The Hindu Business Line : Does formality add to effectiveness?

The Englishman is said to be a stickler for formality in dress and deportment for various occasions, so much so, even while wandering in a jungle all by himself, he will dress up for dinner, black tie and all.

He carried his stuck-up, stiff-necked, stuffed shirt temperament to the colonies and made it into a technique to overawe the natives and extract their submission to his orders.

In fact, the British rulers went to great lengths in shaping the natives in their own image. They introduced the snobbish distinction between gazetted and non-gazetted posts: The appointments to, and postings, promotions, transfers and the like of, the former were deemed to be exalted enough to be notified in the official gazette, whereas news of the latter were taken to be beneath notice.

Of these two categories, again, those holding posts which were notified in the official gazette were given the option of applying to their British masters for the privilege of prefixing ‘Mr.’ to their names.

They were then subjected to close and constant observation by their immediate bosses to find out the degree to which they were able to ape the British in dress, table manners and lifestyle.

On measuring up to the standards of behaviour and conduct laid down by the British, they were rewarded with the grand label ‘Mr’.

This supposedly raised them a cut above the rest of the native officials, and helped them acquire greater authority and prestige, and, in the bargain, greater effectiveness in getting more things done better!

Even today, the British, even within their own country, whether they are government officials or company executives, maintain their formal mode of addressing and dressing before their staff and the public so as to ensure that familiarity does not breed contempt. The same applies to Europeans too to a great extent.

Exact opposite

The Americans are the exact opposite: Back slapping, effusive and informal, they encourage you to deal with them on the first name basis from the very first meeting.

The President and other high functionaries think nothing of appearing in half-pants or jeans, rolled up sleeves and open collars, dancing a pirouette or playing on a banjo or clarinet in public functions and before the media, and generally moving about uninhibitedly and without a trace of embarrassment.

High government officials and top business tycoons mingle freely in golf courses, parties and family get-togethers. The easy intercourse is facilitated by exchanges of personnel at high levels between government and business.

Of course, in the US too, there are shades of differences: The ways of the old British colonies of the East Coast in this respect are reminiscent of the Mother Country, while, in the popular impression, the West Coast is laidback and the Middle America relaxed.

India has so far conformed to traditions inherited from the British Rule.

A certain reserve exists and an appropriate distance is kept between higher and lower ranks, and it is indeed a rash subordinate who will address his superior by name; calling him by his first name, even if it be by adding a Mr. to it, is unthinkable. It is always, Sir or Madam.

There is the story of a British Collector who punished a newly-joined Assistant Collector, also British, by asking him to count the lamp posts in the district headquarters and report the number, simply because the young boy forgot to ‘Sir’ him.

The question is: Does formality add to effectiveness? Well, since work gets done equally well in the UK and the US (with the latter having an edge), ‘stuck up’ need not be the same as ‘buck up’!

B. S. RAGHAVAN