Integrative Approach to Governance - A Lesson from Red Hat
In October of 2014, I learnt an important lesson at a business meeting. It was about the integrative approach to problem solving.
Integrative thinking is "the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models, and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superior to each."(as defined by The Rotman School of Management)
Backtrack to the meeting, I was enjoying the task of picking up skills employed by the boss in his presentation, observing mannerisms of attending clients, and devouring knowledge of business strategies as covered in the talk. The topic of the day 'Integrative approach to problem solving', and was inspired by Red Hat's integrative approach to an originally difficult choice between two imperfect business models. Red Hat is a multinational software firm providing open-source software products to the enterprise community. Because of the situational disadvantages the company was facing before its ascend to global dominance, neither of the two established models out in the market appeared to give Red Hat a good chance at money-making with a sustainable market share. So then, it cleverly engineered a third option: which served to utilize the benefits of the two original strategies while leaving out their weaknesses. That day's lesson was an important reminder that no single model consistently fits all, nor might it be practical to stick to one model for solutions.
Integrative thinking is "the ability to constructively face the tensions of opposing models, and instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generating a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new model that contains elements of the individual models, but is superior to each."(as defined by The Rotman School of Management)
Backtrack to the meeting, I was enjoying the task of picking up skills employed by the boss in his presentation, observing mannerisms of attending clients, and devouring knowledge of business strategies as covered in the talk. The topic of the day 'Integrative approach to problem solving', and was inspired by Red Hat's integrative approach to an originally difficult choice between two imperfect business models. Red Hat is a multinational software firm providing open-source software products to the enterprise community. Because of the situational disadvantages the company was facing before its ascend to global dominance, neither of the two established models out in the market appeared to give Red Hat a good chance at money-making with a sustainable market share. So then, it cleverly engineered a third option: which served to utilize the benefits of the two original strategies while leaving out their weaknesses. That day's lesson was an important reminder that no single model consistently fits all, nor might it be practical to stick to one model for solutions.
Although governing a country is different from running a business in many aspects, one clear difference being the scope of the project, the advantages of integrative problem solving apply - because combining benefits of different governing models certainly provides an edge over purely leveraging on the benefits of any one model. While there's been a barrage of online debate on the success and failures of Singapore politics, which seems healthy for the refinement of ideas to make more informed decisions at the next election (when constructive), too much emphasis might have been placed on whether Singapore succeeded as a democracy. It is, in my opinion, problematic to conflate democracy with good governance, because democracy has its mix of pros and cons just like many other forms of governance. To measure the success of political campaigns mainly on their adherence to democratic leadership is akin to concluding that democracy and good governance are directly correlated, or that democracy has a causal relationship with good governance. Many a time, I've seen people shudder at the idea of other types of governance taking over, such as that of communism, but when questioned why, they ask me to look at the example of North Korea as though the answer were self explanatory. The open secret about North Korea's lack of access to many luxuries we enjoy in capitalist states, such as a wide range of movies and unrestricted internet usage, along with their extreme methods of punishment for non-conformists (ie. public execution for watching South Korean soap operas), certainly do no justice in showing us the merits other forms of governance COULD have. Furthermore, the definition of communism is actually in essence "the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state" (as defined by dictionary.com). So theoretically, the tyranny and heavy restrictions on media accessibility of North Korea's leaders on its people are not necessary components or derivatives of communism, but rather, unfortunate results of ruthless and overbearing leader(s). Also, while many accurately identify the strengths of democratic governance, they often ignore its possible flaws or treat them as necessary evils that must be accepted along with its benefits - because there is a need to keep in line with one kind of governance (in this case, democracy), When Mr Lee Kuan Yew stated “What are our priorities? First, the welfare, the survival of the people. Then, democratic norms and processes which from time to time we have to suspend.”, he was essentially admitting that Singapore utilizes different approaches to governance from time to time, according to the needs of the nation. The purpose here is not to contest the effectiveness of that balancing act, but to acknowledge that the mark of good governance is indeed about ruling a country well at the end of the day, and not measured by whether it abides singularly to Democracy (or any one form of governance) or not.
The non-exhaustive list of possible benefits/detriments from a few types of governance are listed below:
In fact, as has been listed, there are varying pros and cons to different types of governance, and it's my belief that the most responsible kind of governance is one which integrates the benefits of various kinds of governance to benefit the country in a holistic way, while minimizing the detriments faced. Using layman analogy, without regard to price, supposing that MacDonald's french fries are superior while KFC's chicken is superior, it would make most sense to buy the separate food types from the two restaurants instead of buying all food types from any single one (note: this is purely for analogy purposes, and is not meant to accurately portray the tastes of food from either restaurants). Of course, it may be more pricey to buy the food types separately rather than as a packaged deal, just like it may be more troublesome to administer an integrative form of governance (since rules have to be in place about which types are more suitable for which aspects), but it's a possibility that I think shouldn't be chucked aside so quickly. Also, caution has to be exercised to prevent exploiting the selection of various methods of governance in different situations to suit the selfish needs of the governing party. How this caution is to be exercised is another issue altogether, which possibly necessitates further discussion.
- Meng Yee
The non-exhaustive list of possible benefits/detriments from a few types of governance are listed below:
Democracy:
Pros
- Freedom of choice
- Represents people
- PromotesTransparency
- Respect of Human Rights
- Promotes Human Rights
- Leader is held accountable for actions
Cons
- Popularity contest (spurring focus on emotion rather than reason)
- Tribal mentality (voting for team rather than for issues)
- Corruption (doling out rewards/punishment for votes)
- May not protect the rights of minority groups
- Popular policies may not be the most beneficial to the country
Capitalism:
Pros
- Efficiency
- Economic growth
- Encourages hard work
- Rewards efforts
Cons
- Monopoly power (and price exploitation)
- Ignores externalities like Social Welfare
- Inequality of wealth creates social division
- Diminishing marginal utility of wealth
Communism:
Pros
- More harmony/cohesion
- Social equality
Cons
- Stifles ambition
- Fuels poverty
- Muzzles the voice of citizens
Dictatorship:
Pros
- Stable government
-Lesser crime rate (easier for laws to be mandated;often coincides with police states)
- Expedited process
Cons
- Too much power
- No one to keep tyrannous leadership in check
In fact, as has been listed, there are varying pros and cons to different types of governance, and it's my belief that the most responsible kind of governance is one which integrates the benefits of various kinds of governance to benefit the country in a holistic way, while minimizing the detriments faced. Using layman analogy, without regard to price, supposing that MacDonald's french fries are superior while KFC's chicken is superior, it would make most sense to buy the separate food types from the two restaurants instead of buying all food types from any single one (note: this is purely for analogy purposes, and is not meant to accurately portray the tastes of food from either restaurants). Of course, it may be more pricey to buy the food types separately rather than as a packaged deal, just like it may be more troublesome to administer an integrative form of governance (since rules have to be in place about which types are more suitable for which aspects), but it's a possibility that I think shouldn't be chucked aside so quickly. Also, caution has to be exercised to prevent exploiting the selection of various methods of governance in different situations to suit the selfish needs of the governing party. How this caution is to be exercised is another issue altogether, which possibly necessitates further discussion.
- Meng Yee
Comments
Post a Comment