>> MIM Speaks
HUMANE MANAGEMENT NEEDED
DEC 8, 1996
NEW STRAITS TIMES
MOST Malaysian organisations, from the very small to the very
big, follow the autocratic leadership style of management.
This may sound like a broad generalisation, but if you look
around, you will find few practising the participative or
consultative style of management. There are many reasons why
the autocratic leadership style dominates. The common reasons
are:
1. Historical development: Throughout history, societies and
nations were ruled by individuals with
strong personalities. They had strong ego needs and exercised
power in a top down fashion. They become role models.
2. Maintaining order: It is much easier to maintain order and
discipline using an iron hand. The classic model is that of
the military. The modern day management model of "command
control" is borrowed from the military.
3. Fear of losing control: When this fear is strong enough,
vital information or critical success factors of a business is
guarded zealously. Only the trusted few have the privilege to
share some of the information. This practice is common in
family businesses although to a much reduced extent now.
Other than the trusted few, the rest of the workers need only
do as instructed. In the early days of the Coca- Cola
business, the secret formula or recipe was a closely guarded
production secret. Incidentally, today the rule of the game
in the soft drink industry has changed. Even if you have the
exact cola-cola recipe there is little chance of success as a
new entrant. Today what sells Coca-Cola is brand image and
global marketing. In fact, in today's world, information and
theoretical know how is so cheaply available that it is almost
free.
Unfortunately, many present day managers are still having
problems coming to terms with this reality. Instead of
acknowledging such realities they react by feeling insecure in
letting their subordinates have direct access to company
information which is easily available from elsewhere.
4. Power affinity: Many corporate leaders and managers have a
healthy desire for power. It is one of the drives that gets
them to where they are. It is only when power gradually
becomes abused does the negative face of power bring about
negative influences on the organisation.
All leaders tend to have an affinity for power and therefore
the tendency for the people in charge to be autocratic is
high.
Organisations with autocratic leadership styles can be said to
have the following characteristics: 1. Centralised decision
making:
The decision making process tends to be centralised at the
upper echelons of management. Implementation of action plans
is based upon instructions from the top.
The organisation's structures become bureaucratic as time goes
by. Systems and procedures become institutionalised. A point
is reached in such organisations where the majority of actions
and activities come to be governed by policies.
The idea that policies purely serve as guiding instructions
gets lost as the power in organisations became more and more
centralised at the top. Over time the workers in such
organisations only do as they are told. Top management reduces
thinking workers into unthinking robots since all decisions
are made at the top and the slightest change needs management
approval.
Such organisations are slow in adapting to changes taking
place in the external environment. They refuse to recognise
the changing consumer needs. They refuse to acknowledge that
competitors' products are getting better and priced lower than
theirs.
Instead of looking outwards at the realities of the market
place, they are inward looking.
This phenomenon happened to once mighty American corporations
such as General Motors Harley Davidson, Xerox, IBM and so on.
When the Japanese manufacturers reached world class quality
with their products in the late 1970s and early 1980s, many
American corporations were humbled by the more efficient and
progressive Japanese firms.
The 1980s saw many American corporations having to reinvent
themselves. The heartening note is that many of these firms
became more competitive after their turnaround exercise. Their
painful restructuring experiences are useful case models for
many Malaysian companies.
2. Tight control: When control from the top is tight, a huge
wall, though not visible, is erected between management and
workers. Mutual trust between management and workers is
severed. Over time workers become irresponsible and non
committal.
Management can set performance targets. Unless the workers see
some benefits in achieving the targets, what management gets
is the couldn't care less attitude of the workers. They do the
minimal that will keep them out of trouble, and that's it.
They put on a facade when management people are around. The
moment these "controllers" are away, the couldn't care less
behaviour resumes.
With tight top down control it is unrealistic to expect
workers to work hard or be committed to their work. The
exception lies in the 20 per cent or so of workers found in
all corporations or factories who are self driven.
These work horses are motivated by their own personal values
or work ethics.
With tight top down control, management alienates about 80 per
cent of its workforce. Management believes that n order to get
production output from the workers, ;here is only one way the
command and control way to force workers to work.
What these management people fail to realise is that the
command control model is only applicable in a very restricted
sense in Malaysia today. Twenty years ago when the
unemployment rate was high, management could get away with the
command control approach. Today, not only is there a labour
shortage (which increases job hopping even among factory
workers), the younger generation of workers is less likely to
accept unreasonable commands and controls. They will fight
back or sabotage the system. The labour market has changed and
so has lifestyles.
But many management staff continue to run their organisations
using out of date styles or approaches. Habits die hard.
Mindsets and old paradigms of work, especially at the top
echelons of management, need changing so as to adapt to the
realities of a changed environment. But mindsets are extremely
difficult to change. Only popular manage ment writers make it
ap pear easy.
3. Centralisation of power: Organisations that use the command
control model to manage their op erations inevitably have
their power source centralised at the top. It is common
knowledge today that power tends to corrupt. This can lead to
negative behavioral patterns (in those holding the power) that
work against the long term interests of the company.
There is a high tendency for autocratic leaders to practise
favouritism. While all management writers exhort management
practitioners to think rationally and act objectively without
bias and favouritism, we also know there is the human side in
the corporate lead ers as well. For instance know the left
brain is the seat of rational thoughts and the right brain
controls our emo tions. The root cause of of fice politicking
is always traceable to the leader ship style of the person in
charge of the company, division or department. The practice of
favoritism in organisations is definitely one of the
weaknesses of management.
And this weakness is seldom solved from with in because it
takes place in the blind spot of the au tocratic leader.
It is interesting to note in management literature that
successful CEOs and managers must have the following skills:
1. Technical skill, such as engineering or market ing. It also
includes the skills of professionals or specialists such as
accountants and compute experts.
2. Conceptual skills. This skill is associated with our mental
faculties. Managers with good conceptual skills are
innovetive, creative or good problem solvers .
3. Interpersonal skills. Because management is the art and
science of getting work done through people,
managers must possess good interpersonal skills. Those
lacking this skill are greatly disadvantaged as leaders or
motivators of human energy.
4. Politicking skill. Interpersonal or social skills are for
dealing with peers and subordinates. To deal with superiors
and those in power, politicking skill is a must. Many
managers with the
above three skills have failed to get to the very top echelons
of management as they lacked this fourth skill and are
therefore unable to secure a place in the power base.
It is rare to find individuals who have all four skills.
There is no denying that obsolete approaches, such as the
autocratic leadership style of management, must give way to a
combination of styles.
If the present leadership style is 90 per cent autocratic, it
must be modified to something like 40
per cent autocratic and 60 per cent participative within a
timeframe of two to three years.
That the autocratic style is out of date in Malaysia today is
obvious. And the sooner the style is replaced by a more humane
approach, the better for management and workers.
|