively. 

Too much "growth" today is built on the specious  (but very lucrative)  notion that mergers and aquisitions represent value.  Businesses aimed at growth through merger and acquisition for their own sake rather than sustainable profit based on value production are unlikely to take the gamble. This is a time for us to reconsider what value is and what part each of us has to play in it. This is a time to start thinking of organizations as intellectual capital and managing it accordingly.

I'm working on a book with coleague and partner Robert Tornack and trying to find the language that can inform on this level while also providing a roadmap to achieving the knowledge-focused enterprise. It is a challenge in part because, like any new approach, until it is so ingrained that one can focus on outcomes, the system is focused on process.  The old bromide, "the operation was a success! but the patient died" is a factor of exactly this focus on process.

Know what it takes to deliver quality outcomes

My advice is to focus on outcomes, constraining process only to the degree necessary for accountability. This takes a different kind of governance model to ensure transparency and a recognition that contemporaneous record-keeping is at the core of authenticty and reliability in performance.

Community also means shared accountability

A recent question focused on what can leaders do after such a catastrophe.  Certainly, it may be appropriate that a top leader to take the wrap for the organization as a whole as Mr. Raju has done. But, despite protestations to the contrary, the organization knows better. 

Organizational culture is the outcome of collaboration and every individual is accountable for influencing it.  Mr. Raju's censure is important, but does not absolve the culture that enabled it.