On inventing a new
manager
By
S.P.Srivastava
Improvement
of quality of life and inculcating sense
of security, has been major endeavor of human beings since the dawn of
civilization. Commerce and trade developed in the process. Initially, it was
individual or a group activity, confined to a community or village and
subsequently grew to larger areas depending on mode of transport, but yet, confined
to the boundaries of a country. However, there were a few instances of highly
adventurous and enthusiastic entrepreneurs who travelled many thousand miles,
braving rough terrain and weather across the boundaries for trade, but these
were exceptions. Later, especially after industrial revolution, it occupied a
prominent position in the mental space, not only of individuals but of society
at large. Lately, since when the world became a global village, national
interest has become synonymous with economic interest, national policies and
international relations are framed around it. In this process, management of organizations,
manufacturing and trade played a major background role. Management theories
kept on evolving along side manufacturing techniques and trade practices.
Presently, we are witnessing bumpy jerks and unpredictability in the economic
space, resultantly, frequency of relook at policies at all levels has increased
many fold. Management scientists are still struggling hard to find an effective
approach. I have argued in this article that the philosophy behind framing
management principles, so far in vogue, should be shaken up, its basic premises
and tenets need to be seriously questioned. Lessons have been drawn from the
path travelled by scientists especially physicists, that how questioning the
then existing belief have, paved the way for its evolution. A similar
questioning needs to be explored by management scientists also. The mindset of
management scientists should be in synchronous with modern scientific thoughts.
I have concluded that it has become imperative to invent a new manager.
As we look
deeply into the evolutionary history of human thoughts and its manifestations
in the external world, we find that whenever a time-honored belief has been
questioned, a new worldview perspective had always followed it. It is only human
nature that in order to interpret apparently unexplainable phenomenon, a
hypothesis is first manufactured to explain it. If the hypothesis remains
unquestioned for long, it gradually becomes a belief. New phenomenon are tried
to be explained in the context of that belief and slowly it gets firmly
ingrained into the thought process and treated as truth. In case any
observation is not explained within the purview of premises of that belief, the
observation itself is questioned rather than the premises.
During pre
Copernicus and Galileo era, earth was unquestionably believed to be center of
the universe, around which every planetary objects including sun revolved.
Geocentric universe was conceptually accepted and to question it, was to commit
a sacrilege. For a long time, till capability of human senses were just normal,
observable phenomenon could be understood quite well and geo-centricity did not
pose any serious problem. Copernicus tried to explore deeper. He designed tools
to enhance the power of observations. The facts, which he encountered, raised
genuine doubts over the belief that earth is at the center of universe but, the
authority of the premises of the “geo-centricity” was so heavy that the
question was abandoned to be raked up later by Galileo. Galileo designed more
sophisticated telescopes and made finer observations, which gave him convincing
justifications to question the belief that the universe is geo- centric. Those
observations were so glaring that he had no hesitation to declare that earth is
not the center of the universe, but it is the earth, which moves around sun. He
was persecuted for committing sacrilege. Here, observation by Galileo was
questioned rather than the premises itself. Galileo being persecuted,
notwithstanding, questioning itself gave way to possibilities of new perspective
in to the thought process. Ultimately, classical science emerged as a powerful
tool to interpret observable phenomenon. Many path breaking discoveries were
made, many a scientists contributed. Isaac Newton was one of shining stars.
Kepler and later Newton gave mathematical proof that established that it is
earth which moves. Believers in Christian mythology could not counter it. Universe
was no more geo-centric now. Universe became heliocentric. Classical science
era began. Scientists claimed that universe conducts its affairs according to
physical laws. It behaves like a huge machine. If initial conditions are known,
its future course can be predicted. No need to invoke God. Worldview became mechanistic
and deterministic.
Though,
classical science emerged as a result of questioning the belief, but slowly it
got imprisoned into its own belief. Ether was one such premise, the existence
of which became a strong belief at par with geo-centric belief of pre
Copernican era. Though, there was no tangible experimental data to prove the
existence of ether, yet it was believed that it permeates the entire universe
and surrounds all the heavenly bodies. It could explain the propagation of
light wave through space (or else how could light travel) and also did not
create hindrances in explaining other observable phenomenon. Existence of ether
was believed rather blindly, by all the scientists of the day. It never
occurred to any scientist to give even a doubting glance.
While
measuring the precise speed of light, Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted
and expected a difference in speed of light between to and fro movement, which
would enable them to calculated speed of light, yet more precisely. Behind this
expectation was the tacit belief in the existence of ether through which light
would travel. As the ether would enhance the movement of light when it travels
along the movement of earth and will reduce when light travels in opposite
direction. It was a huge disappointment to both the scientists because no
matter how much sensitivity they incorporated into their equipment, expected
difference was not observed. They termed it as negative result. They still
doubted the capability of their equipment.
Like
earlier instance, belief in the existence of ether was not questioned rather
the mode of observation was doubted. The existence of ether was so strongly
ingrained in scientists that instead of questioning its existence, Lorentz came
forward to offer explanations to justify the so called negative result obtained
by Michelson-Morley. He simply explained that while moving in the direction of
earth rotation, though light will move faster but very rotation will elongate
the space through which light has to travel and thus faster movement will get
compensated by enhanced travel distance and similarly, opposite direction, will
compress the space, so, though the light will travel slowly but has to cover
less distance. Both effects shall cancel out giving rise to negative result. He
gave precise formula to calculate the extent of elongation and contraction.
Scientists themselves became prisoner of their own belief .It
was Albert Einstein who questioned the very existence of ether. Einstein just
ignored ether and came forward with path breaking special theory of relativity.
He simply accepted the Michelson Morley result and propounded the revolutionary
concept that speed of light is constant. It travels with same speed in either
direction. So no difference is expected. Negative result was just a correct
result. It is different story that those two great scientists were no more
alive to witness this.
Metaphorically,
Einstein played the same role, which Galileo played some 350 years ago.
Classical science emerged then, now it is special theory of relativity.
Classical science shook believers; special theory bewildered very scientific
community. Time and space was no more two separate entities but were
interwoven. Universe is not only heliocentric but space-time continuum as well.
Classical
science and special theory of relativity and many more theories are not merely
concepts and philosophy, it has been proved by experiments and not only this,
it has helped to improve the quality of human life as well.
Besides ether, classical science, through its theoretical
interpretations of various universal phenomenon and inventing machines,
hardened the premise that the cosmos is like a huge machine, completely
deterministic. Knowing full initial conditions, entire future can be predicted-
such was the claim. Deterministic worldview became a belief at par with “geo-centric”,
and “ether”.
Scientists
continued their exploration voyage and turned towards very fundamental
constituent, the atom. As they started breaking the atom to peep inside, their
deterministic mindset got a shock. The fundamental particles seem no longer to
obey set laws rather their behavior appeared unpredictable. The photon of which
light is composed is a particle and wave both. In order to explain their behavior,
Heisenberg challenging the deterministic concept introduced the principle of uncertainty,
which says that it is impossible to measure two properties of a quantum object,
such as its position and momentum simultaneously with infinite precision. Simply
put, if you want to know where an electron is at this moment, you have to
sacrifice knowledge of its velocity. Questioning determinism gave berth to a
new science; quantum mechanics. Quantum
mechanics takes its name from the observation that some physical quantities
exist, and can change and interact, only by discrete amounts (in a 'step-like'
manner) and behave probabilistically
rather than deterministically.
The "steps" are so tiny that they are completely imperceptible even
with a microscope,
and any description must be given in terms of a wave function rather than
specific particles and movements. The term "quantum" itself
(plural: quanta) comes from the Latin
word quantus meaning how much?,
referring to a 'packet' (or amount) of energy, momentum, or any other
attribute that is quantized and can only change by discrete amounts. This tiny
scale is why quantum mechanics generally leads to classical mechanics in
macroscopic situations: - the vast numbers of quantum effects involved in
everyday observations means that discrete quantum behaviors are usually hidden
by much larger statistical effects (similar to "averaging").This
process of questioning and evolving new concepts is still going on and perhaps
it is unending.
In the
backdrop of aforementioned discussion, if we look at the evolution of
management theories, we seem to be stuck up on the classical concept of
determinism. For decades, rather, from the very beginning when a management theory
was conceived, basic premise had been that organizational events could always
be controlled. The very word “manage” is derived probably from
Italian maneggiare "to handle, “especially "to control a horse”.(Merriam-Webster
dictionary). Various theories which have been proposed from time to time, centered
on this premise and varied only in the methodology and identification of to-be-controlled
components including employees.
“Plato had
portrayed science as an activity with double benefits: science as pure thought helps
mind to find truth, and science as power provides tools for effective action.
Gerald Holton, a noted philosopher has observed ,“The main flaw in this image
is that it omits a third vital aspect: science has always generated an
important part of our symbolic vocabulary and provided some of the metaphysical
bases and philosophical orientations of our ideology. As a consequence, the
methods of arguments of science, its conceptions
and its models, have permeated first the intellectual life
of the time, then the tenets and usages of every day life.” [1]
At
the turn of century, when Newtonian mechanics was a dominant thought, Fredrick
Taylor born in 1856, thought himself as a scientist and believed that things
could be managed (controlled) scientifically like a machine in order to achieve
optimum output. He brought the principle of rational and logical behavior in
the design of work place, laid emphasis on standardization and propounded that
in order to achieve maximum efficiency in minimized time, the job must be
broken down in its elemental parts, time each part and then reconfigure the
elements accordingly. Workers should be rewarded or punished (a tool to
control) based on their performance. He called his methodology as “scientific
management”, often called “machine theory model”.
Henry
Fayol in France and Lyndall Urwick in England chose a bit different approach of
control. They proposed to analyze the organization in terms of its purpose and
structure and then formulate rational rules of conduct in order to maximize
efficiency. Max Weber, refined scientific theory of Taylor with his
bureaucratic theory. He laid emphasis on “expertise”-rule of experts, and
“discipline”-rule of officials. He identified components to be controlled;
relation between workers and management (hierarchy), operations of organization
(rules), area of work of workers (specialization) and conduct of officials
(impersonality-rule of officials).
Transition
from classical science to quantum mechanics took place when scientists shifted
their attention from gross to subtle, from larger bodies to subatomic
particles. Here it was found that very process of observing changed the nature
of “to be observed”. Eventually, what they observed was not about that they
wanted to observe on the first hand. Almost similar pattern emerged when
emphasis was shifted from organization (gross) to its constituents that are
individuals (subtle).
The
Hawthorne Works had commissioned a study led by Elton Mayo {1924-1932} to see
if workers of Western Electric Company, Chicago would become more productive in
higher or lower levels of light. It was found that the workers' productivity
seemed to improve when changes were made, but it slumped when the study ended. Hawthorne
effect (also referred to as the observer effect) revealed that individuals
modify or improve an aspect of their behavior in response to their awareness of
being observed. Instead of questioning the premise of control, new components
i.e. quality and integrity of social relationships (styles of leadership,
quality of communication, sources of personal motivation and inter-personal
relation) were included in to the list of controllable and human relation
theory was propounded keeping employee at the center stage. Hierarchical model
of human needs, as surmised by Abraham Maslow gave further boost around 1940 in
the humanistic approach. Metaphorically, Abraham Maslow theory can be viewed at
par with Quantum mechanics, as both deals with fundamental constituent element.
However, belief in control was not questioned as in the case of quantum mechanics,
which accepted the fact that no matter how precise you offer input,
actualization of outcome can only be known probabilistically.
Maslow’s
model was applied not only to employee but also to work environment by
F.Herzberg , working in 1960 and included “hygiene” or “maintenance” factor
into the list of controllable. Employees were even categorized like fundamental
particles in quantum mechanics (electron, neutron etc.,) by Douglas McGregor
and proposed Theory X and Theory Y , taking different view of human nature ( X
theory- people are basically lazy and try to shirk work where as Y takes
opposite line that people have natural desire to work and excel) proposed
methodology of control (carrot and stick approach and creating conditions for
esteem and self actualization).
Gradually,
individual demanded more concern and attention. In the classical bias was to
study “organizations without people” and later Human Relations bias was to
study “people without organization”. However, soon it was realized that people
and organization affects each other and the system was “people-organization
continuum”, and that total system interacts with all other parts and that the
performance of the whole can only be understood in terms of the interactions of
the parts.
As more
and more controllable were added, it was realized that even more controllable
are needed to be added to the list because in the effort to control one , other
factors got affected as if they are interconnected. Soon it was realized that organizations
couldn’t be regarded as closed systems that were autonomous and isolated from
the outside world. Open system concept propounded by Ludwig von Bertalanffy
(1951), a biologist was borrowed by management scientists and thought to
include environmental factors (network of suppliers, distributors, government
agencies, and competitors with which a business enterprise inter-acts) into
consideration. As none of theories were able to predict behavior of individual
members (same as that of subatomic particles), none of the tools of control
proved effective. So, Contingency school proposed flexibility in formulating
control tools. It points out that business is, a sophisticated game in which,
by definition, there can not be such thing as a winning strategy. Every
business situation, like any game at any stage of play, is unique. The next
move in the game will always be a question of judgment and never adherence to
rule. “Any theory claiming to offer universal advice of formulae for success
condemns itself as fraudulent science”. Contingency theory clearly acknowledged
inadequacy of deterministic concept but, management scientists still hold on to
the view that it is possible to develop a business management theory to
overcome this complexity. “As we observe how different professionals working in
different kinds of organizations and occupational communities make their case,
we see we are still far from having a single 'theory' of organization
development," wrote Jay R. Galbraith in Competing with Flexible Lateral
Organizations. "Yet, a set of common assumptions is surfacing. We are
beginning to see patterns in what works and what does not work, and we are
becoming more articulate about these patterns “
A similar
situation had arisen in 1927 , when Heisenberg serving as Bohr's assistant in
Copenhagen, formulated the fundamental uncertainty principle as a consequence
of quantum mechanics. Bohr, Heisenberg, and a few others then went on to
develop what came to be known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum
mechanics, which still provides a conceptual basis for the theory. A central
element of the Copenhagen interpretation is Bohr's complementarity principle,
According to complementarity, on the atomic level a physical phenomenon
expresses itself differently depending on the experimental setup used to
observe it. Thus, light appears sometimes as waves and sometimes as particles.
For a complete explanation, both aspects, which according to classical physics
are contradictory, need to be taken into account. The other towering figure of
physics in the 20th century, Albert Einstein, never accepted the Copenhagen
interpretation, famously declaring against its probabilistic implications that
“God does not play dice.”(Britannica Encyclopedia on line )
There are another set of management thinkers who are
vehemently taking anti-managerial stance, Sumantra Ghosal suggested that
management as strategy should be replaced by an approach to management as purpose,
process and people. Richard Koch, in “Managing without management”, argued that
modern times have eroded the need for managers in large organizations. Gary
Hamel has advocated strongly “Bureaucracy must die”.
It is amply clear that there is
a strong case to invent a new manager; the manager who thinks quantum
mechanically and thus abandons the idea of control. Not because of lack of skill
or adequate formulation but because of its inherent nature of uncontrollability.
New concepts on these lines are already emerging. Management
scientists are applying chaos theory to organizations. Chaos theory refers to
an apparent lack of order in a system that nevertheless obeys particular laws
or rules. Simply put, in a complex system where large number of events are
taking place, though, each event is obeying definite law and their behavior is
deterministic but cumulatively behavior of system is unpredictable and thus can
rarely be controlled. Management thinkers are echoing the concept like “Quantum
decision theory”, “Quantum leadership”, “Quantum management”, etc.
During modern times,
information technology has permeated in society and has consumed almost all
activities including commerce. Until recently, individuals operated machines in
a manufacturing unit, but now manufacturing processes are software driven.
Marketing is becoming less physical and more virtual. Even software has become
a process rather than individual enterprise. Whole gamut of organizational
activities that is prime concern of a management scientist is a “process”
rather than an isolated enterprise.
Paul Davis has described process theology,
as “Process thought is an attempt to view the world not as a collection of
objects or even as a set of events, but as a process with a definite
directionality". World is a community of interdependent beings like a
living organism rather than a collection of cogs in a machine. The example of
kicking a stone and dog would be more relevant to put the point across. When
you kick a stone, it will react to the kick according to a linear chain of
cause and effect. Its behavior can be calculated by applying basic laws of
Newtonian mechanics. When you kick a dog the situation is quite different.
Though a mechanistic interpretation was attempted to predict the behavior
(Pavlov) of the dog but it could not satisfactorily account for certain
observed variations. The dog will
respond with structural changes according to its own nature. Resulting behavior
is generally unpredictable. Living organism behaves the quantum way.
There
is yet another dimension and strong belief that primary objective of any
commercial venture is to maximize its gain. Balance sheet is the only criterion
to judge the health of the organization. Almost every approach of management
scientists has been guided by the premise that maximization is the only
rational goal. As has been conceived in the system theory that all the relevant
stakeholders are interwoven and are in fact part of a whole. Chaos theory has
proposed a realization that even a small action on the part of one stakeholder
can produce an overall large effect (“butterfly effect”- flipping of wings of a
butterfly here can cause a cyclone elsewhere). Stakeholders of an organization
can broadly be grouped in four classes; supplier of raw material, manufacturer,
trader and consumer. Each one would strategize for maximization of its own gains.
However, each one would be uncertain of other’s strategy. Resultantly, it is be
unlikely that each one would be able to maximize their gains. In the process,
decision of some one may cause a butterfly effect. Cyclone is very likely to
occur at unpredictable places and that may be the reason why we often witness bumpy-jerks
in economic space. Consider each stakeholder as a player; game theory , which
can be defined as the study of how people interact and make decisions, can help
to understand the dynamics. It has two basic assumptions: rationality (people
take whatever actions are likely to make them more happy) and - they know what
makes them happy), and - common knowledge (we know that everyone else is trying
to make himself or herself as happy as possible, potentially at our expense). These
two parameters are like “canonical conjugate” of uncertainty principle; only
sacrificing one can do maximization of other. Simply put, maximization of gain
of some would cause loss or at least perceived loss to other, who in turn may
chose another option and may cause turbulence, hitherto unforeseen. Like belief
in ubiquitous “ether” was questioned, this belief in maximization of gain needs
to be questioned by management scientists.
If maximization of gain is
substituted with maximization of “well being and happiness” of self and other
stake holders, then two parameters (“rational” - un-happiness of others will
hamper happiness of self, “well-being and happiness” of all) would be complimentary
rather than conjugate and can be maximized simultaneously. It would de facto
require cooperation and coordination amongst all players. Organizations can, therefore,
at the best be managed with symbiotic-dynamism rather than by kicking - stone.
It has to be a collective effort aiming at common goal of enhancing “well being
and happiness” of all. Benevolent cooperation and friendly coordination would
then be inherent to any management theory the “new manager” would adopt, where
balance sheet should project “well-being and happiness” as predominantly
important parameter to reflect the health of the organization.
References:
1. Game Theory. Theodore L.
Turocy Texas A&M University Bernhard von Stengel London School of Economics
CDAM Research Report
LSE-CDAM-2001-09
2. THINKING QUANTUM
LEADERSHIP FOR TRUE TRANSFORMATION: THE TALISMAN OF “NOTTO KNOW” AT THE
THRESHOLD OF NEW LEADERSHIP
Assist. Prof. Dr. GÜRCAN
PAPATYA, Assist. Prof. Dr. MURAT ALI DULUPÇU
Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi, Faculty of Economics And Administrative Sciences Isparta-Türkiye
3. Quantum Mechanics and Human
Decision Making,
Paras
M. Agrawal* and Ramesh Sharda
William S. Spears School of Business,
Oklahoma State University, Institute for Research in Information Systems,
Stillwater, Oklahoma 74078, USA
4. God & The New Physics, by Paul
Davies, Penguin Books
5. The Elegant Universe, by Brian
Greene, First Vintage Books Edition,March 2000
6. The Tao of Physics, by Fritjof Capra,
Flamingo Published by Fontana Paperbacks
[1]
Ideas in Science-Edited by Oscar H.Fidell, A Readers Enrichment Series,
Published by Washington Square press Inc.
Posts
