Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Theory“I” talks about how Global Management concepts

Theory“I” talks about how Global Management concepts are now getting Influenced Significantly by lessons from The Indian Context, both Culturally and Professionally. With more and more Indians taking up Global Leadership roles across the World in Varied Areas of Society,polity and Industry,is The World getting Enmeshed with and finally Accepting The Indian style of Management? By Arindam Chaudhuri

Of course, there’s the opposing argument – and quite convincing for that matter – that an Indian who has lived in America for two to three decades perhaps has become completely disconnected with what is being Indian and would have completely forgotten the ‘life lessons’ which I’ve purported above. To sweep away this argument would take less than a moment. Just walk into the home of any Indian family that has spent this argumentative two to three decades in the United States, spend a few hours with this family, and you get to understand the logic of what I’m putting forth. They might be Americans in terms of their citizenry – and I have no issues with that – but the legacy of their Indianness goes much beyond simply the name, and much deeper than the religion connection that also plays a heavy card. And that’s where the Indian-style-of-management hypothesis, the Theory I of it all, comes back in one big wave.

Since the 1950s, management theory and practice has been heavily influenced by the likes of Alfred Chandler, Igor Ansoff, Peter Drucker, Herzberg, Fayol et al. Their theories and those of their peers defined how CEOs and institutional leaders ran their companies and managed their people. McClelland, Skinner, Maslow while building on Elton Mayo’s work became iconic proponents and definers of human behaviour in the 1960s-80s periods. Blake and Mouton added to their celebrity quotient by inventing the Managerial Grid. Hershey and Blanchard went many steps ahead and beseeched the ‘leader’ bunch to become situational leaders – in other words, to moderate their leadership skills depending upon their followers. Giving them glittering company were Levitt, Kotler, who redefined marketing in ways nobody else could, and more contemporarily, Ries and Trout. And then Michael Porter happened to the strategy world, where cost leadership, product differentiation, competitive advantage became terms as common as the morning weather forecast for every CEO. Yes, the list is exemplary and par excellence – more because what these people said, worked.

But somehow, somewhere along the line, the Americanness of it all went completely unnoticed for many decades. There were no questions asked on whether management and leadership philosophies from other parts of the world could perhaps work better. How often has one heard of an American organisation adopting the Japanese management style to surge ahead? Perhaps never. And how often has one heard of the reverse? Probably never again. However, I do remember reading somewhere that when IBM in America was making losses while IBM in Japan was making profits, IBM-USA tried to adopt the Japanese management style to turnaround. Well, the result...increased losses!
 
Predictable? Should be. It is most likely that a style that is successful in Japan would not be as successful in US; and vice versa too. People are different, cultures are different and so is the life-style. That is the reason why Japan has developed its own management style and the US its own. If we take a deep look into the American management style, we realise that it is absolutely fine-tuned to the American culture and way of living. The people in the West grow up, mostly, with very less emotional security due to factors like high divorce rates, single parent families et al. As they grow up, they do tend to find a sense of stability in this seemingly unstable and insecure atmosphere. Thus, when they enter into their job lives and see a management culture prevalent, which is contractual in nature with the hire and fire style of management, they don’t get disturbed. In fact, this motivates them to work harder; and a typical American might metaphorically say, “We are tough guys and as long as we are good, the company keeps us, else we go out”. The bottom line is that the fine tuning between the culture at home and at job works wonders and enhances productivity & motivation.

Looking at the Japanese set of companies, one finds concepts of life time employment working wonders out there. A Japanese finds a bonded culture in his organisation, unlike the American contract culture. If we look into the Japanese lifestyle and culture, we would find the importance of bonds being very high. The Japanese have strong family ties and a strong sense of community. From such an upbringing, they feel at home when they see a bonded style of management on the job. The typical Japanese would say, “I am a Honda man (and not that I work for Honda)”, displaying the bond that he shares with his company. The point that gets highlighted again is that a management style, which flows out of your own culture and roots, would any day motivate your people much more than one which is adopted from somewhere else. I am actually attempting to disprove my Indian style of management hypothesis much before I’ve even proved it. But seriously, it doesn’t take a post doctorate to understand that nationally bound management and leadership concepts should be able to succeed only in those geographies and demographies for which they were originally intended. Therefore while America is the world’s largest economy, Japan the second largest and China racing down their necks, all three have brilliantly different management styles – and all three have similarly different cultures; therefore, the match between their cultures and management styles is perfect. Then why should an Indian style of management succeed (say in the West) where almost all others have failed on the portability parameter? The answer to that lies in the genesis of the Indian style of management.

This genesis that I am alluding to is what can be encapsulated quintessentially by the term ‘Indian culture’, with one significant facet of it being the wondrous quality of not trying to impose its own character, but in trying to modulate the character of individuals and entities around to the benefit of the larger good. If that sounded over the top, let me simplify it by the term, Theory I. 
 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,