Watching academics debate can be amusing. Such was the case with a debate I read about over the weekend regarding the value of China's national classics, of which Confucianism provides the moral core, in the modern age. It was started by a young reporter from a local newspaper in Beijing, who questioned a scholar from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, whose field of research is Confucianism, about the role of the national classics in management. Since, asked the reporter, management is about "controlling people," should the national classics be seen primarily as a management theory? The furious academic wondered how the reporter had the temerity to make such a statement. Confucianism is a great wisdom, and the study of national classics is about great wisdom, he said. How can they be regarded as nothing more important than a "management theory," he fumed. The scholar was only half-right when he said that Confucianism is a great wisdom. His downfall came when he accepted the wrong definition of management. He may have just as well asked: "How can management be defined simply as controlling people?" This reminded people of the situation in China four decades ago, when Confucianism was banned as a "wrong teaching," while management in factories, and indeed in all organizations, was defined as "control of workers," and pushed aside as unwanted. Every middle-aged Chinese person can recall the consequences of this an erosion of work ethics as testified by the flooding of the market with shoddy products. Not only were the national classics forgotten, but also many good things or anything made with any care or having any lasting value. It was a time when the only consumer goods China exported were simple polyester shirts sold in the bargain basements of Western department stores. During the economic reform over the past two decades, it was not just a people-control mechanism that was reintroduced. In no successful companies was their performance achieved by controlling people be it through heavy discipline, strong material incentives, or any combination of both. Things like inspiring innovation, nurturing teamwork, remapping production processes, studying the market, and forging alliances and partnerships can hardly be achieved merely by using small tricks. They can only be made possible by applying great wisdom. This is exactly where the significance lies in teaching national classics to entrepreneurs and managers. Letting them learn why they should put people first, which can help them win financial success in ways respected by the rest of society. Since enterprises are communities of human beings, successful management can only be achieved by upholding the cultural value of the society in which the managers operate. In fact, everything gained from development is only the consequence of management including efforts to build close ties between enterprises and local culture, and to balance the work and life of the employees. That is also why in places where development does occur, people blame this on management failure. Admittedly, there are people who run sweatshops, who are stingy about paying young women workers and whoever they have to pay, and who encourage their workers to sleep in the office after making them work long hours. But despite their temporary financial gains, people do not regard them as examples to emulate in management. The social problems they create vastly outweigh the tax revenue they generate. Defining management as "controlling people" is as much of a distortion as defining Confucianism as a similar device. It is a pity to learn that so many people remain unclear about this. Email: younuo@chinadaily.com.cn (China Daily 07/17/2006 page4)
|
