The manager

"Effective leadership is not about making speeches or being liked; leadership is defined by results not attributes"- Peter Drucker. It might be enlightening for the readers to know that that Mr Fredrick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915) is considered the father of scientific management and that Drucker is generally accepted as the father of modern management.
Perhaps the titles of grandfather and father might be more appropriate given that the difference between scientific and modern management has more to do with chronology. Personally, management is neither a science nor an art, modern or otherwise; in reality it is a fundamental requirement of social interaction innate in human character.
According to Wikipedia, management in all business and organisational activities is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively. Irrespective of the many other definitions which might be championed for management, in essence it simply is making people work towards a desired objective effectively and efficiently. Accordingly the word has universal application and cannot be limited to the business world only. Bureaucracy, Armed forces, landed aristocracy, in fact everywhere quality of management is the key factor behind success. Be it a CEO or a shop supervisor, good management is the building block for growth.
Millions of books and loads of literature have been authored on the subject and universities actually have degree courses to train people to be simply managers. Further, self improvement philosophies which focus upon character and habits are a dime a dozen. What is than puzzling is that with management principles standardised, value systems advocated and training patronised, why is Dilbert so popular?!
For those who couldn't grasp the punch line, Dilbert is the main character of a satirical cartoon strip started by Scot Adams in 1989. The cartoon revolves around an office setting where Dilbert working under an incompetent boss is neither appreciated nor rewarded, look busy do nothing is the norm. Visit the official website to get the drift on Dilbert's popularity which conventional wisdom suggests is because most office subordinates relate to the character.
Reverting to the query, Dilbert is popular because while the theory of management appears to be logical and effective, although each Guru has a different set of top 10 management rules, some of its key covenants contradict human nature and/or certain truisms as analysed hereafter. Being a manager is not easy. Irrespective of the humongous amount of gibberish to the contrary, work is work and not pleasure. Getting anyone to work therefore will always be a challenging and thankless task.
The Manager hires and works with high quality employees. This rule conflicts with the Peter Principle commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence". If the Manager does surround himself with high quality employees who have not yet risen to their respective levels of incompetence than they will very shortly supersede him, an untenable outcome.
The manager should be aware that all motivation stems from self interest therefore it is necessary to understand a subordinate prior to motivating him. Realistically, the only reason people work is to earn money to provide for their family and desires, any other conjecture is delusionary on the part of the manager. But what is the amount of money that commensurate the worth of an employee. Vanity always ensures a difference of opinion.
The manager should listen to employees and be a good communicator. If the earlier rule has not been followed ie quality employees, then what is the point of communication, the net feedback will be "Yes Sir". On the other hand if fate has intervened and the first rule is established, communication is still undesirable since it will unnecessarily project the employee and be harmful for the Manager's ego and progression. Finally, if perchance the Manager has not reached his level of incompetence and in a particular situation disagrees with the team, what is the right path? Note only in case of disagreement will these conflicts arise and if the manager should act as a leader and follow his own direction every time, than why ask the employees in the first place? Only to create a perception of teamwork!
The manager should not blame or criticise, but in fact should be supportive. Unjust criticism is perhaps not the subject matter of this rule. The conflict is that if a blunder has occurred, the natural defence mechanism of the Manager is to be offensive and shift blame before the blame is thrust upon him. This natural tendency of man is the mastermind behind bureaucratic and military humour about blame being delegated from the highest level to the junior most employees. Ever hear of the Rule, The Boss is always right? And ever here of the movie quote," if you mess with the Bull you get the horns"?
The manager should not micromanage. Words are not needed to identify the conflict in this one. Just reading a few of Dilbert's comic strips is enough to spotlight the Manager delegating and then micromanaging to "look busy" and the consequent thoughts and actions of the subordinates.
There are a lot of management rules which simply conflict with a human characteristic best projected in the many time repeated quote of Gordon Gekko, "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good".
The direction of this analysis should by now be crystal-clear and we need not continue to identify individual conflicts within each of the top 10 management rules, or was it 7 or 20! Nonetheless the paradox in management theory is that the manager at some level is a subordinate, and the characteristics espoused in the theory conflict with the natural defence mechanism of mankind, survival of the fittest.
Management theory did come up with a sort of a force field to fend off conflicts arising out of human nature, the employee feedback. However, Dilbert has always known that the Manager does not appreciate any assessment of a situation which conflicts with the Manager's interests and therefore lies on the feedback to avoid being hunted down and hanged as a trophy. Remember the story where General Motors (GM) invited Peter Drucker to study GM and could not digest what emanated out of the exercise. The book "The Concept of Corporation" was banned at GM and Drucker was declared persona non grata. If the biggest and most successful corporation could not digest criticism, what chance does Dilbert have against the Manager?
The manager's guild will probably brand the author as a traitor as soon as this write-up is published, for the true regimen of management is a closely guarded secret. The Management theory that is publicly marketed preconceives that the Manager is intelligent and competent with angelic characteristics; imagine how often that is true. The objective of the illusion is to keep employees engaged and cursing their bad luck for having ended up under the only bad manager in the universe, the truth is that the theory is a phenomenal success and all subordinates believe the very same thing.
Nonetheless the guild should understand that even the author is a Manager and a Subordinate, as is a Minister, as is a Government Secretary, as is a General, as is an IG, and so on so forth. Perhaps it is the time for an expose on the lines of Niccolo Machiavelli's "Prince" titled "The Manager". Extracts from "The Prince" will read as follows in the pages of "The Manager" (Italics in brackets are the original words from the Prince):
-- Management has (Politics have) no relation to morals.
-- A Manager (Prince) never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.
-- It is much more secure to be feared than to be loved.
-- Hatred is gained as much by good works as by evil. So why good? (Italics added)
-- Of the Manager (Mankind) we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain. But let's close this discourse on a positive note. "If the Devil is real, then God must be real too", from the movie "The Devil". The perfect Manager does exist! Wink Wink! Cheers!