Back Managing in real life
S. Ramachander
In practice, however, as Prof. Henry Mintzberg has long pointed out, the actual work of a manager is far from neat and tidy, nor is it linear and predictable.
A manager's day is fragmented, many faceted and sporadic and his attention span on any issue is seldom more than about ten minutes. Decision-making is a heuristic process, improvising as we go along rather then using hard data and sharp analysis.
In Indian colloquial parlance, managing has acquired a meaning still full further from the ideal.
To manage often means to get by (I somehow managed to spend the two days) or to adopt rough and ready methods (I had to get to the customer on time, I had no reservations but I managed) or pure chance (do not ask me how, but we managed, the driver gave us a few heart attacks but got us to the conference hall just in time).
Or again, it could suggest something one cannot record in the books officially (well, I know the factory inspector asked a lot of questions, but we managed him).
All of these have actually the same basic features when you come right down to it: getting the job done, thinking on your feet, being resourceful and going by what works and not necessarily what is right according to the books!
This kind of street savvy is what they don't teach you at the business schools. Some students these days come already well-armed with all the lessons they would ever need on this aspect of real life managing.
Compared to an earlier generation, in my experience, the professional course student is more sophisticated in his understanding of the `art of the possible', which ironically is one definition of politics.
They are probably more exposed to reality early, thanks to a more widespread and strident media that is full of shady dealings and questionable behaviour at the highest levels of society. They see cash for question scandals, fisticuffs on the floor of the legislature and political shenanigans merging in the headlines with the wheeling and dealing of the top business leaders; and the same ones are later seen on the screen emerging from temples after `special darshans' and pontificating to the world from every pulpit about values and beliefs.
No wonder then, the young managers have worked out their own practical definitions of what managing really means, especially if how they meet the `deliverables' is what would determine their careers.
Never mind what Peter Drucker said, they have worked it out — one set of things for the exams and another for real life.
The first generation of formally trained professional managers in this country saw themselves as exceptions to all this.
They were told that upon graduation they should introduce a different set of practices and philosophies into the world of business, as disinterested administrators following a data-based, logical, scientific approach to deciding what to do.
They were also supposed to uphold the democratic, participative and egalitarian styles of managing people — and had it drilled into them that managing cannot be a value-neutral process. This is the big change that strikes me most noticeably whenever I talk at some depth with today's young managers.
Of course they are smarter, more worldly-wise and ambitious (and have reason to want to emulate Mr Narayanamurthy in wealth) but as for attention to the means, be it a professional or moral aspect of it, they seem blithely indifferent.
There is little purpose in apportioning blame for this state of affairs; rather we must ask whether we want this to go on, whether we should be concerned at all — and if so, should we do anything about it?
(Feedback can be sent to srchander23@netscape.net)
© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu Business Line