There is endless chatter these days on how much everything is changing - a wishful sigh about the good old days - how things were great and easy. "You know, back home when I was nineteen...", is something we all hear in the cocktail circuit. In reality nothing has changed as far as these conversationalists are concerned. They remain as they were when nineteen, fiercely protecting their fiefdoms, deathly scared of the realities surrounding them, yet crazily clinging to old methods and outdated styles.

For sure, they enjoy the benefits of change. They drive Lexus cars (with cellular phones glued to the ear), live in centrally air-conditioned homes, fly over oceans in the pursuit of business or pleasure, play golf, send their kids to play virtual reality games, and everything else that didn't exist ten years ago. Just look around yourself and take stock of the things you regularly use today - how many of these things existed five or ten years ago? How would life be without them? Can't imagine it - would be the most likely reply.

Alright, alright, I admit these technological developments take place in Tokyo, Taiwan, and Tampa. The least that those who enjoy the fruits of these labors can do is to upgrade their thinking in line with the technology they use. Why does organization after organization suffer from this phase difference of using the latest in technology while clinging to management styles found in museums? Which reminds me of a time and motion chart compiled around 1947 by the Systems and Procedures Association of America, which goes something like this:

Open and close	Minutes
File drawer, open, and close, no selection	.04
Folder, open or close flaps	.04
Desk drawer, open side of standard desk	.014
Open center drawer	.026
Close side	.015
Close center	.027

Chair activity	Minutes
Get up from chair	.033
Sit down in chair	.033
Turn in swivel chair	.009
Move in chair to adjoining desk or file ( 4 ft. Maximum)	.050

By the way, this was put together by Frederick Taylor and Co. They turned efficiency into a science. In fact, so profound was the impact of Frederick Taylor's principles that it changed the way man lived and interacted with his neighbor in the modern world.

Tell me, how many of us use these principles today? It's a laugh. Yet, in the vast majority, managerial thinking has remained unchanged.

The arrival of information technology changed all that. Today we talk of neural networks that learn as they wade through consumer information. Visa International is working towards harnessing the power of neural networks to catch card fraud as soon a unusual transactions take place.

In a world where so much has changed, is it not necessary for every country to contribute to growth instead of merely using the innovation and creativity that was born elsewhere? Is using technology and the brilliance of others enough to guarantee sustained success?

Yet company after company is petrified to try new things and experiment. The systems-driven concept (a la Taylor) has sunk so deep into the marrow of management, that there is complete catharsis when it comes to innovation, ideas, and sacrificing sacred cows.

I was with the HR director of a large local group the other day, and we were discussing management styles. We got talking about introducing 360 feedback, and fostering innovation and creativity in the company. Want to know his response? "Sam", he said, "There are people in this company who have been close to the owners for thirty years. They have not kept up with the times, and are fully aware of it. They are so petrified of change that they use every opportunity to exploit their closeness to the owners to ensure that any new initiatives die at the proposal stage itself. This is a circus, Sam. You've got to believe it." This competent person is paid a princely salary to not do anything exceptional and new. Yuk!

Don't you think the owners would get better value for their money if they allowed this man to put through some of his dynamic ideas? Would this also not motivate this person to try even newer things in due course of time? What is better - pay people to do nothing new, and cruelly damage the organization and the individual in the long run, or allow experimentation with new concepts, (at least concepts that have been successfully attempted elsewhere) - you be the judge. What would you prefer if it were your money and your company?

There was an article in the local press here dealing with people who change careers when things are going well. Great, I said to myself, this place requires such news. It is the story of a woman who switched from managing Gurkhas in the military to advertising and public relations in civvie street. Now, that's some change for you. Isn't it a fine example of reinventing oneself?

If individuals can take such refreshing steps in life, why not companies. Is wealth, and more wealth, the only driving force behind organizations? Are there any corporate chiefs out there who have the all-consuming fire in their bellies to do something different, extend their contributions beyond the shores of their lands, and leave behind a legacy that extends beyond the amassing of wealth? Is there nobody who can go up to his/her company owner and share a vision? It needs courage - the courage of conviction, and a deep concern for the greater good. It needs people like Anita Roddick, Charles Lindbergh, Steve Jobs, J.N.Tata, Wolfgang Schmitt, Ralph Stayer, and Ricardo Semler. How can this place make any difference to the world it benefits from without at least a handful of such people? Let's face it - the many years spent in this region has given many of us a great deal of affluence; what have we given in return?