Abstract
This paper presents the insights obtained from a study of reinvention efforts of five Preliberalization Indian Organizations (PLIOs) in India. It delineates the process of taking charge and the phases in reinvention. PLIOs—public sector undertakings, subsidiaries of multinational companies, corporations set up by large business houses, and cooperative enterprises — found themselves at crossroads as the economic reforms with their thrust on competitiveness, globalization, and privatization unfolded. The business challenges posed by the reforms were accentuated by the changes in the communication and information technologies that broke the distance and time barriers. In addition, the PLIOs had to grapple with new ideas, concepts, frameworks, and processes in managing organizations. They had to build capabilities to face new entrants with superior experience and reach and compete for a share in the domestic and international markets. They also had to build capabilities to explore new opportunities. The gap between what needed to be accomplished and what the organizations were immediately capable of accomplishing was significant.
The leaders of the organizations studied had initiated efforts to reinvent themselves and build the capabilities needed. While their business domains differed, they faced similar problems in initiating the reinvention, similar learning and unlearning challenges, and similar phases in effecting the reinvention. Each leader was empowered to design and implement the reinvention. While the overall expectations were spelt out, the approach and the actions were not. The organizations passed through similar phases. The phases identified by the paper are: House-keeping and catch-up, experimentation and innovation, and dynamic multiplication. The paper discusses in detail the facilitators and constraints in each phase and the issues in making the transition from one phase to the other.
The major findings of the paper are as follows:
The duration of the organization in each phase and its transition to the next were dependent on the response of the stakeholders to the initiatives of the organization and the consequent pay-offs and spin-offs. The leaders who made it to the next phase did not wait till the current phase was fully completed. They disengaged themselves from active involvement in the phase while it was still on and committed resources to the next phase. Both the leader and the organization learnt and unlearnt together as the reinvention effort passed from one phase to the next.
The paper points out that it is important to recognize the contribution of the leader and the managers involved to the reinvention success, especially the middle managers, and reward them to retain their competencies. The paper also notes that reinvention efforts could lead to complacency and decline. The leaders should guard themselves and their organizations against them.