THE choice of any organization is a part of overall corporate strategy. It reflects a set-up that is necessary to achieve the stated goals and objectives. (Christopher K. Bart, “Who is running the store”, CA magazine, pp 22-27, The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, August 2001.)
The rigidity and unresponsiveness to market changes is an option to ‘fossilise’. So is the case with the process of gradual adaptation. Evolving specie cannot predict future. The management of an organization, however, has to have an insight how the business environments are evolving. The fate of dinosaurs tells that incremental shifts do not save from extinction: an organization may be knocked flat by sudden impact of new sight how the business environments are evolving. The fate of dinosaurs tells that incremental shifts do not save from extinction: an organization may be knocked flat by sudden impact of new technology and deregulation, (Maurice Glucksman, Managing Metamorphosis’s, The Meckinsey Quarterly, 1998, Number 2 and George H. Labovitz. ‘Optimising for Adaptation - The case for a Behavioural View’, Pakistan Management Review, West Pakistan Institute of Management, WPIDC, Winter 1971, Vol. XII 4.)
Based on research on the performance of 100 corporations in 15 industries, over a 36-year period, Richard Foster and Sarah Kaplan of Mckinsey & Co in their excellent book, “Creative Destruction” have shown that in the prevailing technology-driven economy, life expectancy of a corporation as per Standard and changes from this to Poors’ index has reduced from 65 years to 10 years. “If history is a guide, over the next quarter no more than a third of today’s major corporations will survive in an economically important way”, they point out. Markets have no sentiments and capitalism is relentless and unforgiving.
They argue that corporations must embrace “discontinuity”, that is, the idea that what they have always done is irrelevant. “unless corporation can lean to overcome the natural bias for denial, it will”, they point out, “fail, or at best under- perform”. (Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan, “Creative Destruction”, Doubleday Books, USA) “Learning disabilities are tragic in children but they are fatal in organizations”. (David E Meen and Mark Blaugh “Creating the Learning organization”, The Mckinsey Quarterly, 1, 1992)
The purpose of an organization largely determines its choice of philosophy, and is a primary factor that fixes its structure. The choice between whether to organize essentially in terms of division of authority, or of specifications of responsibility and accountability for voluntary personal contribution and performance closely governs the pattern and the selection and application of other managerial principles. These, in turn, have significant (and in some measure, crucial) influence on the efficacy and growth potentiality of the organization. Ansoff has pointed out that the synergy - combined performance that is greater than the sum of its parts-and the structure of firms’ organization are dependent on each other. (H. Igor Ansoff, “Corporate Secretary”, (New York, McGraw Hill) pp.75 and 167).
Extensive research has revealed a clear correlation between the pattern of organization and the philosophy of its management, on the one hand, and the level of productivity on the other. An organization framework therefore per se needs to harmonise the goals of the individual with the goals of the organization.
It should be understood that each developmental stage is irregular, non-repetitive and unique. Although the historical development within a single stage may be relatively smooth and continuous process, but the overall development pattern, is marked by “sharp and discrete transitions from one stage to the next”. A causal relation exists between the structural-functional changes and the managerial strategies pursued. An organization’s metamorphosis is said to be a function of, besides external circumstances and environment, the managerial strategies. Productivity is thus related to managerial principles. Conscious efforts therefore are called for to elevate the art of management from its existing lowly status of folklore to international standard.
An organization can be viewed as a coalition of various participants, each with his own objective or perception of goal. The organization’s decision-making process is thus characterized by joint problem solving in the face of a multiplicity of particularly conflicting objectives.
Joint effort introduces restraints on purely personal freedom. A basic problem is, therefore, how to enforce restraints in ways both humanly acceptable, on the one hand, and benign for the greatest personal contributions and satisfaction, on the other . It is the spirit of the organization that decides whether the individual will give his best or do just enough to get by.
The traditional concept of super-ordinate and subordinate control and operations is dysfunctional. (J.G. March and A.H. Simon, “Organizations”, (New York, Wiley, 1958. P. 191.) Swinth has shown in laboratory setting that numerous difficulties arise when novel interdependencies do exit in organizations so structured. (R.L. Swinth, “Organization Planning; Goal Setting in Independent Systems”, “Industrial Management Review”, Vol.7 (1966) pp. 57-60). Blau and Scott have called this ‘organizational dilemma’ between the need to coordinate and the need to problem solving with all the attending considerations. (P. Blau and W.R. Scott, “Formal Organization: A Comparative Approach”, (San Francisco, Chandler, 1961, P.242.)
Another perennial problem of management is “how to merge individual efforts into an efficient team-work, that is, how to blend, through team-work, many different contributions to bring about a single desired result without suppressing effect on the motivation of subordinates, which, creates “social and physical barriers, and alienates the subordinate from the organization”.
Dr. Bill Paul has pointed out that if the managers impose a set of assumptions and beliefs about people, which did not accord with reality, they were likely to create a “do-it-yourself hangman’s kit. (Report, “Management Today, “(London, Institute of Management, February, 1971) pp.113-14.
One of the major reasons for the failure of an individual is setting wrong goals and working through wrong motives. Wrong goals or wrong motives or both tend to split into two the emotional side of the workers. According to findings of Rensis Lickert, the high producing managers were noted to be following a different kind of leadership and the switching of managers of high and low production units has produced significant results: high production managers were found to raise the productivity of low production units faster than the former high production units slipped under the low production managers. (Rensis Lickert, “New Patterns of Management (New York, McGraw Hill. 12 and 99)
Psychology tells us that a human being is subject to five basic needs .... the self-actualization need”,” esteem need”. A man cannot leave three needs at home and take two needs to work. The true motivation calls for the acknowledgement of existence of all five levels. Psychologists have noted that the need to ‘self-actualise’ is the most mature need of all the needs; its fulfilment gives man his dignity. The management policies should fulfil the yearning for ‘self-actualisation’ to increase enthusiasm and efficiency.
Out of all production resources, man alone has the capacity to produce more than the sum total of their efforts. Empirical evidence shows their attitudes are a significant constraint on their performance potentiality and, therefore, on business goals and growth.
A poor organization leads to most shocking waste of human spirit and capabilities. It makes good performance impossible, no matter how good the individuals may be. Literature suggests that excessive controls tend to kill ingenuity and is the key villain in lowering the worker’s moral. It builds up resistance and reduces the level of cooperation. In a laboratory experiment conducted by Vello Sermant, the subjects in free condition rated the item,” I tried to play the game so that both the player and myself would accumulate as many points as the game allowed” significantly higher than the subjects treated otherwise. He reports further that subjects in free condition tended to rate the item, “I tried to prevent the other player from scoring more points that I did”, lower than subjects in other condition. The subjects in free condition also expressed a comparatively higher desire to play the “game” so that they and their partners would gain as many points as possible. (Vello Sermat, “The Possibility of Influencing the Others’ Behaviour and Cooperation” Chicken vs. Prisoners’ Dilemma” (Canada, Journal of Psychology, Vol. 21(3), 1967, pp. 215-17)
Restraints on purely personal freedom are certainly psychologically uncomfortable. Nevertheless, as Plato said, “The worth of men consists in their liability to persuasion. They can persuade and can be persuaded by the disclosure of alternative, the better and the worse”. What, therefore, is needed is the knowledge about men. For instance, if behaving in a certain way is inconsistent with some attitude, either the attitude or the behaviour should be managed to be humanly changed through removal of internal conflicts that the individual is able to keep harmonious posture. There is an eternal struggle between men’s desire for independence and his yielding to controls. William Whyte in his study “The Organization Man” has commented, “It is an independence he will never have in full measure but he must forever yearn for it”.
Weick was able to show significant attitude change and behavioural change in the form of working harder at a task in which subjects were provided insufficient justification for engaging in that task. Weick in this experiment blocked all other ways of reducing the tension except through the change in the level of behaviour. The subjects were first assembled in a group. The experimenter then came into the room and in a rather discouraged manner informed the subjects that he had just been told by the head of the psychology department that he would not be allowed to offer class credits to participants as originally promised because he was not a member of the psychology department staff.
The experimenter then said brusquely that anyone who wanted to leave may leave but they might as well stay and participate in the experiment. While few subjects did get up and leave, the subjects who remained worked at a concept of attainment. The startling finding was that these subjects worked hard at the task and liked it better than the subjects in control groups, who initially thought that they would get class credits. Weick was thus able to demonstrate the surprising aspect of increase in productivity with a reduction in the reward offered — certainly an outcome exactly opposite to what traditional incentive theory would predict. The subjects thought that they were not going to receive class credits. But in their view they were staying for an experimenter who was anything but warm-hearted. This feeling, hopefully, eliminated the inconsistency between attitude and behaviour and produced behaviour change in the form of increased productivity (Quoted from John. J. Sherwood, James W. Barron and H. Gorden Fitch, “The Study of Attitude Change”, Wadeworth Publishing Co., 1979).
Empirical evidence suggests the first move of the “other” has a prolonged effect on subjects’ responses. When the first choice of subject coincides with that of the “other”; the subject tends to show significantly more cooperative attitude than when first move did not coincide (Vello Sermat, “The Effect of an Initial Cooperative or Competitive Treatment Upon a Subjects’ responses to Conditional Changes”, (New York, Behavioural Science, July 4, 1967 p. 301 and page 311) Subjects learn that mutual competition will result in consistently low outcomes, and they tend, therefore, to resort to a more cooperative strategy in the hope of inducing the other to cooperation (Vello Sermat).
According to Alvin Toffler, futurist’s guru, “The regime of smokestacks has been toppled for ever. What remains is still frothing and changing the shape. It’s a whole new era with dangers and opportunities uniquely its own.” The technology and information revolution that has only begun its course would profoundly transform economic and political relationship. Owing to GATS and WTO such change shall be more pronounced in less privileged countries. As they say, even standing at the same place demands running at twice the speed. The situation would demand a new way of doing old things.
If local entrepreneurs seek to stay in the game, transformation is the key-embedded mindset that shuns change needs to be open to broad based changes. Maurice Glucksman has very aptly said, “It is not enough to build; destruction too is necessary”. It is a received wisdom that what one sees does not depend only on where you look but also on what one is looking for. Only by changing minds will one change decisions. “The entrepreneurs need to understand how the structures and principles of organization shape the behaviour of corporations”. (Prof. Jay W. Forrester) The board / directors shall have to innovate, to adapt or to adopt new techniques of management and to bring experience and competencies to provide strategic direction. However, given the local corporate state not much could be expected to happen in this direction.
Perhaps,The Pakistan Management Association should step forward and with the assistance of media moguls evolve marketing strategy for targeted advertisement, etc. that goes to create a desire and urge to know and adopt and adapt international management practices just as with their help the companies manipulate individuals both to desire the product and buy that company’s product. Let it be added here that is no wild idea: e.g. the Institutes of Chartered Accountants in UK and other countries and the AICPA in America are spending millions and millions on advertisement and other means of communication to attract more and more academically qualified persons to the profession though the profession already is well known. I should acknowledge that, as an Italian proverb puts it, “between saying and doing, many a pair of shoes is worn out” but not growing and standing still would cost much more than the cost of few pair of shoes.
It might as well be dreaming but as Marcel Proust has said “If a little dreaming is dangerous, the cure for it is not to dream less but to dream all the more”. And this, because the significance of man is not in what he attains but, to quote Khalil Gibran, “in what he longs to attain”.
