November 19, 2007	Monday	Ziqa’ad 08, 1428

Yes, submission to Divine Authority is a virtue. However, authorities that are not derived from the Divine do not command submission.

Such authorities may in fact invite revulsion if they deviate too far away from the virtuous path that alone can have hearts and minds galvanised to an authority treading the right path.

Right path in situations not dictated exactly by the Divine Injunctions is determined collectively in an organisational environment and it must be ethical and just. For, a path chalked out even collectively may neither be ethical nor just as it turned out in the cases of both Enron and WorldCom.

In such organisations, submission to the authorities would tantamount to being disloyal to the organisations and to what organisational goals ought to be. It is little wonder then that Enron’s Sherron Watkins and WorldCom’s Cynthia Cooper were rewarded by the civil society for having blown the whistle despite huge personal risks. Submission to the deviant authorities of Enron and WorldCom would have been anything but virtuous!

Ordinarily, however, people regard submission as “wise” in various organisational settings. For, the ones who do not submit are penalised in many ways that could range from termination of services to marginalisation. The benefits of submission may include various rewards in consideration of the extent to which one submits that could range from day-to-day sycophancy to actually being involved in rubber stamping and executing the shady transactions that would not stand the test of public scrutiny. People have a tendency to submit as the material benefits of submission may far outweigh the costs. So, they settle down for submission and call it “wise.” What is “wisdom”?

Wisdom usually connotes “good judgment” and sagacity. A judgment would be considered “good” only if it is “good” for all and not for just a few at the expense of the many. The goal of all organised activity is the attainment of organisational goals in a way that personal goals are congruent with the goals of the organisation. Organisational interest may be compromised upon if personal goals are attained through submission and personal loyalties to the authorities and if individuals are colluding in actions that promote and protect personal interests first and foremost. Such actions can, therefore, not be called good and sagacious. Even if some individuals gain in this process of a zero-sum game, such actions are not “wise” in the strictest sense of the term. They may be called crafty, cunning, and full of guile which traits cannot be used interchangeably with “wisdom” that stands for the attainment of lofty goals in organisational life. This is why the nay saying Sherron Watkins and Cynthia Cooper turned out to be the wisest of the whole lot that was rotting in Enron and WorldCom respectively and some of whom would later end up in prisons.

The meaning of “wise,” as understood commonly in the private and public organisational lexicon of the third world, should, therefore, be turned on the head. Third world is third world because there are many “wiser than though” who are in a rat race for getting ahead personally in utter disregard of collective organisational interest. How should organisations then be governed so that both the individual and the collective interests gain by entering into a virtuous cycle of growth and development?

Modern management emphasises the empowerment of individual organisational members and not just the ones at the top of the pyramid. In fact, modern management debunks the idea of organisational pyramids as, ala Mohan Thite, pyramids should be converted into playgrounds for no one can bring his/her best out in a pyramid that are the “greatest tombs” ever made. It is only when stifling and suffocating pyramids are converted into level playing fields that the best in the people is realised that alone can make the best contribution towards the accomplishment of organisational mission.

In a playground, no one player is a clone of the other as might be required in an autocratic pyramidal structure in which the one perched at the apex views his well-being as synonymous with that of the organisation and, therefore, demands personal loyalties. Personal loyalty thus gets equated with loyalty to the organisation which view has been falsified in many more cases than one. In such structures, personalities at the helm become more important than the organisations.

The upshot in many cases is that the organisation might crumble under the weight of such an artificially inflated personality. It is little wonder then that in our part of the world, there are more personalities than institutions. And, this is precisely why private interests are served better than public interest. Third world thus remains third world and cannot climb a ladder even though many personalities may be seen sprinting ahead.

In a modern playground kind of an organisation, organisational success does not hinge upon the role of one or a few individuals at the top. Rather, success is a function of effective team play. And, the organisation is driven ahead collectively in an agreed upon direction. What then is team play?

LaFasto and Larson’s empirical work sheds many outdated notions on teams. It is based on a survey of 6000 team members. In our country, team play is usually used as a euphemism for compliance and conformity in a group that may not even have graduated to a team. Shared goals distinguish teams from groups. The researched qualities of effective team members include working knowledge as core competence, openness, supportiveness, action orientation, and a positive personal style.

So, in addition to experience and capability, team members should be forthright and frank. That is, dissent should not be viewed as disloyalty. In fact, a member who disagrees despite personal risks involved could be more loyal to the organisation than the one who either suffers in silence or takes heart in the same in the hope of receiving some material reward for personal loyalty to the boss.

Researchers have found a direct correlation between top performing companies and extremely contentious boards. In such companies, dissent is viewed as an obligation and a recipe for further organisational growth and development. For, the organisation must not get plagued with “the problem of no problem” as in Edward deBono. Problems must be thrown up and resolved.

Teams are, therefore, not expected to have mute members always nodding their heads in support as is also found in LaFasto and Larson. For, “support” in modern parlance means action and vitality towards the attainment of team goals through discussion, debate, thought, and action. Support does not mean personal support to personalities. Being “negative” also does not mean being critical. Rather, “negative” is to not support the agreed upon organisational goals that many choose to support through diverse thought and action.

“Collision” of ideas is not “negative” as in modern management thought problem solving through diverse outlooks is considered “positive” and not “negative. Team play is, therefore, integration of diverse perspectives and not harmony as only diverse opinion can alert an organisation to the opportunities and challenges offered by the environment. Skill requirements for a team leader are, therefore exceptional. He/she should be able to inspire a shared vision and move the souls instead of alienating them that we in the underdeveloped world excel in at various levels of organised activity.