USA and Japan have been the two greatest economic successes of the late 20th century. But how often is it that we have heard an American organization resorting to the Japanese management style or vice versa. In fact, global behemoths like IBM have been said to follow totally different approaches in these two countries while managing the enterprise.
But why would a company do so? Why is it that a management so successful in America would fail to generate profits in Japan? A reason for that could be that it’s the people who make the organization and Japanese and American cultures are so poles apart that it’s natural that the same management style would not work there.
Delving a little deep into this, American culture is highly individualistic and scores low on emotional security because of the high divorce rates and single parenting. They are used to uncertainties in life. So, a contractual job and lesser job security do not bother them. Americans consider this a measure of their toughness and take this challenge as a motivation to work harder. This enhances their productivity as the culture at home and workplace are in balance.
Japanese companies on the other hand, propagate life time employment. This is because Japanese people place high value on bonding and have strong ties in the family and the community.
The above mentioned examples prove that a management style that is rooted in our culture would be more successful than adopting a management style followed in some other country.
India has not produced very many successful managers in spite of having one of the best pools of technocrats and doctors. This is probably because of our failure to develop an indigenous management style, a style that apes our culture and our values.
We Indians place high priority on family ties and belongingness. When we encounter a job environment that practices the American/Western style of management, we are not able to adjust to the cultural differences and are not as productive as our American counterparts.
Indians prefer to take life easy and job security thus is one of the most important factors. The existing system generates a fear for the same. In current market scenario, where there is so much competition, the aspect of job security has diluted. This is where the human aspect of management needs to take over. The employees should be made to feel that they are the company’s major assets. This can be done through trainings and welfare schemes. This would, in my judgment, increase the level of commitment towards the organization.
In many cases where it does not happen, as has been mentioned in the posts of Tuktuk and Suchitra, the employees care to move on. The employment bonds not being legally enforceable in our country, serve little more than being a psychological barrier. As so many people break the bond, it implies that the financial liability that comes with it is outweighed by the proposition offered by the other opportunity. So are bonds actually serving the purpose of reducing attrition or preventing knowledge workers from quitting and helping cover the training costs?
I would like to cite an example from my company where one particular employee was allowed flexible work timings as there were certain medical complications with his then pregnant wife. This not only removed a big problem of his, but also helped keep him motivated and today, he is one of the most dedicated employees of the company.
So what I am suggesting here is that we need to adopt management practices that are Indian-people friendly and rest on our values. We need to put in more emphasis on belongingness and attachment than trying out forcible methods such as bonds. Whether it has more aspects of the American or the Japanese style is not our prime concern.
Though proposing a management style would be naïve, but one of the most flexible management style I have come across is the Sama dana danda bheda philosophy which talks about handling people according to different situations with diplomacy. The story revolves around Prahlada Maharaja, the son of Hiranyakasipu. He was taught that it is very important for a future king to learn these four principles. There will always be a rivalry between the king and his people. When a leader of the public agitates against the king, it is the king’s duty to try and pacify him and tell him that he is very important to the state and he should not bother others by this form of agitation. If the agitator is still not pacified, the king should offer him a lucrative post as a minister with a high salary. If he still does not stop, the king should try creating dissent among the public. Finally, if he still does not relent he should be placed under severe punishment.
Here Sama is the art of gentle persuasion. We try to persuade a de-motivated employee who wishes to leave, by proposing newer trainings and better facilities/opportunities for him. Dana is using donations/money to achieve one’s purpose. If the employee is still not motivated enough and is a high performing knowledge worker you can motivate him to stay with a higher salary or a better position. Bheda is the art of aggravating dissent among opposing parties. You try to motivate the other employees of the company through the Sama philosophy. This serves two purposes. First, the agitating employee would not be able to influence the other employees. Second, seeing the other employees motivated, the agitating employee could himself be pacified. Finally, danda is punishment where an employee who is still agitating and is a bad influence on others should be asked to resign or axed from the company.
We just cannot go on talking about our great culture on one hand and then completely avoiding it when it comes to management. What we need is a management style that is India centric and India specific.
No comments:
Post a Comment