The Manager Who Wants To Be Liked And Wants To Be Popular
The manager or supervisor who strives for popularity, who wants to be liked, marginalizes his or her effectiveness as a leader. Sure, we all want to be "liked."
Being liked makes us feel good, gives us a sense of well-being and confidence. But the boss who wants to be "one of the gang" ends up being compromised:
He gets trapped into avoiding unpopular decisions.
Avoids dealing with disciplinary problems.
Fails to pass down or "waters down" new rules or policies which would be viewed by the general employee population as "unfair" or restrictive.
To maintain popularity, the supervisor finds it necessary to align with the troops instead of being viewed as an impartial representative of management as well as the employees.
"The Popularity Kid" who finds it tough to say no or don't, creates an imbalance in the work load which should be evenly distributed among all the employees. How many times has the supervisor allowed the same officer to leave before the end of the shift, thus adding tasks to everyone else remaining on duty, all because the supervisor was reluctant to say no? By the same token, the supervisor who is reluctant to discipline when it's required, but opts to avoid take the required corrective action, creates a problem. Employees, who should be disciplined but are not, cause resentment in the work place; resentment against them and resentment against the supervisor who fails to deal with the problem. How many times has the store's entire loss prevention staff been criticized by the regional security director for not logging in and out all shoplifting evidence when the real culprit is one lazy agent whom the store loss prevention manager doesn't correct because she doesn't want the agent to not like her. So little miss Popularity Kid creates problems, including morale concerns, all because she wants to be liked!
Generally, people prefer to work in a well ordered environment. If someone fails to carry their load, they expect that to be corrected. If someone goofs off, they expect that person to be corrected. If they have a problem, which they want carried up to management, they can rest assured their supervisor will fairly represent them. If management has a message for them, they're confident their boss will objectively and fairly represent his superior's position. Employees don't want a buddy in their boss. They know that too much socializing leads to a compromised leader. What they do look for is a fair, impartial, predictable, honest leader who sets and maintains standards, the same standards for all. Such positive traits, woven into a temperate and pleasant supervisor, gains respect and should be what every leader should seek. Jackasses want to be popular. Good managers want to be respected.
This material is reflected in my book Effective Security Management (now in it's fourth edition) but I've expanded it to provide the reader with "feet on the ground" examples.
For those readers who have my book, and for those who were in attendance in New Delhi when I gave some of these Jackass Management examples in my presentation, you'll obviously recognize my documented and presented concerns about poor supervisory/managerial practices. For those unfamiliar with my work, there are a total of 32 "Jackass Management Traits".
Join security professionals, law enforcement officials, and corporate executives from around the world to examine critical security issues faced by global organizations...
Hr - Today And Tomrrow Emergent Trends & Strategies
Mr. Sharu S. Rangnekar, India
The Backdrop
The anthropologists define man as a primate that habitually makes and uses tools. The tools he uses are not only material tools, but also social tools, i.e., organizations. There is evidence of use of stone tools by man 95,000 years ago. However, the concept of organization started when the human being started group hunting and then developed agricultural cultivation and animal husbandry about 10,000 years ago.
In physics, flame is defined as a region where two or more gases meet to provide heat and / or light. Similarly, organization can be defined as a region where two or more persons meet to provide survival and / or growth.
The development of organizations involved treating human being are resource for survival and growth. This brought in the concept of "role" and "discipline". The organization must allocate specific roles to the human beings in the organization and inculcate discipline whereby the roles will be adhered to with minimal conflict.
The most important role is the role of the "chief". In the herding animals, the role of the chief has to be earned by individual combat giving the phrase "balabhogya vasundhara" (world is ruled by power). However, this concept meant continual destructive conflicts in the organization.
So myths were created about "divine right of kings" and authority becoming hereditary. Pharaohs of Egypt and many ruling princes of India considered themselves descendents of God and their authority could not be questioned by human beings.
The problem became complex when there were several claimants to succeed the ruler. The concept of the eldest to succeed was not always accepted and there were bloody battles for succession. In India, such battles amongst the Rajput kings and Mughal emperors are well known. Perhaps the most severe case was that of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. To avoid family rivalries, Muhammad II the Conqueror (1451-1481) decreed that all male relatives of the reigning Sultan should be executed at his accession. This was literally carried out and Muhammad III put his nineteen brothers to death and sewed several of his father's concubines who were pregnant, into sacks and had them thrown into the sea - just to be on the safe side in case a possible claimant to the throne was born.
Even at that time, these measures were considered too drastic and it was decided not to kill the princes but to keep them safely locked up in cages in the harem without any knowledge of the outside world and without any education. This was called the Kafas (cage) System. By coincidence, some of these princes became rulers after having been in such cages for a long time - (39 years in the case of Suleman II and 50 years in case of Osman III). These men were expected to take up the reigns of government at a moment's notice and rule over one of the most extensive empires. Obviously, it did not work out and led to the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire.
Over a period, a "non-destructive" succession system had to be evolved - by election in the case of political power and by selection in the case of administrative power.
For this selection, the Chinese started the system of competitive examinations to select the best talents and the idea was picked up by many colonial powers that created a civil service. An interesting alternative was used by the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. The system known as "Kapi Kullari" comprised of a group who were legally slaves of the Sultan. All were born Christians and converted to Islam. All of them were trained by the state for their official functions. The slave status carried no social stigma, but divested the member of any personal claim outside the service of the Sultan. They were forbidden to have legal marriage to have acknowledged children or to own private property. They were paid, promoted, demoted and even executed at the Sultan's will and their possessions reverted to the Sultan at their death. The best regiments which formed the backbone of the Ottoman army, all officials from the cooks and gardeners to provincial governors and ministers, were drawn from this institution. By this method the Ottoman Empire obtained a superlative group of administrators, entirely devoted to their duties, undistracted by personal allegiance and preoccupation and dependent for their careers (and their very lives) on the demonstration of their efficiency and loyalty. Simultaneously the non-heredity status precluded the formation of powerful elite which could threaten the authority of the Sultan.
Today, managements of large organizations are using methods which are similar to either of these two strategies. The multinationals, by and large, create cadres of management trainees who are recruited every year and trained to go up the management hierarchy. The chairman is often a management trainee recruited about 25 years ago, trained and promoted within the organization.
In the so-called Marwari concerns, basically the second strategy is followed by recruiting people from the ethic clan and making them fully dependent on the "babu" for their carer. The personal loyalty does not always last - particularly when the industrial empire is divided amongst the family members. However, many of these executives - though excellent in their contribution value - have a low transfer value (ability to get another comparable or higher level job elsewhere) due to lack of formal qualifications, systematic training and even command on the English language. They continue to stick to the organization - even when they find that the orgnisation is recruiting so-called professional managers, i.e., executives with formal qualifications who are given high emoluments and perquisites. This creates a running feud between the "loyalists" (i.e.who have worked for a long time but have no formal qualifications and consequently unable to get change) and the "professional" (who have commanded better employment terms but are suspected regarding their loyalty by the loyalists. The "professionals", in turn, feel that the "loyalists" are Hottentots who are overvalued and would not be able to get half their emoluments in the open market.
The ogranisations entered the 20th century in three distinct structures:
Family enterprises managed by traditional traders,
Multinational branches or subsidiaries managed by expatriates,
Government organizations managed by bureaucratic administrators.
The organizations were characterized by:
Rigid structures controlled from the top with hierarchy and rules,
Desire for stability, predictability, large size integrating vertically,
Operation characterized by closely guarded information, quantitative analysis,
Reactivity, risk minimization and sustainable competitive advantage.
Paradigm Shift in the 21st Century
With the advent of 21st Century, the management requirements, are undergoing a sea change. The markets have started changing discontinuously. To be successful in this situation, the managements require creativity and intuition rather than quantitative analysis. They will have to be proactive with speedy response to competitive environment rather than reactive. They will require permanent flexibility with leadership from everybody according to requirements. Consequently, information has to be shared with efforts to reinvent competitive advantage and create new markets.
With the advent of 21st Century, the management requirements, are undergoing a sea change. The markets have started changing discontinuously. To be successful in this situation, the managements require creativity and intuition rather than quantitative analysis. They will have to be proactive with speedy response to competitive environment rather than reactive. They will require permanent flexibility with leadership from everybody according to requirements. Consequently, information has to be shared with efforts to reinvent competitive advantage and create new markets.
This means a change in the mind set of the managers.
The Options
Every human being wanting to make a career has two options:
To work in an organization - this is the option a vast majority of people will take
To work on one's own - like M.F. Hussain or Lata Mangeshkar.
However attractive the second option is, it involves a serious problem of security and stability. As an individual, one has to stand in the market being judged every day. The market is ruthless in its judgement. And if the judgement is adverse, the person can go from hero to zero instantly. Film actors, cricketers, artists, consultants, doctors, lawyers or any other operating on the basis of their individual talents have to face this risk. A position in the market is not God-given - it has to be achieved. And after achieving it, it has to be achieved every day.
The organizational option is more secure and stable. Getting a position requires some efforts. However, after getting a position in an organization, one can look forward to going up the ladder slowly or rapidly. If one keeps one's nose clean, one will get some promotions in one's career. Seniority is always an important factor - particularly in India. And there is also the so-called "humanitarian consideration". Seniority and humanitarian considerations have no place in the marketplace and hence most people prefer working for organisations.
When one works in the organization, apart from stability and security, one gets three packages from the organisation:
Emoluments, perquisites, amenities and designation
Opportunity for achievement and development.
The social group around the person: bosses, colleagues, subordinates, customers, suppliers, union leaders, workers, etc.
In the present management approach, the first aspect is emphasized the most. However, in real life, the second and the third play a more important role. Achievement and development are vital to get a sense of performance. Achievement, like butter always rises to the top. The persons working in the organization are left to drink only the buttermilk. However, one thing stays with everybody and that is his development. The portable computer in the brain keeps on getting upgraded and the rate of upgrading depends on the rate of achievement.
The most vital aspect, however, is the social group. A man is a social animal and his day-to-day happiness comes out of the social group he is working with. Every person who comes in your life gives you some pleasure and some pain. Some may give only pain, but nobody gives only pleasure. As a group, if the total pleasure given is more than the pain, then the person wants to continue to work in the organization. That is why most people get a feeling of utter loss on the day they retire from their organizations.
To get these three things, the person has to give three things to the organization:
His time: most of the persons working an organization give a major part of their waking hours to the organization.
His ability: i.e. the portable computer he carries in his brain. However, the extent of use of this ability varies from person to person and from time to time depending on his motivation.
Hid effervescence pr enthusiasm: Just like a tow year-old child keeps the whole house in high spirits because of its effervescence, there are some people in the organization whose effervescence keeps the whole environment enthusiastic. If any of them is absent even for a day, he is missed.
The change
In the 21st Century, the "Hindu marriage" type of security and stability will not be available any more. Managers will be attracted by opportunities outside their organizations. The organizations will be carrying out periodically their "SWOT" (Stengths, Weakness, Opportunities & Threats) analysis and will respond to the rapidly changing market by changing their products, processes and structures to force "mid-career" change amongst the managers through "voluntary retirement schemes."
The remedy to the situation is a periodic SWOT analysis by the managers for themselves. The usual strength, i.e. education and experience, etc., will have to be examined critically in the world of fast-changing technologies -as these will be subject to obsolescence. Continuous education will be the vital need to keep competitive in the 21st century.
Similarly, the weakness will have to be analysed and remedial measures will have to be taken to avoid being misfit in the non-forgiving world of 21st century.
For those who have been able to keep themselves abreast with the technological developments, the opportunities will be so plentiful that it would be like drinking water from hosepipe. The constraints of space will vanish as the world becomes a global village.
On the other hand, there will be a constant threat from those coming up. Youth will be at a premium and this will often mean that old-times have to step aside - and get into another career. It will be more like film-actors and cricketers - starting a new career at the age of 40 years.
