(Foreword: This script
is mainly directed at the highest echelons of corporate officers to prompt
their attention and reflection. In addition, key officers who manage large team
members may also find the contents as food for thought. My account of real
examples should portray the common happenings in the corporate world and the
practical aspects for keeping tabs on “human management” issues, especially
office politics.)
Over my long
years of previous work engagements, I have had witnessed scenarios of office politics
involving covert collusion forged by senior personnel below the topmost level.
A few scenarios were obviously intense while the rest took the milder form of
silent mutual collaborations to protect their positions. Perhaps by sharing
some observations extracted from my personal archives, chief executives will
perceive a wider holistic consideration what ought to be done to mitigate the
possible negative elements which should not be left unchecked. On the other
hand, I hope personnel below the topmost level, regardless whether senior or
otherwise, would be impressed upon to avoid playing “games” for their own good.
I still recall vividly an episode which occurred three decades ago in a renowned financial services institution. It was holding a leading presence in the relevant industry in a South East Asian nation. That time – around 35 years old and eager to acquire wider work exposure – I was granted the opportunity to support a few senior subordinates of the chief executive under the company’s grooming programme. That short stint of less than two years taught me a new positive learning curve on the vital roles of senior officers…….plus discovering the negative office politics which unraveled to open conflicts later. Here is the anecdote below.
The new
deputy chief showed his stealthy fervent ambition to replace his superior shortly after he came in. Imbued with his former training in psycho-cybernetics,
he clicked with the nationwide head of sales – another expatriate besides the
chief executive – to win over the support of the sales force, under the guise
of encouraging them to participate an intensive team building cum personal
development programme series. I was one of the executives nominated to participate
in the programme. To me, it was more of a hidden scheme to enhance personal interests
of the deputy chief executive and the head of sales because the first session
of the programme ended with a clarion pledge for comradeship loyalty amongst
the participants, especially to fully support the two joint organisers.
Sensing
something amiss, I withdrew from the follow-up sessions. On the side lines, I
heard both protagonists had an understanding that if the deputy chief assumed
the No. 1 position with the support of the sales force, the head of sales would
be promoted to be the No. 2. Complications to the scene set in. Two other local
key officers, aligned to the chief executive, got wind of the clandestine
scheme and openly opposed the two joint organisers of the
programme.
As the
in-fighting evolved, the chief executive then stepped in to call off the
subsequent sessions. His deputy, out of indignation, left to join another company,
bringing along with him a substantial group of productive sales force members.
The head of sales left too and returned to his home country. After that
episode, the conglomerate began to lose its leading market position while the
other company emerged as its keen competitor by rising in quantum leap business
growth over the next few years. Yes, the topmost executive finally acted but it
was a bit too late. The negative impact had already festered and harm had
already set in.
I share this
story to impress one point: Chief executives, take note. Do hold a proactive reconnaissance
overview on your key officers. Do pre-empt measures to curb an inconspicuous
agenda before it negatively impacts the positive work atmosphere in your
company. Once an unwarranted vibe is not nipped in the bud but instead allowed
to go viral, damage will ensue.
Besides
office politics, discreet agenda may be in the form of private collaboration
between two or more empowered officers for intent of mutual self-interests, or
plainly put, in the form of covered-up misdeeds. These elements, if left
unchecked, are as cancerous as severe “political” in-fights between cliques.
Now, let me share a true story narrated by a friend about his group managing
director, revered as a sharp person who kept abreast of latest developments and
facts because he frequently conducted checks on the ground.
One day, in
a management committee meeting, the group MD asked his head of property why the
same building maintenance contractor had been engaged for many years. The
latter responded that the contractor was doing a fine job. Immediately, the
chief quipped he knew two common elevators had not function over the previous two
weeks, and one of the toilet bowls in the gent’s washroom nearby the customer lobby
had been clogged up for a long time without being repaired. He queried why such
malfunctions could happen if the contractor was doing a fine maintenance job. The
department head got caught dumbfounded as he never expected the MD to know such
non-crucial details.
That story
did not end there. The chief called for the files on the biennial tender bids
for maintenance contracts. To his intrigue, he found the price bids of this
long-standing maintenance service firm were higher than other bidding
contractors, however the same had been re-selected each time based on the
reason of excellent service performance. To his further intrigue, the head of
procurement co-signed the approvals. Suspecting the two heads might have received
kickbacks from the contractor, a probe was ordered to be carried out. They
subsequently resigned voluntarily. The audit side was reprimanded for not
having conducted a proper review of the tender bids. The effective overview
cast by the paramount chief on the operations of the company proactively nipped
a misdeed in the bud and triggered the audit department to prop up its
efficiency.
Corporate
leaders who hold an efficacious purview over their officers inhere some – if
not all – of the following acumen:
· BEING
OBSERVANT
Prudent
management of manpower is underpinned by the aptitude to be cognizant of the
happenings on the ground - for example general work morale, relationship
amongst officers and various segments, synchronisation etc. Awareness regarding
these happenings can only come about via avid observations. The desired shape
of a corporation depends on what and how its officers act out in their
respective role, whether in spirit as a team or otherwise as separate individuals. And this points
up to the top, i.e. what and how the topmost management observes on the
happenings down the line.
Sensing is
part of observing, in fact the higher skill of observation involving instinct.
Observation efforts help a leader to perceive a scenario that can be seen
(superficial) whereas instinct feels the hidden elements behind the superficial
developments. By observing, the leader can perceive the uneasiness of a person
he is dealing with. But if he possesses the skill for sensing, he can reckon what may be contributing to the other party’s uneasiness.
The sensing
instinct is not genetically inborn. Rather, the ability is honed via sufficient
hands-on experience in managing people. Sensing entails interpreting the
various demeanours as manifested by subject persons during discourse; such as
tone of voice, manner of expression, body gestures, consistency of statements
etc. A leader with vast experience in deciphering demeanours of subordinates
while communicating with them can feel their probable intents. The instinct escalates above mere observations of what could be seen; sensing
penetrates into the real factors behind the scenes appearing on surface.
·
FACTUALLY
SHARP
The real
story narrated by my friend, as depicted earlier, serves a good example of a
factually sharp corporate leader. Mentally sharp leaders have already cultivated
the habit of often inquiring into pertinent facts. Inquiry includes reviewing
reports, random spot checks and requests for frequent updates from various
segments. In other words, a factually sharp leader habitually extracts
important details. They are inquisitive. Easy-going officers who do not fancy
facts and details do not make sharp leaders.
·
ANALYTICAL
Analysis
goes hand in hand with assessment. When one analyses a situation, he has to
assess whether the situation is in good shape or otherwise. For example, after having
analysed that a conflict does exist between two department heads, an assessment
of the intensity will be needed before deciding on the type of interceding
action. Perhaps, judgement (who is right, who is wrong) may be necessary.
Without proper analysis, there will not be correct assessment and sound
judgement.
Ample social
exposure combined with hands-on experience on the ground underpins analytical
prowess for perceiving real work environment or work-related issues. A dynamic
chief marketing cum sales officer, for example, knows his sales team members’ mental
frame because he moves around with them. Occasionally, he conducts joint field
calls with them. He can analyse who is really committed to the job, and who is
not. He maintains full purview of his jurisdiction and his team.
·
TACTFUL
MODERATOR/STABILIZER
Firm
leadership does not mean unwaveringly nailing down hard on controversial
subordinates. It should only be applied on incorrigible dissidents who cause
disruptions to existing harmony or positive work atmosphere. In any large
organisation, some discords amongst employees are inevitable. A wise leader
will endeavour to manage personality differences within tolerable limits, with
the intent to turn the situation around. He deems such mismatches as substance
for healthy deliberations.
He
endeavours to intercede on issues, perhaps mediating with opposing sides for
arriving at agreeable joint consensus. To him, the moderating approach caters
for stability in overall work relationship. Needless to say, ample hands-on
experience on people management serves as the basic ingredient to be an
effective tactful moderator.
·
DISCRETIONARY
DELEGATION OF DUTIES
No top
leader of a large corporation can control his entire realm alone. Neither can
he possibly have his hands directly on all important matters that require his
attention. He needs to delegate some of his duties to subordinates.
However, he should delegate with discretion by retaining at least an overview
instead of full scale delegation. He must still cast his sight over the latest
developments pertaining to the assignments delegated to subordinates.
Discretionary
delegation includes assigning responsibilities to a subordinate who is not just
reliable in execution, but undoubtedly trustworthy (faithful to the tasks) too.
No wonder some top notch corporate chiefs appoint an able personal assistant of
their preference – as the reliable representative to faithfully follow up on
updates of tasks delegated to other subordinates.
· SELECTIVE
REWARDER
Special
recognition to those who have dedicated sincere efforts to serve well
faithfully is aptly due. Rewarding model employees spins two positive outcomes:
(1) Retention of good team players. (2) Instituting an atmosphere of healthy
internal competition cum motivation.
To hit his targeted objectives, it is imperative that the chief concerned retains some
reliable and trustworthy subordinates intact, for working in sync with him and
others in the team. He ought to specially reward subordinates who exhibit faithful
commitment to contributing toward the team objectives. Key criteria: Reliable,
trustworthy, team consciousness, team mission orientated. Those who focus on
excelling individually but not singing the same tune set for the team by the
leader may not deserve special recognition.
The culture
of rewarding deserving players based on
a fair and equitable formula will motivate team members to strive their best.
Ultimately, it will create a healthy competitive atmosphere.
CONCLUSION:
Wise leaders
deploy a combination of the hawkish (stern) and dovish (cordial) approach to
cast an overview on their subordinates, depending on the prevailing situation
at hand. If the situation embroils in noticeable negatives, then the hawkish
view would be befitting. On the contrary, for minor issues, the dovish
discourse in the form of advice or counselling should be engaged. Prudence
entails the holistic and macro overview, considering all related aspects,
including the peripheral ones, for arriving at the right decisions.
Take the
instance of a sales orientated organisation. I always say sales leaders should
not readily attribute the poor performance of a sales subordinate to the
latter’s lack of keenness. Perhaps, the subordinate lacks confidence or skills,
hence needing more guidance than reprimand. On the other hand, if a sales
subordinate has been instigating other team members by feeding negative inputs
to the group, then drastic action will be appropriate.
I end my
script with the following self-composed prose for readers to ponder on…….
# A shrewd
opportunist in an establishment always pretends to serve as advocate to opposing
cliques without them realising his real motives. When discord seems imminent,
he comes out to volunteer his sentiments……as his hidden scheme to fulfill his
personal agenda. In the end, he alone wins. Beware of such shrewd office
opportunists.
# The best
way to confirm a person’s true traits is to recall and analyse his past deeds,
behaviour and demeanour. If a particular trend is noticeable, that reflects his
inner character.
# Delegation of authority without discretion
results in relegation. Relegation without consciousness leads to abdication.
Abdication is the product of subordinates’ insubordination to the head who
initiated the act of delegation.
# A
corporate leader weighs two considerations – humane consideration vs official
consideration. Sound leadership keeps a balance of both. Whether the balance should
be skewed more to the left or to the right will depend on which side has more
merits to leverage on, according to the situation that warrants so.
3 November 2018
