We are on the threshold of a great opportunity. We, as a nation, are becoming self-conscious of our power, our capacity for greatness, and our untapped potential – both in terms of people and resources.

How are we to realize this great opportunity? How do we convert this dream into a reality?

Why is this a question in the first place? Why must we worry whether our dreams will be converted into a reality?

The reason is because we have in the past several decades, seen similar, if smaller visions, but have, in the final analysis, failed to mobilize ourselves as a people, as a national collective to realize this vision.

Why the failure to mobilize?

There are two reasons commonly presented:

1. That we are a diverse nation, with a wide range of economic and social needs – from the tribals of Bastar, to the rural population, to the urban elite.

2. That we are a democracy, due to which any action however worthy and well intentioned, is capable of, and does get blocked, by numerous contrary interests.

Both these arguments – that we are diverse and a large and complex democracy meant that all solutions were necessarily consensual, “diluted” and delayed by the time they became acceptable.

In the past decade, there has been a huge effort at awakening our nation at all levels. This has had extremely positive effects. But they have depended on the will and focus of a small group of individuals rather than the nation at large.

So, a deeper challenge has emerged – how to create a nationwide awakening and sustainable change?

To answer this, we need to answer, what is sustainable change?

There are two paths to sustainable change: one path is system-driven change; and the second path is individual-driven change.

Pathway 1: System-driven Change

What does system-driven change mean in the Indian context? In the Indian context, it means changes at 4 levels – at the political level, institutional level, community level and individual level.

1. At the political level, change will mean a political class that goes beyond immediate pressures, and is committed to longer-term public interest.

2. At the institutional level, change will mean rebuilding institutional purpose as the driving force for change.

3. At the individual level, change means rebuilding the sense of citizenship and responsibility – beyond self.

4. At the community level, change means acceptance of new ways of thinking and doing rather than a blind rejection of the new in favor of an older way of doing things.

All four types of change have to take place simultaneously – across a nation of 1.4 billion individuals, across thousands of communities, across several hundred institutions, and across a political system that has been systematically corroded over decades – for real change to take place.

Pathway 2: Individual-centered Change

Driving system-led change requires us to take on a gigantic task of fighting inertial forces in every part of our country.

Furthermore, it requires comprehensive efforts at all levels – political, institutional, community, and individual.

There is an alternative path also open to us – one which involves creating the critical mass of changemakers – who by their presence, numbers, and actions – strengthen evolutionary behavior in all parts of the country.

These changemakers, we call contributors. Contributors are individuals who first and foremost focus on expanding themselves – from narrow selfishness to enlightened self-interest which includes not just self, but also institutions and society.

Contributors are those who find solutions and create new possibilities instead of complaining and feeling like victims. Contributors build trust and integrity consistently across all actions. This creates mutual faith and trust in the country.

Contributors are, in short, nation builders, not those who seek to harvest the efforts of others and remain mute spectators, when gigantic challenges need to be overcome.

We need more contributors and a contributor work ethic in governance, business, civil society, and in the day-to-day lives of millions of Indians.

Can we, therefore, intentionally create such a contributor ethic in our society by developing contributors systematically in our schools, colleges, industry, government, and other sectors of society?

Through the development of such a contributor ethic – a cultural, social, and mindset change will sweep across the nation. This will result in an “inside-out change” in the country, where evolution rather than revolution becomes the basis of change.

Integrating both types of change: Human Systems Change

In practice, perhaps, the best solution would probably be a system-driven change driven by committed leaders in institutions and government, combined with a deeper socio-cultural and mindset change brought about by a contribution ethic in all sections of society.

This new model of change we call Human Systems Change.

Human Systems Change recognizes the importance of both perspectives – institutional and human. It also recognizes that the purpose of system is to benefit human beings and make human lives better.

Illumine has applied the human systems perspective in several large organizational systems across government, corporates, education, and communities: including the Capacity Building Commission, MITRA, Indian Railways, SBI, and India Post, large corporations in software, steel, financial services, FMCG, and 400 engineering colleges and 5,000+ schools.

We have learnt that this approach is particularly valuable when
organizations (1) seek to be purpose-centric in their approach, (2) seek to adapt and innovate in a changing world, and (3) seek to create ‘space’ for individuals to contribute while finding ways for the entire ‘value chain’ or system to deliver to its scale goals.

Through this approach, thousands of institutions can be remobilized, or better still, reoriented to their core purposes of serving society and stakeholders.

In this approach, contributors matter, and so do systems, but what matters more is the focus on human welfare and development of our nation.

This question can be best answered when we attempt to perceive three key trends in our society:

• The trend towards increased consumerism

• The trend towards increased aspiration

• The trend towards increased achievement

Achievement, aspiration, and consumerism appear to be the same force or idea within our society – especially at the level of manifestation.

Great achievement, great aspiration, and great consumerism, all reflect in an atmosphere of pomp & glory within the society – all three are celebrated as “success”.

However, there are fundamental differences between all three:

Aspiration reflects human desire to become more than what one is. This is an “inside-out” phenomenon in a human being.

Achievement reflects human capacity to accomplish – getting things done. This reflects an individual’s capacity to shape the world around him or her.

Consumerism reflects human desire for “results” – for experiencing pleasure – whether or not accompanied by aspiration or achievement.

When a society reflects the trend towards all three, aspiration (transformed states of being), achievement (increased capacity to influence and accomplish), and consumerism (increased desire to taste pleasure), then it gets into a dynamic – that is self-generative.

However, such a society faces a threat – the threat of “weakness” – born of a subtle shift in priorities.

As long as aspiration drives achievement drives consumerism, the society grows joyously.

When achievement drives consumerism drives aspiration, the society becomes stressed and competitive.

When consumerism drives achievement drives aspiration, the society becomes deeply selfish and grasping.

The threat derives from the fact that (a) it is hard to recognize what is driving behavior in society at a point in time (b) it is harder still to recognize a subtle shift in priorities – when a society is growing rapidly.

Perhaps this may be a simple explanation for decadence in societies like the Roman Empire, wherein, across generations, the shift took place subtly and not so subtly – the result being a decline from great aspiration to empty consumption.

It is here that the “Culture of Strength” in a society becomes relevant.

The Culture of Strength reflects a society’s capacity to retain its sense of priorities – celebrating aspiration and new levels of being over achievement, and acknowledging achievement more than consumerism in its public discourse.

This capacity is born of a deeper value called renunciation.

Renunciation does not mean “giving up”, but it means constantly “clearing the space”.

When a society constantly “clears the space” for fresh perspectives, fresh ideas, new debate, new challenges, then that society may be said to be “renouncing” its notions of success and failure and preparing itself for new growth.

“Clearing the space” is a non-trivial function in society. It means a vibrant intellectual life, it means openness to alternative models of thinking and doing, it means the willingness to test and experiment with new models of transformation both personally and interpersonally, and most important, it means the capacity to discriminate and judge among alternatives.

“Clearing the space” is possible in a society only when there is a method to integrate creative ferment with institutional stability.

It is this same “creating the space” phenomenon that can cause organizations to become moribund, or retain a fresh flow of innovation with itself.

The society’s capacity to architect and sustain this function of “clearing the space” may be said to reflect its true strength.

A society is strong when it can discriminate between (i) good ideas and bad, (ii) valuable models and those that are destructive, (iii) positive ideals and those that corrode, (iv) enabling values and values that weaken.

A Culture of Strength would be one where these four dimensions are constantly freed of preconceived notions, and society is able to select and act upon, across alternatives on all four dimensions effectively.

Such a Culture of Strength would ensure that the society would continue to live in a positive dynamic of aspiration → achievement → fruits.

Deep behavioral change needs a transformative learning paradigm

Most training programs focus only on knowledge, skills and techniques. They rarely change how people think, how they engage in complex situations, or how citizens experience the system. That is why training alone rarely produces real transformation.

A deep behavioral change program needs a transformative learning paradigm. While a superficial behavioral change program may be done through a skilling paradigm.

What is a transformative learning paradigm?

A transformative learning paradigm seeks to change our thinking, mindsets and behaviour. On the other hand, a skilling paradigm focusses on acquiring specific capabilities to accomplish specific tasks.

Transformative learning includes within its scope the acquisition of specific skills and capabilities. But, when we seek to build intrinsic motivation to serve, or an expanded vision of one’s role, or when one is trying to change the way one interacts with citizens, a skilling paradigm is not enough. Such deep behavioral changes need a transformative learning paradigm.

What kind of outcomes are met in a transformative learning paradigm?

Four kinds of outcomes that you should check for:

1. Learning outcomes. The focus should be on ‘understanding’.

There are several types of learning outcomes. Examples include acquiring knowledge, understanding concepts, learning specific skills, etc. Most traditional training programs stop at learning outcomes.

2. Cognitive outcomes. The focus should be on ‘change in thinking’.

This is applicable to outcomes like changing my thinking, my beliefs, my mental models of the world around me, or the mental tools that I use for engaging with the world.

While ‘tools for thinking’ may be learnt through a skilling paradigm, the deeper mental model shifts need transformative learning.

3. Dynamic response outcomes. The focus should be on ‘how I respond and engage with life/ stakeholders on a real-time basis’.

To engage dynamically, I need to change my modes of engagement, for example, becoming proactive, and moving from being a victim of circumstance to a creator of my destiny.

It is only through a dynamic response capability that I will be able to effectively handle citizen flashpoints, respond to difficult situations, and interact positively with citizens in real-time.

While certain types of scenario-based dynamic response capabilities can be built through skilling, changing one’s modes of engagement requires transformative learning.

4. Citizen/ customer trust outcomes. The focus should be on ‘sustaining positive contributions to the lives of citizens/ customers’.

Closure reflection:

The transformative learning paradigm helps in crossing the bridge from knowing to doing.

Thus, a good training program for deep behaviour change must help learners cross the bridge from knowledge to action. Otherwise, it is not sustainable in the long run.

Illumine’s experience in deep behavioral change

Over the last 2 decades, Illumine has carried out deep behavioral change interventions in over 5 million people.

These interventions span diverse contexts ranging from oil & gas, banking and financial services, FMCG retailing, capital projects, manufacturing, citizen services like policing, postal, railways, school & higher education, and community transformation.

In an age when everything is being disrupted the notion of “sustainable change” becomes important.

To understand this, let us understand change better using 3 reflections.

Reflection 1: What is the nature of change?

• Change can be gradual or fast (pace of change)

• Change can be marginal or fundamental (scope of change)

• Change can be short term or long term in its effects (effects of change)

• Change can be imposed from outside or driven form within (cause of change)

• Change can be at a business level, at an environmental level, at a product level, or at a human level (unit of change)

Q: Can you use this framework to understand the nature of change your organization is facing?

Reflection 2: How does an organization deal with change?

1. Does it deal with change on a “case to case” basis i.e. identify the change and respond to it? (reactive approach)

2. Does it deal with change on a “comprehensive rethink” basis to identify a cluster of changes and design a holistic response to deal with the entire cluster of changes? (proactive approach)

3. Does it deal with change on a “continuous basis”, i.e. the organization is architected to absorb and handle this continuous change, i.e change no longer is the exception, it is the rule based on which the organization behaves? (sense-respond approach)

In today’s environment it appears that continuous change and architecting organizations to deal with continuous change on a day-to-day basis seems to be the only way organizations can truly thrive/ sustain, i.e. organizations need to deal with change on an ongoing basis in a sense-respond manner.

Q: What is your strategy for change? Is it reactive? Proactive? Or Sense-Respond?

Reflection 3: What does it mean to deal with change using this sense-respond approach?

It means:

• Dealing with change in a sustained manner, i.e. all the time without stress building up in the system, and

• Dealing with change on a sustainable basis, i.e. the organization’s design takes into account the non-stable nature of markets, customers, production systems, people composition, etc. i.e. all variables are changing, yet outcomes are maintained on a sustained basis.

This is “sustainable change” – being able to maintain key organizational and business outcomes as per design, while retaining flexibility and responding appropriately, in all structural, process, and human dimensions.

Q: What are the non-negotiable business outcomes you really want in your organization - not for today alone, but for the years to come (despite all changes inside & outside your organization)?

A set of levers were identified. In this issue we explore the first lever: Creating an organization-wide alignment to strategy.

Why does alignment repeatedly fail? Illumine’s research highlights the factors that hamper alignment. Here is a quick map of the 4 factors with illustrative examples:

1: Disconnect with the ‘why’ of the strategy

It is the ‘why’ that gives meaning and purpose to work. It creates ownership. It also improves collaboration and inter-team engagement. Aligning with the ‘why’ is a magic elixir for leaders, especially those driving large systems.

2: Strategic vision gets reduced to targets

In the FMCG sector, a boardroom strategy to increase sachet distribution based on complex market data is translated for a delivery person as simply ‘sell these 5 boxes’. Without the strategic logic, the employee lacks buy-in and performs the task only because ‘the boss said so’.

3: Short-term vs. long-term misalignment to business goals

Leadership prioritizes quarterly wins, like showing low production costs. A manager mines only the high-grade limestone to hit immediate targets, but the plant’s long-term viability suffers.

4: Macro vision doesn’t fractalize into role visions

In large banks, a Managing Director discusses billions in profits over a quarterly call. For a local teller, this macro vision is meaningless. This information has no relevance to the teller because the macro vision has not been translated into logic that is understandable in the context of their specific role.

The Illumine experience:

Alignment can be done at any level of scale. For example, Illumine successfully completed one of the largest alignment exercises undertaken by a Government, where it enabled 1 million central government employees across 500 institutions align with the larger strategy of Viksit Bharat 2047. This was the Rashtriya Karmayogi Jan Seva Program, organized by the Capacity Building Commission of India. Illumine was the Knowledge Partner for this intervention.

They are able to conceive of, design, and communicate the larger purpose, goals, vision, strategy, etc. to their entire organization.

This is the Big Foot.

But they soon realize that people in the organization pay lip service to the Big Foot and are continuing to keep moving in their own directions.

This is what happens:

Now, their deeper and more challenging goal is to get every ‘small foot’ aligned to the larger goal.

But that cannot happen through diktat and memos. Even incentives and punishments have their limitations.

The small feet will align with the big foot only if they choose to do so, i.e. use their agency and commit to the larger foot.

If this can be done, then the organization looks like this:

How is this state of alignment to be achieved? The big foot is top down. The small feet are bottom up. The alignment is the thread that keeps it all together.

Alignment means mass-individualized change, i.e. change is not ‘driven’ in the organization, it is discovered and accepted by each individual.

The challenge is to achieve alignment at scale, speed, measurability, and reasonable cost, so that organizations can re-calibrate quickly to a changing world.

One example from our work:

A Fortune 500 company wanted to introduce new business and operating models to unleash the potential of its ecosystem of dealers & partners. This needed ‘buy-in’ and ‘commitment’ from the members of the ecosystem.

A ‘vivid-visioning’ exercise, scaled across thousands of ecosystem members, enabled each individual business to discover the value of the model, ‘vivid vision’ how it would transform the business, and commit their time & resources to the new initiative.

The initiative not only scaled up but also accomplished sustainable outcomes.

Growth in AI capabilities is beyond the control of most leaders. It is driven on a global scale and is fast accelerating. The only thing we can do is seek to learn & “understand” what is going on.

Growth in “capacity to leverage AI” is in our hands. It is driven, not by AI skills (which are easily learnt) but the deeper metacognitive skills needed to leverage AI (the way we think, the way our thought models are constructed, the way we translate information overload into meaningful action, etc.)

Now consider 3 scenarios:

Scenario 1:

If AI capabilities far exceed the metacognitive capacity of a group of people, they will not just underuse AI, they will also be swept away by change.

Scenario 2:

Organizations that build their metacognitive capacity will build “organization-wide intelligence”, i.e. a collective capacity to radically improve efficiencies, create innovative new products & models, and radically rethink business models.

Scenario 3:

The few, rare, high collective intelligence systems which have “generative metacognitive capacities” will lead how others think about the world. They are the radical disruptors.

The challenge before us:

1. How to avoid Scenario 1?
   Build core metacognitive capacities across the organization

2. How to sustainably operate in Scenario 2?
   Build at least a group of people who are constantly evolving in their “capacity to think” (i.e. evolutionary meta-cognitive capacities)

3. Can we work in Scenario 3?
   Extremely high metacognitive capacity means that as an organization or a leadership team you are fundamentally “inside-out”, i.e. you understand that your sensemaking can reshape the world you live in. As a result, you will be able to build radically new models in which AI will play a part. Ensure that at least the top leadership operates in Scenario 3.