Boss and 'aye'

"That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English Constitution," said an 18th. Century English jurist, William Blackstone. In the present times everyone with power and pelf in Pakistan believes that he or she can do no wrong. Ever.
This is patently untrue. Anyone can make a mistake, including the boss who may be the highest decision making person in a unit, organisation or the nation. In fact, given his elitist background he is most likely not to know the problems of his workmen (and women), particularly those belonging to the deprived group since he is not in direct touch with them. Most often he would take decisions that do not benefit the lower category of staff because he does not know the problems they face.
But a boss is assisted by a large retinue of advisors, managers and executive assistants who are expected to advise him at every stage of decision making unless, of course, they are appointed as political largess or for personal benefit and are not expected to perform any useful function. Oft times they give no advise nor seek it and carry out the orders dutifully, without any sensible input of their own. Is it not incredible that out of the large group of educated and informed individuals that constitute the "think tank" or execute the "action plan" of an organisation, no one has the sagacity or courage to point out whenever the boss makes an error of judgement?
ONE REASON IS PRETTY MUCH OBVIOUS: calibre or competencies are not the grounds for selection, appointment and elevation to higher posts. This is true not only of government departments where there is little or no accountability, but equally so in private and corporate sectors where senior executives and directors nurse giant sized egos and do not tolerate dissent or disagreement from any quarter.
What about the sub-ordinates? "Power worship," writes George Orwell, "blurs political judgements because it leads, almost unavoidably, to the belief that present trends will continue. Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible."
Former Punjab Chief Minister and a sensitive artist by training and at heart perhaps hit the nail on the head when he observed in a TV talk show that feudalism has entered every walk of life in our society. Javed Jabbar agrees that certain categories of our businessmen and industrialists can be described as "urban feudal" and their people are like Anton Chekhov's characters - passive and helpless.
They contemplate over their unhappy lives, but are not capable of breaking out of it. They live their life with a fatalistic attitude and are convinced about the fruitlessness of their efforts. Writes the master story teller in "Three sisters", "What difference does it make?" In Czarist Russia as in our country with its business-military-religious axis, opportunities are denied to the ordinary people and advantage taken of their state of helplessness.
The candidate for a job who answers at the interview that one plus one equals two is rejected with the plea that he lacks imagination and "street smartness." To hell with honesty when it comes to business dealings. Another who replies that one plus one equals eleven is also turned down for appearing to be too manipulative and 'over-smart.' The one who says, "What reply would you want me to give, Sir?" is taken on board unless of course the job has already been given away on 'sifaarish.'
The "Yes, sir, No sir" approach to problem solving and running personal tasks for the boss is considered to be the major requirement for the job. Given such an interest-based view of organisational management what place is left for creativity or independent viewpoint?
Attractive ACRs, designed by highly paid consultants, under the supervision of high profile Human Resource Directors introducing a new system of self assessment of performance and open ended discussion with workers are all mere hogwash if the administration is not willing to listen to a "no' to an unreasonable order or illogical decision of the boss. Creating Human Resource Departments is only a cosmetic measure if the purpose continues to be to quell independent thinking and bask in the sycophantic behaviour of the subordinates.
Contrary to general belief this type of management is not a legacy of the British Raj.
In fact, the colonial masters, despite their despotic and oppressive rule, gave ample freedom to their chosen few: members of the Indian Civil Service, including brown skinned ones, to act and think independently as long as they did not rebel against the Crown. No wonder, our senior politician Illahi Bux Somroo went to the extent to declare during a royal visit that he still considers himself a loyal servant of the Raaj!
The subordinates are not blameless either. Since they owe their position to political largess and patronage instead of professional competence they cannot deviate from a system that requires of them to bow and scrape before authority.
Earnest Hemingway once wrote, "Cowardice, as distinguished from panic, is almost always simply a lack of ability." A healthy boss-subordinate relationship can be developed only when the subordinate has the courage to defend his ideas based on hard work, and not because he accepts blindly whatever is passed down the line for implementation. He should fully recognise that the boss is, after all, human and is equally susceptible to error of judgement and opinion, and needs to be corrected at times.
Likewise, the boss must be pragmatic and large hearted enough to listen to the voice of dissent and criticism so that better judgements are made. It is not enough to talk about human resource development and forthright behaviour. It needs to be implemented with seriousness and urgency because the employer and the employee, the boss and the subordinate can only succeed together and in tandem. Not separately.