Management is the art of getting things done by others, and remuneration is sharing a pittance of the whole chunk of returns earned by the subordinate employees, and profit is what the company ultimately stands for. And the employees in the lower rungs of the hierarchy are the ones who bale out the company when the latter is in distress. Altogether it is called business management.
Who is a manager in real terms? He is one who sees that his work gets involved with the work of his team so that the objective of the office is realized, whether it is a project implementation, or meeting a sales target or winning a few percentages in the market share. It is the art of channeling diverse manpower through a common stream as to reach a particular goal. In this collective effort, the team leader is as important as every other team-player, and every other team player is no less important than the team leader.
Yes, it is the art of getting things done. But not simply getting them done by others, rather it is the wise man-age-mental of men and women of different age groups and mental dispositions for the cause of a particular organization. In this process what is more important are the men and women who constitute the company. But what happens when the company falls short of expectations due to other external factors than the employees’ performance?
The managements do away with the very same employees who have been doing great service to the company for ages. This in management parlance is called crisis capitalization. And the poor employees in the lower rungs pack up and go out, whereas the top brass in the higher rungs of their career ladders enjoys the last laugh. Their seats are cushioned by the flesh and blood of the employees.
Is it not unethical to lay off employees when the company fails due to its unwise policies of the top management? What does the company do with all the profits they make? Do they not have a policy to keep a little to support its employees during hard times like recession? Are the top executives not accountable to the abysmal falls of their myopic policy initiatives? Why do they do away with their own employees to beat recession and losses?
The answers to these questions are simple and same. The managements want their traditional management policy work; that is ‘getting things done by others’. Here the thing is to feed the greed of the corporate business tycoons. And the same is achieved when hundreds of thousands of their one time proud ambassadors go jobless.
Ironically enough, the top management calls it cost cutting. But in real human terms it is nothing short of blasphemy; a chronic sign of sheer ingratitude. Business ethics, professional decency, corporate responsibility etc. take a beating when managers get their things done by others. Intelligent managers don’t do it.
Men of intelligence hardly prefer themselves to be called managers. Rather they would be happy being known as manage mentors. They do duel roles; managing and mentoring.