Problem with Corporate Management

Many of us working in organisations often wonder why the management seems to always make lives difficult for their staff.

We constantly see organisational and departmental restructuring which affects the way we work. We see corporate reengineering exercise where people get axed. We see and hear things that threaten our livelihood and we feel our supervisors are always picking on us. We suspect and know there are spies for management who are our peers, always lurking around our backs, ready to stab on us at every opportunity.

One of the many ways our management keeps an eye on us is through spies tapping on the grapevines. Grapevines are informal gatherings by colleagues to discuss anything in general, and in general, workers talk about their bosses, their unhappiness at work and the likes. A manager can either directly plant a spy in grapevines or indirectly insinuate to get his or her staff, especially secretaries, to convey messages. For example, the manager can unofficially leak news about possible retrenchment to secretaries who unknowingly hint about it at these informal gatherings, thus motivating staff to work harder, or make them demoralised and then play saviour to win support from staff.

Such are the politics working in a corporate world and these by no means are totally the fault of management. The truth is, managers are trained by education to do such things. Attend any business management study and you will find all these written in the textbooks.

Another technique frequently used by management is the reinforcement theory, which takes the view that workers are by nature lazy and must be scrutinized or manipulated constantly in order to yield results expected by management. In short, it means behaviour modification. The management may introduce a consequence or change the environment in order to increase or maintain frequency of staff participation. These may include punishment, controlled rewards, psychological segregation, or other methods. For examples, the threat or rumours of possible retrenchments, punishment of a staff to set an example, and the cutting of bonuses. By using such shock or depravity tactics, staff will then modify their behaviours and change attitudes toward work.

Some of us who are reading this article may be supervisors, managers, or bosses in our own companies. As people in a position to determine the behaviours of others, we must constantly be reminded that not all techniques we learnt from books or education are in real life practical. We ought to treat staff as human beings and hence we must use our own brains to decide what is best and not rely on learnt knowledge. Instead of manipulating, we may wish to consider how to increase staff's job satisfaction so that they may willingly sacrifice their time and efforts to go an extra mile.

To workers who are suffering at the hands of the management, know that all these exploitations are not necessary intentional on the part of the supervisors or managers. All these techniques used by them are not new and have been taught in academic schools. It is a flaw of the education system that makes them what they are. If we can make them see their wrongs and 'educate' them through staff consensus and feedback, or even through unions, let us try to make it work. However, if such methods don't work, then use the techniques they use on us to reverse the role, and hopefully in this way get attention from them by getting our message across.

Human Assets

"I've never realised how important you are until you are not with us anymore," so says a supervisor to an ex-staff.

If you get to hear a statement like this from your ex-employer or a supervisor, you will probably be overwhelmed and be very proud of yourself. But this is seldom the case in Singapore because employers here do not usually appreciate the work of their subordinates.

To a local company, employees are just numbers, and numbers come and go. Supervisors of companies or even the staff of Human Resource seldom attempt to find out the truth why employees leave. Exit interviews are often unheard, and even if there are such interviews, they are just for formalities.

Employers and the management usually do not care how the staff are getting on, so long as the work gets done in time. Staff and subordinates are people whom they only call upon to blame and scold when things go wrong. They do not care how things are done so long as the things get done, simply because they are too busy with their own work in their own world to care about how the staff are coming along.

The truth about employees leaving a company is usually because of people, not work or greener pastures. Junior staff are often the most ill-treated, and some supervisors are good at supervising and delegating work, but they themselves do not do the work. Managers above them are often blind to who are doing the work and relies on the supervisor to tell the story, but here is where the problem lies, because supervisors are usually the ones who do not understand and who abuse their staff and pull rank.

By and by, companies such as these lost more then they care to admit, because human assets are still the key to a corporation's success. If they neglect the juniors, and allow frequent turnovers, the operational work at the bottom gets jammed, and hence whatever decision at the top do not matter, because work can't get done and customers don't get served, simply because of the bottle neck at the bottom, a certainty that spells the end of all business plans.

So the story goes, that people at the top needs to know the things happening at the bottom, and to neglect this aspect is to spell the end of the company.