How we react as leaders and managers, to the behaviour of those who work for us in the corporate world has a large parallel with how discipline is enforced in a country. The balance between being too strict, and being too light is very important in ensuring a healthy productivity and attainment of results, and morale. There are some enlightening conclusions coming from looking at human behaviour, historical trends, and what ancient wisdom has to offer in this field. When these things are all consciously meditated on, deeply internalized, and lived, they will give rise to conscious action towards others, which will in tern give rise to more effective management of the people who work for you as a leader.
In the early formation of the Mongolian Empire, there were three tribes who joined forces. They were only in the hundreds by number, however within a very short period, conquered thousands. There was a trio of warlords from each of these three tribes who formed a close group who collectively made decisions regarding the next place they would attack, how they would govern, set rules, award punishment etc. They set a number of clear rules i.e. how the rank and file operate and whose orders must be followed. This system clearly worked and there wasn’t an issue with it, until something unexpected was encountered. At this time, a decision needed to be taken on how to manage that kind of newly encountered behaviour. The tribes had conquered a new territory, and in their barbaric celebrations, one of the warriors raped a woman of the conquered party. This news came out to the masses, and there were mixed opinions amongst the public. Some said anything should go as they were conquered, however others morally disagreed and thought a punishment should be meted out. This matter was then escalated to the trio of warlords, and they too had a mixed opinion. They debated. One said that if they set a hard punishment, they would need to be fair and identify such cases very diligently, which would create a burden and reduce their power. Another said that it should be punished to some extent in some appropriate manner. However, the strongest of the trio took the final decision in his own hands, and beheaded the person in front of all of the public. That was to be the rule; zero tolerance, and it sent a very robust message to all those who may have considered such an act. In corporate organisations we also see that making an example out of an incident does sometimes act as a strong factor to dissuade people from misbehaving. In countries like Dubai and Singapore, the crime rates are extremely low, and the punishments for crime are very severe. This is clearly one extreme, of setting a very high standard, and enforcing it rigidly as possible.
In Britain, the riots of 2012 some argue could have been contained better if powerful measures were enforced early. Britain was said by some to have been overly-tolerant of bad behaviour. A country which previously ruled most of the World, which has some of the most economic and political power at the world level, was bought to a state of nation-wide trauma, by a few groups of youths with a some home-made weapons; quite simply unacceptable. Some argue that making an example out of the first few cases would have been enough of a deterrent for some of the latter cases that ensued. The decision of making clear the consequences of bad behaviour was not taken, and as a result global reputational damage, what to speak of innocent people suffering, was what came to pass. The crime rate in the 1970’s through to the 1990’s in New York City was amongst the highest in inner cities in the world. Mayor Gulianni stepped in and enfored a zero tolerance policy in New York, which resulted in New York becoming a safer place by ten times, compared to the past. The book Freakonimics later argued that the reduction of crime was actually attributed to a reduction in the number of single parent families in New York; which has always had a very strong correlation with rates of crime independent of which country in the world, and especially in the US. So, was it Gulianni’s zero tolerance policy, or the reduction in single parents? Or both? If we look at the crime rates in some of the African countries, they are far higher than in the Western countries, however their police forces are given complete sanction to shoot on site, and in that sense, can be regarded more similar to the US police albeit with different types of internal governance, which may have a role to play also. The Mexican police force make heavy use of weapons and shoot on site, and yet the homicide rate in Mexico is continually extremely high. So it isn’t necessary that simply by imposing a severe punishment, discipline and good behaviour will be automatically attained. It depends on many factors. What is the nature of people being governed? What is the nature of the people who are governing? These are some of the considerations. In the corporate context, simply by setting hard deadlines, and imposing strict sanctions on under-performance, will not necessarily incentivize all people to really be creative and create value. It is more complex than that, and there is something missing from all the above systems.
Discipline must be there; how it is attained is delicate, complex, and must be given attention. What is missing in all of the above systems and why have none of the rulers found a perfect balance? The great sage Bhishmadeva, concluded on this aspect of leadership very simple point, which if understood, and applied, can give a huge benefit to us. He said, “A leader must understand their subjects as a mother understands her child.” If we do not understand the people that work for us, what drives them, what motivates them, what can be used to discipline them, as individuals, then we will not be able to manage them; it is quite simple. However, modern management styles are fortunately moving towards this paradigm, with the emphasis on Emotional Quotient as opposed to purely Intelligence Quotient for example. Even then, this teaching of Bhishmadeva is extremely profound and takes the concept of management to the next level. There is surely work most of us need to do in this regard. Being sensitive of the environment we are in, if we begin to take the appropriate measures to apply this teaching, things will be very progressive, because we are all individuals, and it is refreshing to i) understand others, and ii) be understood. Bhishmadeva is coming from the perspective of a highly personalistic leadership style, which is closer to modern management than many of the styles we have seen in the decades that have gone by of command and control, and therefore we will certainly see great results if we try to apply this.
No comments:
Post a Comment