Maharogi Sewa Samiti: Baba Amte’s Ashram

Possible question – Systemic / Social Change Through Organisational Design

Class Discussion
Before
1. Unwanted, outcast, uncared for, helpless, low self-esteem, worthlessness, meaningless, burden
2. SOCIETY
a. Hierarchical – caste and class
b. Untouchability
c. Dehumanisation
d. Discrimination
3. LEPROSY
a. Stigmatised
b. Ostracised
c. Disgust
d. “cursed” – deserve it
4. QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT
o Self-governance
o Hind Swaraj
After – sense of respect, jobs centred around their interests, self-dependent, community life, meaningful enterprises,
contributing to society, forward looking outlook, sense of duty

Connections to chapters from the book

1. Pre-Anandwan
a. Perception problems
i. Self-perception was poor
ii. Stereotypes and prejudice against people with leprosy
b. Unemployment – depression, powerlessness, stress
2. Baba Amte
a. Sensitive, courageous, rebelled against social barriers
b. Elected VP of Warora, shared the work of the municipal scavengers
c. Earned title “Baba” – father
d. Leadership started from emotion, he had some inherent traits
3. Anandwan (Hospital, training, orphanage, old-age home)
a. Leprosy patients rise above their situation and discover a new purpose in life
b. Presented cultural programme to raise funds for the National Relief Fund
c. Sold produce to, built school and college for village
d. Employee’s view on work – more fulfilling, meaningful, work with purpose  better self-esteem and
motivation
e. Better culture and teamwork – better work
f. Cooperative, voluntary work
g. Management by providing proper vocational guidance and training
h. Feel in control, empowered
i. Job satisfaction leading to positive outcomes
4. Management structure
a. Headed by a committee comprised of the members by election – democracy
b. Many smaller committees to look at each economic function
c. Residential activities through communes each with clinic, common kitchen, hall, community farm, etc.
d. Human Resource management – difficult to draw a line between employees and beneficiaries – everyone
contributes – reciprocal bond of duty and commitment and gratitude and responsibility towards the
community
e. People not fitted into jobs – jobs and work designed for each person’s abilities and capacity
5. Reasons for success
a. Dedicated leadership – sacrifice, sensitivity, concern, transparency
b. Constant communication of central philosophy – Work Builds, Charity Destroys – imbibed in the way the
organisation is run
c. High quality consciousness – positive self-image and self-confidence because of the knowledge that they
can produce goods of better quality than “normal” able-bodied people can do
d. Beneficiary orientation – innovation and development to help any patient who comes to them
e. Slogans and mottos as an inspiring force – motivation
f. Loyalty and commitment of cured patients
Basically, the organisation was structured to help leprosy patients and change their self-worth. Engagement in community
and area development, social integration techniques, and increased awareness about leprosy led to social change.

Often, when an organization suffers a terrible failure, others attempt to learn from the experience. Trying to
avoid repeating the mistakes of the past seems like an admirable goal. Naturally, some observers attribute
the poor performance of others to human error of one kind or another. They blame the firm's leaders for
making critical mistakes, at times even going so far as to accuse them of ignorance, negligence, or
indifference. Attributing failures to the flawed decisions of others has certain benefits for outside observers.
In particular, it can become a convenient argument for those who have a desire to embark on a similar
endeavor. By concluding that human error caused others to fail, ambitious and self-confident managers can
convince themselves that they will learn from those mistakes and succeed where others did not. 75

The lesson for managers is that they must recognize the symbolic power of their actions and the strength of
the signals they send.
— Michael A. Roberto

This research demonstrates a more holistic approach to learning from large-scale organizational failures. It
suggests that we cannot think about individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis in isolation.
Instead, we need to examine how cognitive, interpersonal, and systemic forces interact to affect
organizational processes and performance. System complexity, team structure and beliefs, and cognitive
limitations are not alternative explanations for failures, but rather complementary and mutually reinforcing
concepts.

Business executives and other leaders typically recognize that equifinality characterizes many situations. In
other words, most leaders understand that there are many ways to arrive at the same outcome. Nevertheless,
we have a natural tendency to blame other people for failures, rather than attributing the poor performance to
external and contextual factors. 76 We also tend to pit competing theories against one another in many
cases, and try to argue that one explanation outperforms the others. The Everest case suggests that both of
these approaches may lead to erroneous conclusions and reduce our capability to learn from experience. We
need to recognize multiple factors that contribute to large-scale organizational failures, and to explore the
linkages among the psychological and sociological forces involved at the individual, group, and
organizational system level. In sum, all leaders would be well-served to recall Anatoli Boukreev's closing
thoughts about the Everest tragedy: "To cite a specific cause would be to promote an omniscience that only
gods, drunks, politicians, and dramatic writers can claim."