CMI Asks Richard Donkin

CMI's latest expert was author and management guru Richard Donkin.

Catherine Baker: What is it that inspired you to write about work and the future of work?

Richard Donkin: I had been writing about work for some years in my Financial Times column and became conscious that while there were many books on management, no-one had attempted to chart the historical development of work as a social construct. No one had written a history of work. At the time, at the end of the 1990s, there seemed to be an obsession with work, a kind of macho workaholism, that we were importing in to the UK from the US. I wanted to investigate the antecedents to the Protestant Work Ethic. At the same time I wanted to produce something robust with some academic rigour that could be used for reference as well as a good read. Once I’d finished that history I had it in mind to write about the themes influencing the future of work but I waited a while to watch the development of social networks that I believe will have as fundamental an influence on the way we work as the advent of the factory system.

Ruth Weatley: Do you agree that management has become far too number-based, and should take more account of moral, ethical and social concerns?

Richard Donkin: I think management is management. Everything has to be managed but not necessarily everyone. We are social animals and so it stands to reason that management must take account of that. Management by numbers is a poor substitute for people management and yet too often today managers fall back on numbers because many lack the relational skills that can bring the best out of people. As for moral and ethical considerations, we seem to have left them behind long ago, more’s the pity.  In too many workplaces today the pressure to achieve more with less has undermined the old social contract and the cracks are beginning to show. People are getting sick and tired of office life.

Mary Wood: If I remember correctly, at last year's Management Book of the Year awards evening, you made some comments about the low level of coverage of management and leadership in the UK press. Do you have any ideas on how this could be improved, or maybe what CMI could do to raise more interest?

Richard Donkin: You could try bending the ear of a few editors but I’ve tried that and they won’t listen. There is a deep suspicion in the media of management theory, partly as a result of management itself allowing too much flimsy thinking and tired jargon to invade the discipline and partly as a result of theorists too much in love with their own ideas and book-selling sound bites that often don’t amount to much and certainly not to two or three-hundred pages. I have shelves heaving with books on leadership and most of them are fit for nothing more than a bonfire of vanities. The CMI could help by sorting the wheat from the enormous pile of chaff and presenting management to the media, as it does already incidentally, as a learnable discipline with sound principles and solid foundations. The media is saying it will have no truck with froth and managers should be saying the same thing. Personally I blame HR for much of the nonsense that has invaded management practices. I think Peter Drucker had it right when he described personnel management more than fifty years ago as “a collection of incidental techniques without much internal cohesion.” or, to put it another way, as Drucker did rather cruelly, “all those things that do not deal with the work of people and that are not management.” That’s not just Drucker’s view, it’s the way some sections of the press and, indeed, some sections of senior management still view HR. The difference is that when Drucker wrote those words HR lacked status. Today it’s wielding much more influence but some of this is corrosive and downright bureaucratic. You can’t move in an office today without facing an appraisal form. It’s all gone too far. Managers used to have discretion in recruitment and selection. Now they are harnessed to the mud-footed practices of HR.

Mary Wood: And a supplementary question, if I may....what was your view on the recent story about RatanTata's comments about the UK's 'lazy managers?'

Richard Donkin: I read that Ratan Tata denied saying that the UK’s managers were lazy. But he did agree that he had said that the managers of some of the companies the Tata group had acquired were unwilling to “go the extra mile” and work extra hours if necessary, at least at the time of the takeover until Tata had imposed its own management culture. That said, I think many people reading his comments would have taken them as a criticism of British managers. I think he was commenting on the work ethic and indeed there does seem to be variations in this from culture to culture and country to country. People know what we mean when we talk of “below the olive line” or a sense of “manana”. In car factories people used to talk about “St. Monday” in acknowledgement of so many extended weekends. Now we have duvet days. You don’t see much of that in India. That was what Mr Tata was saying. He couldn’t have been too put off by British management, however, since he’s bought enough of our companies. It’s inherent in the protestant work ethic (and the Indian work ethic is very similar) for those who subscribe to it to treat work almost as an act of worship - work for work’s sake. When we see people working hard it’s something we admire and when we’re working hard we want everyone around us to know about it. When you work for yourself, as I do, you are your own task-master, your own critic and your own boss. I have noticed since leaving the formal workplace that many managers working for big employers seem to have a cossetted existence. They jump in to taxis, nip out to do errands when they want and use the internet as their personal convenience all the time. In a way I say good luck to them. I’m very envious. But they shouldn’t be surprised then when someone who got to the top the hard way observes how cushy their working lives are in comparison with his and those of his fellow Indians.  I thought it was fair comment.

Michelle Jenkins: As organisations expand the geographical boundaries of their operations, the need for managers to lead and manage employees 'remotely' is on the increase. Can you offer any advice to managers who may be involved with managing a geographically dispersed team?

Richard Donkins: Manage by results. This means outlining expectations with great clarity and ensuring that employees not only know what they must achieve but also that they have the organisational and technical skills and a realistic amount of time to undertake their work. Remote workers cannot be micro-managed (not that anyone should be managed in this way). Many will have different cultures and working patterns so it is unwise to expect uniformity in approach. But results-based management should not work on the understanding that the ends justify the means. It’s important that employees understand the ethical parameters and codes of conduct under in which they operate. Remote management should also ensure that employees have strong technical support for collaboration such as tele-conferencing. Peer influence is important in any employment so that management should not be seen as top down but as creating the conditions for great work. Performance measurement in this kind of work needs to be qualitative more than quantitative particularly in service industries. Great service is not a numbers game.  

Mike Davies: Despite so much literature and research showing the benefits of flexible working, many organisations and managers are entrenched in the 9-5 culture where you have to put the hours in.  How can this be changed so the focus is less on what you put in, but more on what you get out?

Richard Donkins: See my answer to question five. Hours of work, presenteeism is has nothing to do with great work and can undermine it. Many jobs – shopwork, for example - require the presence of employees in a place of work for set hours but unless we work on a production line work does not have a standard flow. People should be encouraged to establish their own rhythm of work where possible but one of the big challenges for management in future is ensuring that the increasing numbers of distractions afforded by tools that double as toys do not in prevent people from focusing on their tasks. These distractions are as much a hazard for managers as they are for anyone. How many managers today are becoming slaves to their Blackberries? 

Steven Blundell: Hi Richard. I am a shy and reserved person so what advice could you give me on how to manage people effectively? Because I find I listen a lot and my view is that if you allow people to do what they want within the job role then they have a sense of responsibility and as such this acts as motivation.

Richard Donkins: Funnily enough I’m pretty reserved too. I hate the idea of working a room and, as a preference, would always head for a corner. But if you’re a listener I would argue that you already possess the single most important quality of a good manager. Managing is not about direction, although this is sometimes necessary; it’s about understanding context and understanding different work styles and how they gel with the demands of the undertaking. I recall a management post I held a few years ago when I had to recruit my number two. The most qualified of the candidates had all of my technical skills and would have been the obvious choice, I suppose. But I chose the other candidate because she had skills I did not have. Her work-style preferences differed too. She liked to work to set hours and did not like working unsocial hours. I like to come and go and work all kinds of odd hours (I’m writing this on a Saturday evening before packing for a holiday). Our work styles proved complementary and far from getting in the way of getting things done, enabled us to run our team pretty effectively. She picked up new skills quickly because she listened and I listened to her too. In fact I’d say we managed each other even if the buck stopped at my desk. The modern workplace is not a military parade ground where everyone must learn to move in step, it’s more like a bridge when everyone breaks step to ensure the structure holds together. It’s implicit in your question that you understand the links between responsibility and motivation. Your role is to act as a guide, ensuring that people have the means to do their job and to stay focused. But it’s important, nevertheless, that all mangers remain alert to new developments on the internet and ensure these are used to enhance work rather than disrupt work. It’s rather leaving an employee with a whisky bottle. You have to be able to do that and trust people. You’ll soon find out if people can’t cope with distractions just as you will know if they cannot control a drinking habit. Managers have to be alert to the dangers in the new workforce and work within them rather than impose blanket bans that imply distrust and can throw out the good stuff with the dross.