the new hr

the only constant.” Connect the two statements
and you realise that it is intelligence, and not
knowledge, that helps us handle change.
Why is it imperative to transform from
a knowledge-based organisation to an
intelligence-driven organisation?
In the intelligences-framework, agile organisations
have to discard the old model of knowledgebased
organisation that evolved in the 1990s, and
embrace the new paradigm of intelligence-driven
organisations. I do not use the word paradigm
lightly—we do indeed need a paradigm shift.
When the organisation is driven by intelligence,
there are two advantages: first, it knows which
knowledge-base to use under what circumstances,
and second, even when the organisation does
not have the ‘knowledge’ needed to handle the
situation at hand, it can use intelligence to find
solutions. These two situations are repeated in
different forms across every size of organisation in
every part of the world. Thus, the new imperative
is an intelligence-driven organisation, which
operates in a business world where knowledge is
necessary but not sufficient.
Could you elaborate on the Vivékin
Intelligences Framework, and its key
aspects?
The important mind shift is to recognise that
agility is a blanket term—it signifies all kinds of
flexibilities. We need to think of not one agility,
but five different agilities. In Nimble, I argue that
a company that wants to be agile should focus on
developing five intelligences, each of which drives
an agility—analytical, operational, inventive,
communicative, and visionary. Further, the use
of these five agilities should be sensitive to the
organisation’s current context. For instance,
in one context, the organisation may need to
use more analytical and communicative agility,
and in another, use more operational agility. To
be an agile organisation, therefore, the senior
management must pay attention to developing
the different agilities and also enhancing the
context-sensitivity needed to best benefit from the
multiple agilities.
Sometimes, companies in the midst of
being ‘agile’ lose sight of the larger picture
and miss their step. How can this be
avoided?
The key to avoid this is to develop visionary
intelligence. Two central questions must be asked
each time we make what we think is an ‘agile’
response: (i) long-term—what do we think will
be the effect of this response three or five or ten
years from now? and (ii) width of impact—how
many people or processes will be affected by
this response, and in what ways? For personal
leadership decisions, these questions are asked
and answered by an individual, and for team or
organisational responses, a team needs to weigh in
on these questions.
Given the need for agility across the
company, is culture sacrosanct or
contextual?
I would say that an agile culture, which is
contextual, is sacrosanct. In a truly agile company,
agility is not in some pockets, but as you rightly
say, agilities should be developed and used across
the organisation. The organisational culture
should be open, inquisitive, and innovative, where
people are allowed to take risks, but wisely. Since
‘wisdom’ is subjective, an agile organisation’s
culture will tolerate failure and constantly
learn, not only from its own mistakes but also
from those of others. But above all, the most
successful and long-lasting companies are those
that truly use multiple agilities and are firmly
guided by visionary intelligence. Such companies
are tremendously nimble, but also think ‘beyond
top- and bottom-lines’ and ‘beyond the company’.
As a result, truly agile companies create benefits
for themselves, for their people, and most
importantly, for the world at large.
(As told to Poornima Subramanian.)
48 INDIAN MANAGEMENT NOVEMBER 2015