The Hindu Business Line : The knowing-acting gap

THE gap between what we know for certain and what we actually apply in practice is a source of enduring frustration for managers and consultants. Chris Argyris, an outstanding social scientist and intellectual at Harvard Business School, coined two excellent terms, espoused theory and theory-in-use for these two ways of thinking. The first is what we say when we are asked to explain something formally in public and the second is what we actually follow. Nowhere was this more dramatically demonstrated than the double water crises of Chennai this year. Some of the well-known facts given here illustrate this painfully but clearly.

In nine months of this year the city saw first the full impact of a near water-famine situation, which we could have seen coming for years, when desperate and last minute measures were taken by the government including compulsory rainwater harvesting.

Then, we saw in just the last few weeks the fury of flood waters and the extraordinary monsoon, followed by the surplus released from the reservoirs. The irony is that storage in these very lakes, man-made as well as natural, is considered inadequate for the normal annual water requirements of Chennai.

Tamil Nadu as a whole has traditionally had to depend to a great extent on tanks and other waterways because it is in a rain shadow region, the only one which receives little rain from the South West monsoon. It is also a fact that a metropolis of this size is seldom able to manage without access to a major river.

Despite this, uncontrolled suburban development has been allowed to go on for years, regardless of the political persuasion of the party in power. As Professor Indiresan pointed out several years ago, the traditional feeder channels that course through the outskirts of the city and recharge the water sources of the tanks and lakes have all been built over by unauthorised construction. All political parties find it too "politically sensitive" an issue to evacuate these settlers; and to take action against them is an unattractive proposition.

All of this notwithstanding, the fact remains that the actual precipitation received by the city is enough to meet the needs of the thirsty and thriving metropolis — if only, and if only we managed to conserve the water properly.

The solution before the authorities managing the city thus is quite simple. Either we decongest the city by preventing further growth of population, and deliberately reduce industrialisation and therefore employment opportunities; or we make sure that water is not allowed to evaporate or just get carried away to the sea.

Clearly a systematic, managerial approach to the matter would dictate that some cost benefit analyses are made.

Do we allow the current situation to continue and face the mess created by having to supply water through tankers, at great expense to individuals and the corporation?

Or do we pay for the investments needed to encourage storage in the non-season, rather than options such as desalination of sea water? Would the latter not be the far more expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome alternative?

This is where the gap between knowledge and action comes in. There are enough experts and sufficient evidence of studies and recommendations as to what is the right way to manage scientifically and rationally.

That is the espoused or logical theory. What happens is the sad, illogical alternative, `the theory-in-use'. It is this kind of approach to decision making and administration that gives the scientific basis of management such a poor name. Every IAS officer and manager must ponder over this example of what is now referred to as conscious or knowing incompetence.

(Feedback can be sent to srchander23@netscape.net)

S. Ramachander

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page