The Hindu Business Line : The eclipse of management doctrine

MANAGEMENT as an art and a science has been defined as "getting things done by other people". The profession of management arose and evolved in sequel to the Industrial Revolution, based only on this thesis. Whereas a distinct and dramatic change has been under way in the management milieu, since the 1990s of the last century.

This philosophical change, besides being divergent to the above connotation, further calls for a new band of norms and values to replace the depersonalised value system, which is a derivative of hierarchy and bureaucracy of the bygone era.

The new ideology brings forth a postulate of power, based on humanistic and democratic values operating inside a framework of collaboration and cooperation, as against the previous model based on coercion and compulsion.

The principal initiative for this transformation is triggered by the vast concourse of young and fresh managers, who are wistful for a change from the old and orthodox matrix of authority. They are keen to have a more authentic and abiding relationship, than what has been hitherto possible and permissible in the command-and-control syndrome in the commercial constituency.

Already, some far-reaching changes are taking place, particularly in a few forward-looking companies, through a combination of collaboration, self-management, and organisational democracy. Employees are learning to manage themselves in small and compact teams — better known as self-management teams (SMTs) — within which both responsibility and trust are commensurate with empowerment.

The day is not distant when the old-style manager will become persona non grata and a kind of dinosaur in the 21st century. The era of traditional management is withering like the autumn leaves. The decline and eclipse of management as a profession is beginning to happen.

The system has lost its label and relevance in the upsurge and emancipation of the human spirit. It is, now, fairly certain and clear that in its ancient and archaic form, management will fail to touch the heart, nor hail the liberation of the soul.

Management is not a role; it is a relationship. It consists of two parties — managers who control the employees, and the latter who are accustomed to being controlled. The dynamics of interaction between these two animals creates the coalition in the system, sustains its continuity, and keeps the tradition alive. If this cycle has to be broken, both sides have to be reformed and transformed. While managers must relinquish the luxury of power and authority, employees must forego the comfort of anonymity and accept responsibility.

It is essential to expose the glitches in the work life to the public gaze, because they are not isolated incidents or idiosyncrasies of individual managers, but part and parcel of a larger machinery which is obsolete, outmoded, and inadequate in the current pace and race for change and innovation. However, there is another sidelight to this issue, which is an irony and a paradox.

There are some employees — albeit a small minority — who prefer to remain in the background and only play second fiddle to the management. They are quite content and happy to stay subservient and obsequious in exchange for irresponsibility and a stressless state. It is easier for them to function as an unthinking drone, than being an active member of the SMT, which is accountable for results.

The war is not against individual managers, but is directed against the system of management, which is condescending, overbearing, and patronising.

In politics, democracy produces better results than any other form of government, although, sometimes, it is less efficient. It enables better decisions in the long run, because it derives its strength from a diversity of inputs and a multiplicity of minds. It believes in and depends on the individual liberty and consent.

If democracy can work and succeed in politics, why not in economics? Is it not an anomaly and an anachronism to preserve and perpetuate an autocratic business management architecture, in a democratically functioning body politic in the 21st century?

Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father and founder of the scientific management movement in the early part of the last century, was the foremost proponent of the theory that managers alone must design and direct the work process, to obtain maximum efficiency.

This philosophy held sway until the end of the Second World War, when Kurt Lewin, along with Theodoro Adorno and Erich Fromm, conducted an extensive research to arrest and withstand the authoritarian personality that had flourished under Fascism. Lewin transferred the emphasis from Taylor's engineering approach to human factors such as motivation, empowerment, group interaction and communication. Another significant shift took place pari passu in redefining the role of management, when Douglas McGregor articulated his much celebrated and classical "Theory X and Theory Y". This doctrine reflected in clear terms the aspirations of the employees for self-management and shopfloor freedom.

Managerial authoritarianism is predicated on the wrong assumption that employees are either incompetent, or not keen to shoulder more responsibility.

Conversely, employees tend to look upon managers as bogus, hypocritical, and untrustworthy. Consequently, this discordant relationship and dichotomy between these two parties moves in a vicious circle and eventually turns into a self-fulfilling prophesy.

It is not that one is wrong, and the other is right. Both are wrong, and both are right. In fact, it is not a question of right or wrong; it is a question of a systemic shortfall and deficiency. Both sides are trapped in a Catch-22 situation, which accentuates the bad behaviour in each other. What is tragic and traumatic is that neither side understands the automaticity and predictability of the consequences, which flow inevitably from their own mutual and functional behaviour [or misbehaviour].

Creativity, motivation, and a sense of responsibility cannot be ordered into existence by someone above in an organisation chart.

Such virtues must be fostered and facilitated, evoked and elicited, by creating a consultative and participative environment by "managerial leaders" as well as SMTs.

Towards this purpose, it is both possible and necessary to redesign workplaces and organisations with a human face. People have the propensity to create organisations in conformity with ergonomic and egalitarian values, and without constraints of management maelstrom, or misappropriation of individual liberty and freedom of action.

Management as a technique invariably succeeds in reducing undecidable issues to decidable ones — which is its virtue and strength. Unfortunately, however, this seems to be almost always done without any reference to or inputs from the employees, who are usually closer to the problem.

People do not like to be told by someone else how to do something, particularly when that someone else does not do it everyday, whereas the person being told does it everyday. This is the conundrum of management.

Self-management decisions, on the other hand, are acts of ownership, cooperation, and commitment. The ability to make a choice is a measure of freedom. Choice enables a person to be himself, while its denial develops in him an attitude of indifference and couldn't carelessness.

There are many ways companies can open their books — like introducing policies which are flexible and value-driven; by adopting procedures which are customizable; by treating conflicts as an avenue for learning and development; and by considering criticism and feedback as a gift and compliment.

Such companies will regard their employees as artists and scientists; perceive complaints as suggestions for improvement; and look at change as an adventure and a game.

As middle managerial roles are eliminated, yielding place to SMTs, the corporate climate will be more congenial to productivity and morale. For a commercial organisation to perform in the 21st century, there is no more a need for an agent, broker, or an intermediary masquerading as management. The decline and eclipse of management is, also, the end of rigidity and regimentation in industry and commerce. It is a fitting finale and farewell to the one-size-fits-all doctrine of business organisation.

(The author is a freelance writer.)