Beware the con of consistency!

History attributes to Napoleon Bonaparte, the remark, “consistency is a virtue of small minds”, but there also evidences that lead to Aldo Ralph Emerson, who is said to have come up with this coinage. Regardless of who said it, the significant aspect for managers/leaders is to determine, should consistency be held as a great virtue to possess, in the management of either the organization or even the country. History does not spell when and in what prevailing circumstances was this remark made by either Napoleon or Emerson. The imperative demand I will make in this piece is to know: is consistency a definitive need – is it, really? If the knee-jerk answer is a resounding “yes”, then under what conditions, should consistency be exercised?Imagine, the bout of the century between Japanese wrestler Antonio Inoki and the float-like-a-butterfly and sting-like-a-bee boxer, Muhammad Ali – if Inoki remained “consistent” as a celebrated wrestler to tackle his opponent standing on his feet, he would surely have ended with busted temples, black eyes, bleeding eyebrows, and swollen face; similarly, if Muhammad Ali had decided to “wrestle” instead of boxing with his opponent, he would have been lying flat on the floor of the ring. In these given circumstances, both chose to be “inconsistent” with their known and declared ‘strategies’. Both knew that application of being consistent would result in a loss or a win. Hence the match ended in a draw. This is not to suggest or promote “inconsistency” in all matters of life, the organisation, or the country. Consistency is an absolute necessity when it comes to principles and values. This area always should remain within the ambit of absolute non-negotiability. Consistency should remain ‘negotiable’ when it is in the realm of strategy, methodologies, processes and procedures. In business or in politics, strategic consistency would be suicidal. Obstinacy, which is all about not changing when the market trends or global political events demand, is to pursue a path of the most foolish application of principle of consistency.Recently, our Prime Minister was in the news for quoting incorrectly from history about Hitler and Napoleon. The inept opposition that does not leave any opportunity to ensure his (IK’s) acquired title of ‘King of the U-turns’ go berserk. U-turn is a term of usage not a management principle. What does U-turn mean, for a leader or manager – “change”, not of direction but of destination. On the street, while driving, we normally do take ‘U-turns” and that is when we decide to change our intended destination or if we sense fear of getting trapped in a clogged traffic jam, that may lie ahead; so we decide to take a U-turn to find an alternate route to the intended destination. In U-turns, goal posts are not changed, the strategy to reach the goal is re-examined and improved. The “destination” remains unaltered.IK himself uses the term U-turn, albeit incorrectly. It is a complete misnomer as far as IK’s usage is concerned. A better word to describe what IK possibly intends to say is “retreat”. Both Hitler and Napoleon should have ‘retreated’, which Napoleon did (a trifle late!) –after getting some reinforcement, he again mistimed his attack on Russia.The weather was the issue. The timing was totally wrong. Napoleon never made a U-turn in any engagement he merely retreated to evaluate his “strategy”. Watching with keen interest, as a student of history and current affairs, some of our political leaders, I always get reminded of what Winston Churchill had to say on PM Ramsay Macdonald’s speech, in the House of Commons, “He has, more than any other man, the gift of compressing the largest amount of words, with the smallest amount of thought”. Brevity should always be ‘ready armour’ for use by both political and business leaders. Loud mouths only confirm, what until they speak, remains a doubt. Listen more, speak less. Managers and political leaders must read history. Why? A good leader has to have a sound grasp of history –be it political or business. History is a chronicle of events that explains the reasons of both successes and failures. Again, Winston Churchill in the House of Commons, spoke thus, “We cannot undo the past but we are bound to pass it and review in order to draw from it such lessons as may be applicable to future…,”. Personally, I have worked my entire career with the closely held practice that the file must be read backwards to the current page – it helps in creating a comprehensive perspective and ultimately helps in taking informed decisions. Don’t ever foolishly sacrifice at the altar, the need for change, as against being obsessively ‘consistent’. A fanatic is the one who cannot change his mind and won’t change the subject, either. Change routes not principles; some unfortunately ‘change principles’ for taking a newer route. The political turncoats are a case in point. Inflexibility in politics and business is suicidal. Refusal to alter course could lead to instant death or a lingering and painful passing away. In the determination of flexibility or the lack of it thereof, what is of critical value is to judge whether the manager/leader has a spine or is a boneless wonder. The need for change and the requisite ability, when backed by willingness to do so is by far a good example of flexible approach; but to change and amend, due to others’ demands, your principles, values, and customs, for reasons of expediency, is a clearer example of being spineless. Ralph Waldo Emerson had said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. Views undergo change with time and age. But no ‘value’ should. You cannot have similar views on a given subject when you are twenty odd something and stick to it at the age of forty too! Such individuals you find are those who have chosen to deposit their thinking minds, in Siberian ice. I recall, my Economics Professor, who while teaching us the merits and demerits of socialism vs capitalism, had beautifully asserted, “If the principles of socialism do not make you a socialist at age twenty-five, then you are an idiot, but if you continue to remain a socialist at forty, that is being a confirmed fool”. Idealism of consistency has to give way to realities of the need for change as we progress in age. ‘The consistent thinker, the consistent moral man, is either a walking mummy or else, if he has not succeeded in stifling all his vitality, a fanatical monomaniac. To not to change is a proven absurdity. The only place for die-hard “consistent” is either the asylum or the cemetery. A liked man’s inconsistency is regarded as scaling up on the wisdom ladder, but if disliked, he is brushed aside, as a liar, a mind reflecting shifting sands. A wise man is one, who will say today with conviction of what needs to be said and be bold and brave to contradict it, later. The second Governor General of India, Raj Gopalachari, with his Swatantra Party had become a perennial pain for Indira Gandhi’s government, in late sixties. Consequently, Indira reached out to him for a meeting. Post the tete-a-tete between the two, while addressing the media, he parried questions, very deftly. A journalist asked, “Rajaji, how do you find Indira Gandhi? Shot back the stalwart politician, “I first met Indira, along with her father Jawaharlal Nehru, when she was barely nine years old, and after meeting her today I was convinced not much has changed”. Do we have any politician with such ready wit and expressing wisdom? Alas! No. It is best to be a onetime fool then be a consistent fool. Dare to question or choose to remain a fool. The moral line should never be transgressed in the guise of the need for change. The ethical standards, through which all decisions-making must pass the test, should also remain nonnegotiable at all costs. A manager, in his endeavor to change and be creative, must know where to draw the line, if he wants to be successful. Inconsistency here is totally unacceptable. Admittedly, rigid consistency is sometimes the need of a manager to instill order in chaos and bring sanity to lunatic response and demands.Corporate martyrdom is to take a challenge with responsibility but without necessary authority and conversely taking authority upon oneself without responsibility is to give birth to a corporate dictator. And hard-boiled managers do not change ever. Continuity and consistency can be unpleasant. Cling to consistency for values and be adept to accept change, in response to demands of the market place or any emerging realities.The author is a freelance columnist

from The News International - Money Matters http://bit.ly/2BKhcmd