Change- Do we really believe in?
“This year I will change myself”
The above sentence or some version of it have already been repeated multiple times by us or by those around us. The start of a new year brings a gush of resolutions that we promise to firmly stand by and fulfill in the hope of reaching the penultimate change. Be it in hitting that number on weight scale, giving more time to loved ones or watching the YouTube course on some hobby that we promised we would take up, the month of January is full of optimism and vigor. This is when you see gym memberships skyrocket around the city, family gatherings and occasions increase exponentially and people just spend more time trying to be the version they promised to be themselves. But invariably, as the month draws to an end, with subsequent months creeping in till well in the end of March, most of us quickly realize, promises are meant to be broken, that too, very early on.
The wind of optimism that swipes through us in the start of January, applies to the institutions around us too. The January-Filter, (as I call it), is swiped right on all decision making processes among the decision makers. Of course one may argue that most decisions are (and should technically be) based on a good ground of optimism, the excessive application of the January filter clouds the vision from making good judgement calls. Companies resort to making ambitious Gantt chart of progress, HR begins to dish out new assortment of training sessions and target setting, as much a they say is based on previous performances, are actually based on what the expectation is, particularly if major investments have undergone.
None of these are inherently harmful. Ambitious plans are the lethargy curing potion. At least you know, you would have reached some state of success, even if not the exact target. But there’s are two main downsides to aiming high.
- Optimized resource selection;
Aiming for the moon with the hope of landing in the stars if failed, proves your navigation is faulty.
Starting of on a macro notion to explain this scenario, let’s think how government spending and budgeting gets decided (in the laymen’s term). When it comes to government policies involving infrastructural spending, much of the plans undertaken usually have a bar set higher than what the government have achieved in past years. The ambitious national budget is often considered a finagle, with the subpar tax revenue generation plan. As a result, the ministries are forced to optimize the resources accordingly over the year, achieving an even lower target.
When it comes to private organizations, much of the resources are already utilized (often over-worked) to an extent where further expansion would mean increasing the size of resources. Afterall, an executive can only produce productive work for a certain amount of time in a day. Increasing target while expecting this to happen, would mean either increase the amount of productive time (for which the incremental value would be too low), or increase manpower. Hence, most companies opt for an increase in manpower. Given the rush of getting started early on, and staying on track, even the selection process gets hampered. In the end, best resources remain unfound or under-tapped due to a lack of thorough and reasonable planning.
2. Tracking deficiencies
Follow through everything. It’s the only way to discern if you have succeeded or failed, in the long run.
With a multiple plans undertaken at the same time, and with the need to provide the finalized plan within a short stipulated time, individuals tend to overlook the importance of monitoring. Every project undertaken must be tracked to the extent where you know what to expect at each stage of the month. Lack of pointers to dictate the tracks and the pace only make the plan a shallow display of possible ideas, but not necessarily plausible ones. Lucid and easily navigable measuring system for projects help everyone stay on track, and help pull the brakes on time prior to any upcoming risks or challenges.
In general, the two mentioned above hold true for individuals too.
When we set our resolutions, we only envision the sweet taste of the consequences and not necessarily the bitter little sacrifices we might have to make. The collective feel-good January-filter tightens the trap over time and we realize how far away you really are from the target.Targets get revised,projects get protracted, and what should have been allowed to fail, are given longer time for survival.
So what is the way around? Do we stop making resolutions because we know we would inevitably fail? Do we stop making ambitious plans for the fear of failure? Of course not. In fact, we change the way we view change. In his famous book “Power of Habit” by Charles Du-Higg illustrates an important issue. You can not build a successful habit unless you have a clear idea of what it means. You can’t simply tell yourself you will wake up in the morning for a jog, and actually go out there for it. Instead, you have to remind yourself what you will have to sacrifice, and create a reward, so that the habit may sustain your day to day drudgery. Similarly, while setting out upcoming year plan, it is important to be able to understand what the company or individual would have to sacrifice, what will truly change, and which changes are likely to be profitable. It is not enough to simply chalk out a plan and expect everyone to follow through. Rather it is important to chalk out the process of sacrifices or changes that are forthcoming. Whether it’s your own resolution, or your company’s targets, the best way to minimize damage, is to objectively envision the future. As the age old saying goes, hope for the best, but prepare for the worst.
