Harvard Business Publishing

There is a difference between organisations, such as banks, which exist because of money, and companies that provide a service, manufacture a product or sell something. In the former the happiness of employees is an inconvenience and often an irrelevance. As long as the profits roll in all is well. For high fliers in the financial markets of London, New York and Hong Kong this does not matter: they make their fortunes and retire young. But what of the humble staffs in financial institutions around the world? Many work for emotionally dysfunctional managers who only care about the bottom line. In the short to medium term this does not matter but inevitably there will be damage in the long term since any organisation, even one dedicated only to the pursuit of profit, is a living organism. The structure will disintegrate, though so slowly no one will notice. Disillusioned and alienated staff will make mistakes. These will be small but over time they will accumulate. Happily this is not always the case outside the financial services arena. In some companies – in energy, construction, retail, telecoms, engineering and so on – enlightened managers appreciate that without a happy and motivated workforce they will struggle. This is the key task facing all senior executives, whether they are running a bank, drilling for oil or manufacturing ball bearings: making staff feel involved, important and proud. It is not only right to do so but good for business.

An organisation that only worries about improving overall performance, however that is measured, and does not care about the intellectual and emotional well being of its staff might survive and prosper. Depending on its location, the terms of employment and other factors it might be able to replace demoralised staff who fail to deliver and those who leave. Of course some executives only care about what their peers and superiors think of them. They do not care if subordinates are unhappy. But such a turnover will have an impact on those senior executives who want to inspire loyalty, respect and affection amongst staff. Organisations cannot afford to have its best senior executives feeling inadequate.

There are two extremes. First that managers should only worry about productivity and efficiency. It does not matter if their staff like them. Nor does it matter if staff feel their views do not count. The second is that managers have a moral responsibility to make work enjoyable for their staff. However, there is a third possibility. I am not suggesting that managers should obsess about being popular or disrupt the decision-making process by involving juniors in inappropriate discussions. Leaders must often make tough decisions that adversely affect their teams. What they should always strive to do is make work as enjoyable and rewarding an experience as possible for their subordinates. This is not easy, especially in high pressure environments such as financial services. But staff who feel involved will always perform better. They will be healthier, work harder and stay longer.

There are two extremes. First that managers should only worry about productivity and efficiency. It does not matter if their staff like them. Nor does it matter if staff feel their views do not count. The second is that managers have a moral responsibility to make work enjoyable for their staff. However, there is a third possibility. I am not suggesting that managers should obsess about being popular or disrupt the decision-making process by involving juniors in inappropriate discussions. Leaders must often make tough decisions that adversely affect their teams. What they should always strive to do is make work as enjoyable and rewarding an experience as possible for their subordinates. This is not easy, especially in high pressure environments such as financial services. But staff who feel involved will always perform better. They will be healthier, work harder and stay longer.

If one re-reads this article, it appears that financial performance of the company and personal touch of the management are at the opposite ends of the spectrum. While it may not be the intent of the writer to say this, the example presented conveys this. I strongly beleive, like many of us, these two are mutually inclusive aspects of any organization. Any organizational challenge-financial,shrinkage of market, customer dissatisfaction- can be and should be handled through the people and being "official and formal" without the human touch will only be taking a short term view. End of the day, all employees like the customers have a choice whether to work for an employee-focused company or others.

I really enjoyed reading Ms. Corkindale's article. It brought me back to my 7 years in banking, but mostly it brought me back to what I believe is 'the bottom line': People are important, no matter their stratum. Throughout my career, my type 'A' personality lead me into situations where I had to learn to listen and accept that my opinion, pace or perspective were valuable, however not the only ones.
Both employees and people managers must remember this as they work together.

An attempt to change the management philosophy of this entrepeneur and his top team would not only be an exercise in futility, it would be the destruction of their genius. Far better would be to convince the former entrepreneur and his team that what they have among themselves is a marketable package with replicable success which is better suited to a new challenge elsewhere.

The team seems to have the cohesive vision and practice of an excellent turnaround team. With capital which they could surely attract, they could go on to build another Blackstone or develop a turnaround shop such as Bridge Associates, BridgeLLC.com, in New York. The team needs to put into place their own successors at the company under consideration above.

I have studied entrepreneurs for a very long time and have studied the differences between the entrepreneurial and executive make up. What it takes to start up a venture or turn around a failing company never really meshes with what it takes to run a company in healthy perpetuity. Better that these team members know themselves and move on to a different success.

They need not be cornered into ridiculing their critic. Simply show them a different challenge to go win.

The Challenge for Management Executives usually borders on choosing between creating a conducive work atmosphere to encourage maximum staff productivity, versus "trying in vain" to be the conducive atmosphere for staff productivity.
Where lies the middle point? The organization depends on its profitability to remain in existence. This profitability is enhanced by committed and dedicated staff who expect and depend on the organization to PAY FOR THEIR SERVICES RENDERED when due.
Great emphasis should be placed on achieving 100% buy-in by staff of the organization's vision and values (and how it transcends to profitability). That way all can work and live in peace.

In our desire to succeed, to create an identity for ourselves, to make money, we forget or neglect the core of our being whose nature, for me, is stillness. Our culture doesn't teach us about silence and pays scant respect to it. Of course we do 'observe' silence for a few minutes when there are many deaths due to terror attacks or some other natural calamity, , but later rush about our routine life desperately.

So my question is: Can our action spring forth from silence, not only occasionlly, but at the beginning of our day, in the middle of it, and at the end of the day too? Silence may not make business sense, but it will surely make us sensible, sympathetic, and more understanding of others problems.

The 'bottom-line obsessed' manager perhaps needs more love than the staff working under him, for the spring of life isn't yet lost to them, whereas our dehydrated manager is already a wasteland. There's no denying the fact that such people make our lives miserable, but there's an other side to everything. If there's any love and sympathy left in us, we may peep into the lives of those people and suffer their insecurity, their 'successful' meaninglessness, retaining our own sanity.

Ramesh

All leaders like to comment( EMPHASIS ON LIKE HERE !!) on the human side of change but very few are able to balance the business and people objectives . At the end of the day we cannot forget there is a lot of positive press about the radical transformations brought about in companies by revolutionary leaders - and whenver such radical changes happen the people issue would get minimal importance . So naturally leader tend to veer towards the so called hard business facts rather than the softer issues . Perhaps arriving at a harmonious blend of both ie the business objectvies and people issues is difficult if not impossible .
The people issue is best looked at as a soft issue in the esoteric realm of human dynamics and psychology ,no one really looks at it as a business issue...I happen to agree with the views expressed in the article and I think that it is the reality in most organizations .In fact I am very happy that such a topic is being discussed ...