In India, management is not about decision taking but decision-avoiding, avoiding precisely the decisions that NEEDS to be taken and taking avoidable decisions. Instead of Decision Support Systems, we develop Decision Avoidance System or AVOIDABLE DECISIONS SYSTEM. [Audit is useful for selective amnesia] WHEN missionaries started preaching Christianity in Africa, they caused some confusion with their colour scheme of a ‘white’ Jesus and a ‘black’ devil. There was a real spurt in conversions when some genius changed the colour scheme declaring Jesus ‘black’ and devil ‘white’. A similar confusion has taken place in the field of management in India. Young management graduates are taught about virtues of decision-making. DECISION AVOIDING VS. DECISION DELAYING Laymen often confuse decision delaying with decision avoiding. Delaying is rather a passive and negative activity. It does not have the positive and active impact of decision avoiding. An effective manager will not be sitting back simply delaying decisions. He will be on his feet where decisions are asked for and will avoid them. He will keep initiative in his hands and will not allow ‘decision-by-default’. Most of the methods available for avoiding decisions are equally effective in delaying decisions. But an efficient manager will stand out by his approach. He will not delay the decision—thus increasing his workload for tomorrow since the problem is likely to be brought up again. He will avoid the decision once and for all. The second decision-rule, therefore, is: If you can avoid it, don’t delay it. Even where it is impossible to avoid decision and the only alternative is to delay it, the active manager is clearly distinguished from the passive one The passive manager will delay by being too busy, going on leave, putting the problem at the bottom of the pending pile, going on tour and if all these fail falling sick. The active, decision-avoiding manager will counsel a deliberate delay, e.g.: ‘Re: Cycle Stand for Workers: The industrial situation in India is in a melting pot. It is essential to allow time to stabilise the situation’, the ‘macro-situation’ has to be clarified. so I suggest that this cycle-stand proposal be delayed indefinitely...” PASS-THE-BUCK APPROACH The first step to decision-avoiding is to determine whether we should avoid the decision by ourselves or “pass the buck”. The third decision-rule states: If you can get somebody else to avoid the decision, don’t avoid it yourself. *Committee Method: The most popular method of passing the buck is to appoint a committee to ‘review the problem’ This method has been patronized very widely by government authorities but it is by no means their monopoly Non- government sectors also have found this method extremely useful for decision-avoiding Although in many cases, the very act of appointing committees will effectively ensure decision- avoiding, a wise manager will doubly ensure the result by taking the following measures: 1.Make the committee as large as possible: A committee of three may suddenly get to a decision. The possibility is greatly alleviated if the membership is increased to nine. Research has revealed the mathematical rule (known as the fourth decision-rule)): The possibility of avoiding decision increases In proportion to the square of the number of members in the committee. Committees with membership of thirty and above rarely reach any significant decision (e.g. National Integration Council). 2.Make the committee meeting difficult: This can be done by appointing a sick chairman, members geographically as distant as possible, etc. In recent times, geographical distance has been a very effective deterrent to committee meetings. The airlines are helping actively through staggered strikes by pilots,air-hostesses, mechanics, etc. In the case of railways, any agitation on food, politics or language is adequate. For example the agitations to “Remove English” in the north and to “Remove Hindi” in the south were immediately effective in removing trains everywhere! 3.Make the committee incompatible: At least two members of the committee should have a previous record of proved hostility or- at least a dominating attitude. Others will develop hostility as the committee work proceeds. *AbominableNo-manMethod: Many companies have an invaluable asset which rarely figures on their balance sheet. It is the “Abominable no-man”. The basic characteristic of this person is his infinite capacity to say “no”. Consequently, even a threat to refer the matter to A.N. compels the initiator to drop his proposal. *BottomlessJoeMethod: In the absence of the availability of A.N., some companies resort to the “Bottomless Joe”. B.J. has the exceptional quality that any matter referred to him is guaranteed to get lost. He is invaluable to his employers because he cannot or will not complete any job assigned to him and is thus very convenient for avoiding decisions. Needless to say, A.N. and B.J. are extremely useful as members of any committee appointed to avoid decisions. *Make it a Policy Matter: In circumstances where committees cannot be appointed and A.N. or B.J. are not readily available, the buck can still be passed to the higher management by making the problem a policy matter, e.g. “There has been a proposal for a cycle-stand for workers. This basically forms a part of our employee-benefit scheme and consequently cannot be considered in isolation. In due course, the top management should consider this proposal while reviewing our wage-structure, benefit scheme, etc....” In criminal cases, ‘insanity” is the ultimate plea. Similarly, in management action or inaction, “policy” is the ultimate convenient label. *Suggest a Survey: Looking at the practices of others is a sure way of creating confusion and delay, e.g.: “I suggest a survey be carried out in our geographical area as well as in our industry to find out location and industry practices vis-a-vis provision of vehicular parking (e.g. cycle-stand) for employees reporting on duty...” *Appoint a Consultant: This is rather a desperate move and should be resorted to when other remedies are not available. If a proper consultant is chosen and his terms are made ambiguous enough his report will create enough confusion and hostility so that the original problem will be lost. DO-IT-YOURSELF DECISION-AVOIDING Situations arise where a manager is unable to pass the buck and is compelled to avoid decisions by himself. In such cases, the manager may use any of the following approaches: Scare the Initiator: The methods available for this purpose are: *Tantrum Method: This is a somewhat ancient method, but is still effective. When the initiator comes with his proposal, you should throw a tantrum, e.g.: “Cycle-stand for workers! Oh, what a proposal and what a time to bring it up! The bearing on the starting machine has broken down, the compound wall has cracked due to the last earthquake and my ulcers are bothering me again! Can you not think of anything more significant than a cycle-stand? *Hush-hush Method: Alternately, you may warn the initiator that he is rushing in where “angels fear to tread”, e.g. “Cycle-stand for workers! Sh-sh-sh, talk low. This matter is already with the top brass and there are wheels-within-wheels. If I were you, I would just keep quiet and tell anybody who talks about this problem to keep his trap shut...” *More-details-please Method: more and more details, the initiator sooner or later e.g. If you keep on asking for will give up his proposal “Regarding your proposal (cycle-stand for workers) we regret to note that full details have not been made available. Before the proposal can be considered further, we would like to have the following details in quintuplicate: 1.Dimensions of standard cycles with expected variation. 2.Average laden and unladen weight with usual variations. 3.Estimated capacity requirements by quarters in the next seven years. 4.Possible modes of construction with estimated cost (Please enclose 3 competitive quotations each ) 5.All other relevant or significant details available at your end...” *Double-talk Method: If you have mastered the jargon of management, you can confuse the initiator, e.g. “You are talking about cycle-stand for workers. Do you realise that is just a method of their expressing the lack of mutual trust. So we must look upon the problem as a symptom and not as a disease. What must we do to create an atmosphere of mutual trust or harmony? Not granting material benefits, but interacting with the workers to create a feeling ,of unity...” *No-problem-exists Method: Deny the very existence of the problem, e.g.: “What is this about a cycle-stand? We have been running this factory for 15 years without a cycle-stand. Everybody knows that cycles can stand without a cycle- stand. Why do you want a cycle-stand? Why do you want to bring up an imaginary problem?.. Garnished extracts from “In the Wonderland of Indian Managers” by Sharu Rangnekar
Posted on: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 15:15:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015