Skip to main content

The present state of the Corporate and two fundamental issues

The present state of the Corporate and two fundamental issues

Yesterday Kingfisher went off the sky, today it's the turn of Jet, and tomorrow (God forbid) another!
Who's at fault? Employees? Company decision-makers? Shareholders? Governments? And the list goes on.

I ain't here to find where the fault lies; there're many who're already doing it. Rather, I'm rekindling two issues that have been ignored by practitioners and academics alike, since quite some time.

As management is neither a science nor an art, but a practice; I'll discuss the practitioners' issue first.

So, here's the first one. It pertains to the practitioners. It hovers around the classic question posed by Socrates in the fourth century BC: How 'one' should live? The question isn't how I should live? Or, how you should live? But, how 'one' should live? The 'one' that Socrates mentioned is the human, i.e., homo sapiens. Homo sapiens isn't the homo economicus or the self-interested utility-maximising agent! Or, borrowing the words of Amartya Sen (1977), s/he isn't a "rational fool?" While the homoeconomicus are plenty across the corporate corridors, where are the homo sapiens and their craving to live humanely? Even in the name of CSR, all they want is economic returns on investment! Have you seen a homo sapiens in the recent past?

The second one is in the context of the academics. It hovers around the classic article written by Late Prof. Sumantra Ghoshal in 2005 entitled: Bad Management Theories Are Destroying Good Management Practices! Yes, you've heard it right. Prof. Ghoshal's article is critical about the way management research is being conducted in the B-school ivory towers, away from the field, with the help of say CCTV footages entailing eye-tracking clips to understand and explain consumer behaviour! In that article, Ghoshal posed the question: How long can researchers deem the human consciousness (intentionality) as an externality? For, it is merely treated as a control variable in various management modeling endeavours? Control variable? Are you kidding me? Be it finance, HR, marketing, or operations, the crux of management studies is to study the (human) intentional aspects underlying corporate decision-making. No?

There are many other issues, but the fundamental issues posing an existential threat to the management community hover around the following questions:
1. The Socratic question: How 'one' should live?
2. The Ghoshalian critique: How long can management researchers deem the human consciousness (intentionality) as an externality?

Till the aforesaid issues are resolved, I won't be surprised to witness many more Kingfishers, Jets, and others going off the sky.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In Search of the Motherly Manager: Unlocking the KADAMBINI code

In Search of the Motherly Manager: Unlocking the KADAMBINI code " All that I am, or hope to be, I owe to my angel mother. " - Abraham Lincoln (the 16th President of the United States of America) " Achieving the highest possible return on human capital must be every manager's goal ." - Brian Tracy (Canadian-American motivational public speaker and self-development author) 'M' for Mother, 'M' for Manager! Mother! She conceptualizes us during her marital bliss, being unaware of who we are or will become. She bears us in our embryonic state, compromising with many of her normal ways of living. She gives birth to us, being in unbearable pain. She grooms us, sacrificing much of her comforts. She wipes our tears away, even if she's chocking inside. She attends us when we are sick and weak, spending sleepless nights. She ties our shoelaces, enduring back pain at times. She helps us in our homework, forgetting her favorite soap ope...
2 comments
Read more

Apathy toward business ethics! Are we confused between the message and the messenger?

Apathy toward business ethics! Are we confused between the message and the messenger? “ Ethics is knowing the difference between what you have a right to do and what is right to do .” — Potter Stewart (Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, serving from 1958 to 1981) While teaching the MBA Oath 1  (Nohria & Khurana, 2008), I mentioned Prof. Nitin Nohria, the first Asian Dean of the Harvard Business School, as one of the pioneers of teaching business ethics and discussed what MBA Oath referred, why it should be administered, and how to create ethical conduct in leaders and managers. Many of the students were not convinced. One of the reason could be the composition of the class (nearly 85-90 percent of the students have engineering background); they mostly believe that the crux of scientific causality is (traditional) positivism 2  and many aspects of ethics are based on antipositivism 3  and/or constructionism 4  paradigms. Hence, wh...
1 comment
Read more

Apathy toward business ethics! Are we confused between the message and the messenger?

While teaching the MBA Oath (Nohria & Khurana, 2008), I mentioned Prof. Nitin Nohria, the first Asian Dean of the Harvard Business School, as one of the pioneers of teaching business ethics and discussed what MBA Oath refers to, why it should be administered, and how could create ethical conduct in leaders and managers. Many of the students were not convinced. One of the reason could be due to the composition of the class (nearly 85-90 percent of the students have engineering background); they mostly believe that the crux of scientific causality is (traditional) positivism and many aspects of ethics are based on anti-positivist and constructionism paradigms. Hence, when it comes to business ethics, most of my students are of the opinion that it does not deserve a space in the management science curricula nor in manager practitioners’ field.      In the middle of the classroom discussion, one of the students quipped, “How can he [Prof. Nohria] talk about ethics [M...
Post a Comment
Read more