An important, or rather a key, difference between management philosophy in the former USSR and that of the West is that a key manager is mentally equated with the business owner. And the business owner is mentally equated with a landowner or feudal lord.
Western managers, for example, are often surprised by our unusual desire for impressive job titles in our employment records. However, it becomes clear that a flashy title is merely a sublimation of the desire to live in luxury.
Such a picture is characteristic not only of Ukraine, for example. It is also typical for other countries that, having skipped capitalism, have jumped from feudalism to netocracy In people’s minds, the concepts of “master” and “serf” are deeply ingrained and very difficult to eradicate. It is telling that even in the already “liberated” Africa, the local population prefers to work for a white manager—muzungu—rather than a black one, who views his position as a source of power.
It is precisely in our country that top management thrives on stealing money from the owners. It is here that managers start to consider the company as “theirs,” just as they view people as “theirs.” We even hire people by asking if they have their own “team.” Hm.
It’s no coincidence that special attention is given to the role of the business owner and that it is considered significant. In fact, there is a confusion between the concepts of owner vs. key executive.
Reflecting on the role of a business owner is as productive as pondering the role of a refrigerator or a vacuum cleaner owner. The owner’s role is solely one of exploitation. This is especially evident in the case of large corporations, where any individual holding more than 3% of the shares is considered an influential shareholder. What, then, is the role of a shareholder in this scenario?
Therefore, sticking to the theme “ management style “I will talk about the role of a key leader, rather than the role of a business owner, although in some cases, they may be the same person. It doesn’t matter what level of leader is being considered. In any case, they only manage a small circle of direct subordinates, without having a clear influence on the other employees in the company.”
Many people talk about the role of personal example as a driving force for a leader. In fact, they often quote Zorg from the movie “The Fifth Element”: “If you want something done well, do it yourself.” What do you think, did Zorg have a good team? Did they help him solve his problems? Especially when he choked on a cherry pit?
Are we not sliding back into the concept of “master”? Seeking satisfaction from superiority, with all the consequences that are clearly visible in a herd of red-bottomed baboons divided into Alpha, Beta, and so on males? How much do we need to “dumb down” and showcase our own skills to prove the legitimacy of our leadership? How independent and responsible will subordinates be if they think, “Well, this is Ivan Ivanovich…”? Or are we back in the Middle Ages, when a king was expected to have exceptional skills in sword fighting and horseback riding, and his place was in the thick of battle?
In our view, a key leader is neither a driver nor an administrator. Hmm, so who are they then? Who is the shepherd for the flock? Why does the flock tolerate the shepherd? What does the shepherd provide that keeps the flock from scattering? The shepherd offers knowledge about where the tastiest grass is. The shepherd protects them from wolves. The shepherd manages the flock and resolves conflicts within it. Of course, the shepherd does not use “personal example” as a motivational tool. Otherwise, they would have to grow horns and start bleating.
Of course, I’m exaggerating quite a bit, as a key manager is not a taskmaster. That doesn’t motivate anyone. But who is he? He is a service provider for his clients—his subordinates. When you lead your people, or when you work for someone else, you need to know the answers to two questions: Why are they working for me, or conversely, why am I working for him? The answers to these seemingly obvious questions are actually quite complex. For instance, take a moment to reflect and ask yourself.
Now let’s try to eliminate clichés and false messages. What will remain? Let’s attempt to delve a little deeper. What does your manager provide you, and what do you, as a manager, offer your subordinates, or rather, what do you sell them? Ask yourself again.
The main issue we face everywhere is the misunderstanding or lack of awareness of the role that a leader actually plays. It’s like trying to perform Oblomov while using the text of Hamlet. It might even seem original from the outside, but it’s completely off-topic. As a result, we end up with detached managers or administrators, but not true leaders.
Both leaders and subordinates understand their roles based on their own life experiences and examples. This is why we often see either a parent-child dynamic or an alpha-gamma relationship, as upbringing has followed this pattern and only this pattern. Few are fortunate enough to encounter a true Teacher or Mentor in their lives—an example of proper leadership behavior. In 99% of cases, school teachers continue to play the role of a parent, substituting, as Russell puts it, the function of a father. Instead of fostering independent, talented, and responsible subordinates or a creative team, we end up with a group of unmotivated individuals, whose main motivation becomes the desire to avoid getting in trouble or to outmaneuver a dominant peer.
In other words, the focus shifts from doing the right or wrong thing to simply avoiding getting scolded. This is a typical childlike approach to actions. One can misbehave as long as they don’t get reprimanded. It’s childlike because there is a parent involved—whether kind or strict, harsh or democratic. But there is always a parent, and each parent has their own style. In contrast, a shepherd, for example, has no particular style. The same goes for a ticket clerk or an accountant. There is no style in anyone who is just doing their job. The role of a leader, however, is to create agreements and manage them. I will return to this point. Surprisingly, a leader’s job is to realize the goals of their subordinates, and through that, achieve the company’s objectives.
In Ukrainian business, there is a parent-child model, and I criticize this phenomenon. People rightly point out that subordinates seek their boss’s attention and are willing to receive it even if it’s negative. Children behave similarly in their interactions with parents. Both leaders and parents can easily correct a “difficult” subordinate or child simply by giving them attention and changing their attitude from “You always do everything wrong” to “You are so wonderful and smart.” A typical Ukrainian manager is someone who constantly fights with problems. So, what is life, summed up in one word? (survey). If you see life as a struggle, then welcome to the reactive category, the category of managers who are always dealing with crises and problems. Moreover, such people see their purpose in life as solving problems, and to solve them, they need to find them—and they certainly do! This is a category of people who play with the black pieces.
If for you Life is a game. then you are practically a ready-made leader. 😉
Let’s move on.
To gain something, you must give something. This is what is truly the most effective management style. This style, if it can be called that, stems from the understanding that subordinates are the manager’s clients, not their vassals.
The evolution of management methods can be traced throughout the entire history of humanity. Initially, issues were resolved through violence, then through incentives, and now through contracts. In reality, it is impossible to manage people. There are no controllable individuals. Each person works for themselves, for their own benefit. And each person decides for themselves what is advantageous at any given moment.
Our social system is a living example of how managing society through agreements and a system of trust is more effective than through the violence of suppression. For the ruling class of a country to prove its legitimacy, it must either rely on force or allow the people to be the authors of their leader. And then the best move is to organize elections without real choice, and we all know this, but we do not fully realize it.
The same goes for companies. It is neither effective nor productive to force people, implement a system of fines, or punish dissent. Dictatorship is ineffective. Flattering subordinates is also ineffective. What works is negotiation. A system of agreements is what a leader in an organization should establish. Only then will people be able and willing to give their all, enjoying their work, as they have chosen that job, those rules, and those tasks for themselves.
Here’s a thought-provoking illustration for you. Imagine that you are not working in a warm office, but outside in the cold. Your job requires specific results that depend not only on your skills but, more significantly, on the environment around you and the behavior of your clients. Your manager constantly demands more from you, and you also attend weekly reporting meetings. You don’t even have a proper chair, and the nearest restroom is a kilometer away. Yes, you don’t have a computer or a phone, and you are required to stay in one place regardless of the weather.
Everything in the world is for sale and everything can be bought. Okay, tell me the salary you would be willing to work for under these conditions? (survey)
How should we motivate such people to achieve success? (survey)
And now I will tell you that there are people who work in such conditions for free and voluntarily. Moreover, they carve out days and hours to do this work. They work on weekends, during vacations, for 12 hours a day. With one difference: they have no manager and no meetings. Yet, they achieve results. These are fishermen who engage in ice fishing.
If they had a manager, do you think they would catch more fish? Would they want to work? So what is the role of a manager then? Is it really necessary?
A manager is needed only (though that “only” is quite a lot) to create an atmosphere of fishing rather than work. So that work feels like a form of relaxation, not an unavoidable necessity.
Remember I mentioned that for a leader, “life is a game” — that’s exactly what I meant.
Now I will also touch on the issue of criticism and constructivism within it. This is part of the management style. In general, a management style can be defined by the reaction to unpleasant events. Some people criticize, some turn a blind eye, some impose penalties, some bury their heads in the sand, and some ask, “Why did this happen?” and look for those to blame, and so on.
The question of whether criticism is constructive is not about whether it can be beneficial. It’s about whether it’s worth fighting against what has already happened. The past cannot be changed. A mistake cannot be undone. We are already in the conditions we find ourselves in, and the main question we need to address is what to do here and now, rather than what should have been done in the past or what might happen in the future. Tomorrow will be tomorrow. We can only decide now what it will be like. Is there room for “style” here? No, of course not. In this light, it’s worth considering the value of the plans that are made and that people try to follow.
Well, we decided to make 100,000,000 money. We wrote a plan in December. So what? Why should we be worried that the plan isn’t being fulfilled in April and won’t be fulfilled just because a major dumping competitor has entered the market? That plan is yesterday’s news. It’s the past, which we can’t change and which shouldn’t guide us in the present. Again, the main question is what we need to do here and now, and to take care of it (not to worry about it). We just need to rewrite the plan instead of stressing out that it’s not being executed. It’s already not going to happen. Period.