When I was in my early learning stages at school, I was arguing with one of my classmates on how the standard set to wear a school uniform is unfair to persons like me if the changes in uniform take place every year. However, I was not giving much attention to my teacher who was watching me with interest on what I was saying and approaching us at the same time to take control of the situation.
Just to stop us from arguing further and to get my attention on what she wanted to say, she got two sticks of unequal length and asked us on how we can make both of them equal in length. The immediate answer from both of us was to cut the longer stick to have the same length as the shorter one. Then she asked us what happens if we make a mistake in cutting. We both laughed and said to cut the other stick to become same. We never realized that more mistakes we make, shorter the sticks will become.
Then she drew TWO lines one next to each other and asked both of us on how we can make both lines equal in length. I looked at the shorter line and told her that by making it longer in length to be same as the other will make them equal. My friend agreed, but also said that we can erase the portion of line that was longer to make it same as the shorter one, but also said that erasing takes more time than drawing. We still did not realize that more mistakes we make the longer the lines will become.
This personal story sets the scene for what I am going to tell you about the nature of this B-quadrant of COL. If you had followed the story carefully, you would have noticed that the exercise in both instances was to make the objects equal in length. However, the easier option to do that in both cases were different, but we achieved the same result in the end. The standard defined in both cases was to have ‘two objects equal in length’.
The same applies to setting standards in organization or anywhere else for that matter. When setting standards, we tend to control the situation through a specified way doing it and when we succeed in doing so within that situation we then set that as a standard. I might be stating the obvious here. But when we try to expand this to apply for all other similar situations, we think we have solved the problem in doing so without realizing the fact that we are talking about similar situations but not exact. So when the standards are not met, we try to change a situation that is unique to an organization to become the same. Why so? And, why not have a different approach?
It boils down to one important difference in following these standards to derive the maximum benefit in each and every situation without incurring too much cost in doing so. Adopt these standards with open arms, but use common sense while applying them to your situation. However, does the standards committee or the overseer of the standards allow that to happen? No. That’s where we need to take the help from COL.
If the overseer of the standards had made the attempt to travel the COL, it would have become obvious to the overseer that it is necessary to measure the adherence to the standards differently from one organization to other as the way an organization has grown or has acquired or connected or discovered what it is doing is different from the situation that made it possible to set those standards.
Please note that I am emphasizing the measurement of ‘the adherence to the standards’ that needs to be defined after defining the standards. I could then set a global standard easily, but still make adherence one hundred percent by customizing the level of adherence to the needs of the organization rather than the complete slavery to standards resulting too much re-organization or cost.
What I am saying here is that an organization that adheres only seventy percent to the standards can be deemed to be adhering one hundred percent to the standards depending on the size and shape of the organization that is in question. This elasticity of adherence will then make both small and large organizations to compete on an equal footing.
This adherence is in nature for all of us to see. When we classify human population around the world to be of those adhering to certain basic standards set to be classified as a human, but we implicitly accept that a person as ONE HUNDRED percent human in spite of the differences in size, shape, language and even if one or more of the bodily parts are missing.
To recap, my personal story brought to the forefront that the attention should be turned towards adjusting the measurement of adherence rather than the standard itself. The second example reinforced that with an example on how the shift can and should happen.