Sirajuddin Aziz
Business managers and leaders cannot afford to be populist individuals. They are not meant to seek or win any popularity contest within the organisation. The job of the manager is to ‘get work done’ as per standardised processes and procedures. In discharging this basic responsibility, a manager has a choice: to achieve objectives in a graceful and dignified manner, or to throw the weight of positional power upon teammates to get them to perform.
Human nature responds well—indeed, with a great deal of positive energy—only when it is treated gently. If the general environment of an entity is congenial, it would be natural to expect very high levels of productivity. Managers, in order to drive inspiration for improved performance, resort to using several motivational techniques upon teammates. These may range from material to non-material. Each unit of energy in any given entity reacts differently to different types of stimuli for engaging people towards productive action.
Material-based motivational techniques, in my view, have a limited shelf life because they are measurable tools of motivation in the form of salaries, allowances, bonuses, and perks, and therefore carry inherent limitations. Monetary rewards do not qualify to meet the basic test of durability. There is only an ‘X’ amount of money that can be paid by any organisation; once the maximum threshold is reached, how can any manager keep his or her team motivated to repeat or improve performance?
Managers, not for reasons of seeking popularity but to become a source of engagement, must necessarily be friendly in their attitudes and demeanour towards colleagues.
The major management challenge for any organisation is to tread the path slowly while identifying performers within the pond. Managers who possess charisma usually also have magnetic personalities and find it relatively easier to attract a pool of talent. High performers tend to be attracted only to managers who are widely respected within the organisation for their business acumen and results, as well as for the high professional standards they consistently display.
The likeability of an individual (manager or leader) depends upon the personality traits and character they possess. Managers with a pleasant disposition who behave on the shop floor with poise are usually soft-spoken. Those who speak in low decibel tones, with grace and humility, are a privilege to work for. Such managers also tend to be good mentors. They make themselves accessible and do not hold their chins high to instil fear in those who could otherwise make meaningful contributions. By contrast, some managers erect barricades to thought and action. I have witnessed managers who shut themselves away in cold cabins, becoming recluses—like Robinson Crusoe living alone on an island. They refuse to interact.
Reluctance to engage with colleagues may stem from an inherently introverted nature, or from inadequacies in personality traits or technical proficiency. In both cases, such managers build a China Wall of defences that prevents any intrusion into their workspace for fear of exposure. They remain aloof and withdrawn. The teammates of such managers suffer the most, as they receive neither positive nor negative feedback, nor any guidance or direction.
Managers who take the trouble to teach and guide remain the most sought-after colleagues. Those who do not fear sharing knowledge or developing skills in others are confident professionals who take pride in creating successors to their positions. They are not threatened by seeing talent flourish within their divisions and departments.
During the first year of my professional career, I encountered a senior officer who was not directly my manager but who supervised some of my assignments. One such task required us, every Monday morning, to file a lengthy Country Liquidity Statement to headquarters in London. The statement was tricky, as figures from several business segments had to be combined through permutations and combinations to arrive at a final number. This officer would jot down the components on a small piece of paper, carefully concealing them from view. He would then enter the figures himself and shred the calculation sheet. He did not believe in sharing or teaching. Regrettably, he remained in the same department for many years, missing opportunities for vertical and horizontal movement. His career ultimately perished in the Liquidity Statement. The lesson learnt was clear: a wise and intelligent manager who wishes to rise in the hierarchy must share knowledge and teach skills to the young Turks.
Enlightened managers know how to overcome anger. In everyday working life, there are many occasions when one wishes to vent; how this is done is crucial to keeping a team aligned and united. Managers must recognise the value of praising in public and reprimanding—or, in extreme situations, even insulting—in private. Doing the reverse will poison the environment.
Anger prevents access to good counsel from colleagues and deprives managers of the value others can add to decision-making. An angry manager drives reason out of engagement. “He who has wisdom at will, but with an angry heart cannot hold it still,” as the old English adage goes.
Likeable managers neither stand in the way nor stay out of the way. It is easier to change the course of rivers or carve pathways through mountains than it is to change human nature—particularly that of managers and leaders.
The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.
