Now, for some political savvy

Management is an art, perhaps, a fine art. There is no scientific formula that unlocks the principles of management in the form of an equation in physics or chemistry. If it were to be so, then everyone would be in the loop and everyone would inevitably reach a competitive stalemate.

Fortunately, people are different, situations are different, actions are different, and the world is always evolving. There are a million ways to win and as many ways to lose. This makes the art of management the challenge that it has always been and will continue to be.

In the ultimate analysis, therefore, each manager must do his own batting; each manager must learn for himself the rules of survival and success. Any book or training programme can, at best, only give him some more ideas, some different perceptions, some more tools and techniques.

Business schools are in the business of imparting academic knowledge. They cannot teach anything about emotional skills or strategic skills. They ask students to work alone and produce rational answers to predetermined questions. Any manager who thinks that he can work alone in a job producing rational answers to predetermined questions will not go far in his managerial career.

Most managers learn the art of management from their seniors, peers, and other role models — in other words by sheer experience. When they see a manager making a mistake, they make a mental note of it, so that they do not make a similar mistake. Again, when they see a manager achieving something spectacular, they make a mental note of it, in order to replicate similar success in their own turf at an appropriate time.

Bit by bit, the new managers acquire management DNA from old-timers. Over a period of time, the new managers build their own personal management DNA, which accordingly programmes their own individual style and stamp of management.

In earlier eras, the art of management was much simpler. Managers managed, and workers worked. Managers used their mind power, and workers used their muscle power. In due course of time, however, things began to change. Workers slowly started acquiring and asserting their individual and collective rights.

While workers did shorter working hours, managers worked longer hours. While workers got the benefits of the new pattern of working, managers got the stress and strain of being constantly shackled to the fetters of the 24/7 doctrine. Management, thus, became not only more difficult, but also more ambiguous.

While success in management, therefore, seems to be a consequence of empirical factors, yet there are some criteria which are considered helpful and necessary in this regard. Managerial selection systems have always given pride of place to the Intelligence Quotient (IQ) of the candidates seeking employment. Companies regard IQ as an essential ingredient in the portfolio of candidates to augment their problem-solving skills, analytical capability, and business judgment.

But IQ alone is not sufficient. Managing is about getting things done by other people. Therefore, companies expect their managers to have a high degree of interpersonal skills such as adaptability, communicating ability, motivating ability, and a flair for team work. All these skills may be clubbed together under the banner Social Intelligence (SI).

Now, can we, therefore, conclude that IQ (being smart) and SI (being nice) are sufficient to succeed in management? Perhaps not. There are quite a few smart and nice managers who lead lives of underachievement in the backwaters of the organisation. While they are liked by all and their competence is beyond question, yet they seem to be lagging behind.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of managers, who are not so smart and not so nice and yet they climb the corporate ladder pretty fast and stay close to the apex. Smart and nice people do not necessarily win. Many disappear off the corporate radar altogether and some others function in a low profile throughout their career.

Indeed, something is missing somewhere. While it helps to have good IQ and SI, per se they do not seem to be sufficient for success in management. Another hurdle needs to be crossed for career advancement. It relates to the political influence, or even better, Political Savvy (PS) of the managers.

PS deals with the knack of knowing how to acquire power, and how to apply that power in order to make things happen. Politics is present in every organisation. It is an omnipresent phenomenon. In the field of management, it is perceived and practised as an essential and indispensable part of the game plan.

‘Power' being a crucial component of management, and PS being the doorway to that domain, modern managers need to have a high degree of PS. Whereas, in the command and control syndrome of the earlier era, perhaps, not much PS was required to get action going: an order or an executive fiat was good enough to make things happen.

However, in the current context of flat and matrix model of organisations, power is far more diffused and decentralised. Managers cannot accomplish things without forming networks and alliances. They need peer support and political influence to reach beyond their formal boundaries of authority. They need PS, now, more than ever before to achieve their goals.

(The writer, a former HR director of a auto components group, is a management consultant.)

COMMENT NOW