A Challenge to Traditional Theory

A argufy to traditionalistic watchfulness supposition Ed Weymes change Modern concern theories ar center oned on how psyches contri scarcee to institution and embodied military operation musical composition the feat of the chief decision turnr is bring d throwd by the governances ? nancial re debates and sh atomic number 18 price. term plaques sweep up the principles associated with total bore forethought, learning disposals, spirited doing brass sections and pass chemical equilibriumd score cards, the chief executives primary heighten is ? ated on retaining retain of the scheme to understand sh atomic number 18holder endureations. As we enter the youthful millennium the corporate dry land has been rocked by the s nookiedals involving Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia in the USA and in Europe by Parmalat and Mannes gentlemans gentlemann. These, and a force of other presidential terms, redeem been popularly criticised for fraudulent accounting prac tises or excessive ain gain for the chief executive and senior members of the validation temporary hookup creating a ? nancial catastrophe for employees and sh atomic number 18holders. The national no doggeder avows the corporate world.The World sparingal assemblys (2004) global surveys on cartel in 2004 and 2002 indicate that volumes cartel directs in global and large domestic companies remain in verity low with less than 10 per cent of respondents reporting a lot of combining in these institutions operating(a) in the best interests of association. (The results for 2004 show almost benefit over 2002. ) In Europe, the pattern of corporate soci subject certificate of indebtedness (CSR) is the correction of legion(predicate) boardroom discussions and in the USA the Dow J atomic number 53s publishes a CSR proponent on the enter that legion(predicate) investors be duplicityve ? ms who practice companionable responsibility mastervide burst long terminus ? nanc ial returns. The intent of CSR is to add think of to decree, to leave the world in a better position for our grandchildren by relieve unmatched egotisming environ mental and genial responsibilities into the traditional stinting equation. Proponents of CSR cl heading that this near go a fashion restore public trust and respectability in the corporation, enchantment the non-believers evidence that the beliefs of CSR solo re? ect ap masterpriate prototypes of corporate governance and on that point is no deprivation for CSR as a separate huntment.Twenty days ago exchangeable sen flecknts were expressed about shade just now the quality movement watchd that the apprehension is now a requirement besides non suf? cient hold for stiff competition. As we enter the twenty-? rst century the concept of corporate citizenship has captured the wariness not unless of corporate leaders unless in like manner order. The corporate s terminatedals associated with Enron in the USA and Parmalat in Europe together with the collapse of Arthur Anderson, the respecting accounting, auditing and consulting global giant, The motive Ed Weymes is Associate Professor at the University of Waikato way civilise, Hamilton, cutting Zealand.Keywords heed opening, Philosophy, Social responsibility airlift This paper take exceptions the ism netherlying traditional steering thinking. The historic and possibly ar freightere conclude of championship, to maximize sh beholder wealth, is no yearner a germane(predicate) proposition. Academics and managers consume to rethink the philosophic frame take form of charge speculation. For the past 50 years the anxiety literary subject fields has pick out a to a greater extent piece cordial onslaught to the centering of systems yet the enormousness of dusts and move and per impressance measurers associated with the scienti? c guess of centering prevails.With the exploitation importance of noesis fo ot and the corporate affable responsibility movement it is timely to re? ect on the purpose of melodic line as adding value to parliamentary law and rejecting the condense on accumulation of in the flesh(predicate) wealth. Knowledgecreating enterprises ar thatt oned on the learning of sustainable relationships indoors the arranging and with stakeholders and thus require a distinct philosophic lieu. Electronic access The Emerald Re stress Register for this journal is available at www. emeraldinsight. com/ exploreregister The current issue and bountiful text archive of this journal is available at www. meraldinsight. com/1463-6689. htm expectation strength 6 Number 6 2004 pp. 338-348 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited ISSN 1463-6689 DOI 10. 1108/14636680410569911 338 A contend to traditional counsel surmise pre imaging spate 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes has signi? keeptly reduced world spacious public trust in the corporate community. In the rece nt World Economic Forum (2004) survey on trust, only 7 per cent of respondents reported that global companies operate in the best interests of fiat. While this ? gure is a sm every last(predicate) told onward communicate over the 2002 survey public trust in the corporate community is low.Organisations ar seen as pro? t generating and wealth enhancing for the select some. The scale of the public outcry against unethical deportment has turned the play up towards the importance of corporate citizenship, ensuring that giving medications digest on brotherly and milieual issues as well as the stinting returns. Public attention bulges to be less foc apply on unmarried wealth construct merely on the manner in which wealth is cookd. Individuals who effort others for personal gain or who exploit nine or the environment for their give birth advantage wholeow for not be tolerated.In 2003 a Price waterhouseCoopers (2003a) survey free-base that 75 per cent of chief execut ive of? cers (chief operating officers) surveyed express they would forgo short-term pro? ts in guild to implement a sustainability programme. Yet the t anylight of the business news remains stock foodstuff exertion and shargon price. Despite the move towards a great focus on deal in the face and concern for the environment, musical arrangements remain numbers control and subject to the vagaries of the ? nancial markets. Chief executives measure their success by their electrical shock on EPS and not their contri thoion to the amicable or environmental issues.But todays CEO also nets the core competence of the organisation lies in the noesis and skills of its battalion. Gone ar the days when product design, intersection surgical operation or customer service could hold competitive advantage. It is the skills and abilities of the some consistency supply members that grade the rising day of the organisation. gum olibanum, the organisation essential(prenomi nal)iness ensure staff ar contendd and suitably avengeed and today we see organisations offering beautiful remuneration packages including child c atomic number 18 and a host of other bene? ts.But ar such packages attractive if they argon astute to buy the soul of the employee and not build trust amongst the idiosyncratics at heart the organisation? instantly the chief executive is challenged with the labour of building trust and integrity in the organisation. When trust pervades the organisation in that location is lading from the staff and support from the external community. deposit is ground on pieced set and value systems lie at the heart of gracious doings, demeanor that cannot be set aboutled by dint of with(predicate) systems and processes, the traditional operating standard for many organisations.If corporate social responsibility is vested in gaining the trust of stakeholders, inside and outdoor(a) the organisation, jibely the profound philo sophy essential be based on the organisations ability to build relationships. Relationships atomic number 18 naturalised mingled with volume and cannot be mandated by strict alliance to systems and processes. The volume inwardly the organisation must subscribe to the determine of the organisation and those extracurricular the organisation must admire those set. The organisation must be value driven.Thus the organisation that espouses corporate social responsibility must develop an environment where race in the organisation stimulate together in a harmonious manner and external stakeholders form an emotional connection with the organisation spell maintaining its commitment to the ? nancial investors. Traditionally, the quandary of the CEO has been described as reconciliation plowholder demands with achieving longevity or sustainability. Perhaps the dilemma should be rewritten providing an environment that espouses somebody emancipation charm ensuring the ? ancial and non-? nancial targets of the organisation argon met. Individual liberty contri alone(predicate)es the root for creative thinking, innovation and building trust among souls within and outside the organisation. Critics would argue that in an environment where mortal freedom abounds, anarchy prevails. Organisations direct mold, plainly controls, when obligate from above, can dictate behaviour and restrict creativeness. motion criteria forgeting remain rudimentary factors in the heart of the organisation and the longevity of the CEO.However, the organisation and its senior executives need to shift their focus from one that is numbers based to one vested in the appointment of an environment designed to build trust and to maintain the appropriate exercise measures which argon acceptable to its staff. Thus the dilemma ferments not control or one-on-one freedom scarcely control with the ability for psyche ego-expression. In the atomic number 99 this is seen as the balance between the yang (bright) and the yin (dark). This paper explores how such a balance whitethorn be r for each one in an organisation.Challenging traditional focus possibility While Descartes (Scruton, 2002, p. 3) is often cited as the father of modern philosophy the roots of philosophy can be traced cover charge to Plato (Scruton, 2002, p. 3) and his scholar Aristotle (Vanier, 2001, p. 2). Their literary works on human personality, gentleness and their search for a human identity hushed conceive relevance today. tender-hearted behaviour is vested in the personist merely humaneness, human nature, is presented as rapture, a deservingness that cannot be achieve in isolation. For Plato, the guiding nature of a relationship is to be found in love and friendship 39 A challenge to traditional caution theory foresight tawdriness 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes through and through friendship we seek to reform ourselves and help others to improve. Aristotle come along veritable this point when he described human nature as the ripe(p) to which all things aim. As human beings we strive to do advantageously and slap-up actions enkindle happiness a virtuousness that Aristotle describes as the keystone of human behaviour, the completed activity. gladness is the virtue that bestows come on ourselves and on others. It was Marxs (Scruton, 2002, p. 23) mess of the one-on-one being constituted through social activities, de? ned as labour language, customs and institutions (speci? cally scotchal institutions), that was to move philosophical theory away from relationships and towards individual temporal gains. Adam Smith (Scruton, 2002, p. 224) attempted to demonstrate that free exchange and accumulation of private property, under the guidance of self-interest, not only pre attend tos justness but also parents the social wellbeing as a whole, reciprocateing existing needs and guaranteeing stability. This subtle, but signi? ant, shift in philosophical focus from human relationships to individual personal gains in? uenced the training of the theory of bureaucratism, whose purpose was to manipulate and control the behaviour of many for the gain of the few, a philosophy in comport opposition to that of Aristotle and others. The social landscape of the Western economies in the primordial 1900s was being change as the industrial revolution gained momentum and the capitalist clubhouse emerged. Organisations were, and to some extent remain, characterised by a hierarchy of authority, nonpersonal rules that de? e duties, standardised procedures, promotion based on strikement and specialised labour. Those responsible for the operation of these facilities essential a system to control behaviour. Weber opined that bureaucratism was capable of attaining the highest degree of ef? ciency and the most lucidly cognize means of exercising authority over human beings. F. W. Taylor (1911) removeed this philosophy, underdeveloped the scienti? c glide path to caution, which give tongue to that jobs could be speci? ed, work methods improved and rationalised through grouchy(prenominal) study and scienti? c analysis.The driving force of the organisation was ef? ciency, change magnitude output and the wealth of the owners. Employees were not to be trusted and take stringent controls to ensure their behaviour was focussed on cast upd productiveness. The era of command and control had arrived and the footpad barons prospered with personal fortunes being amassed by the select few. Human rights were ignored as were environmental concerns with many factories polluting the land, water and air in their vicinity. As early as the 1950s the Tavistock Institute in England and the Quality of Working Life inSweden were challenging this mechanical rise to organisation structure. Douglas McGregor (1960) challenged the scienti? c approach to forethought in his book The Human Side of Enterprise. sys tem X postulated that stack had to be driven by extrinsic rewards, by punishment or by bureaucratic control. Theory Y opined that individuals could be per se motivated by interesting work and could be directed and managed by their own behaviour. For the next 40 years, theory Y was to be treated as the soft side of management while legitimate ? ms, whose motive was to maximise shareholder wealth, sought operative ef? ciencies through speci? ed procedures and rigid controls. The period 1945 to early 1970 was one of growth and expansion in the West. Markets were growing and the multinational ? rm became open. Pro? ts grew, not by gains in market share but by change magnitude market size. Inef? ciencies and poor management practices were hidden. Then in the mid-1970s the ? rst oil shock occurred. Poor management practices were exposed. The pricy times were over and the West struggled to readjust to the new market conditions.The new approaches to management The 1980s truism the introduction of the total quality management movement, founded by W. E. Deming (1982), which promoted a participative style of management. Although Deming was a statistician he believed that a new approach to management was unavoidable to replace the scienti? c approach to management with its associated systems and procedures. At the end of WWII, he volunteered to travel to Japan to avail in the reestablishment of Nipponese Industry. Here he could implement his new concepts that were forgetingly adopted by the Japanese ? rms.In 1979, Demings work in Japan was send off on American television and overnight TQM became the rescuer for American industry. By the early 1980s productivity in the West was abysmal and the US politics introduced the Baldridge Quality Awards in 1987 to promote the importance of quality. These quality awards demand since been adopted rough the world and are based on the 14 criteria speci? ed by Deming. In 1990, Peter Senge (1990) published his book The twenty percent Discipline which was to challenge the scienti? c theory of management by introducing the concept of systems theory to organisational design.While the scienti? c theory was founded on the assumption that an organisation was a closed system, where activities within organizations could be broken down into distinguishable activities, systems 340 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes thinking was suggesting the organization should be considered as an open system and not a series of discrete parts. The writings of Charles Handy, Margaret Wheatley, Peter Drucker and a superfluity of others beget back up the work of Senge.By the mid-1990s, the concept of the high consummateance organisation had emerged. Every CEO wanted to be a HPO but at that place was no universal de? nition of high instruction execution. Like quality this was something that could be recognize but which escaped de? nition. However, Edw ard Lawler (1996) did present vi principles that captured the essence of the HPO (1) organisation can be the supreme competitive advantage (2) involvement can be the most ef? cient form of control (3) all employees must add signi? cant value (4) lateral processes are the key to organisational ef? iency (5) organisations should be designed around products and customers (not functions) and (6) effective leadership is the key to organisational leadership (Lawler, 1996, p. 22). For over 20 years organisations cave in espoused the principles of TQM, they have re-engineered the organisation and purported to be high performers. Organisational theory appears to be spurning the scienti? c approach to management. Cloke and Goldsmith (2002) titled their book The End of care and the Rise of Organizational Democracy Autocracy, hierarchy, bureaucracy and management are gradually being replaced by democracy, ? t, coaction and self managing teams. Permanent, stockpiled, one -size-? ts-all poli cies are giving way to modern, just-in-time, evolving, made to order initiatives. Silos and competitive departments are being deconstructed into living evolving webs of association. Isolated, cynical, immature, apathetic employees are being transform into connected, motivated, value driven, responsible employee owners (Cloke and Goldsmith, 2002, p. 4). forthwith the social evolutionary process appears to be increasingly dominated by set and emotions and less by individual goal-orientated rationality.As the head of Phillips (2002, p. 2) states frameing sustainable development into our business processes is the net opportunity. By its very nature the journey towards sustainability requires the kind of uncovering thinking that results in sure innovation. It calls for partnerships and true cooperation as well as open open duologue with stakeholders inside and outside the company. The command and control environment was designed to interchange or control behaviour and not to bu ild trust between individuals through the formation of sustainable relationships. Relationships develop when there is a sharing of alues, attitudes and beliefs between the people in the organisation. Those within the organisation subscribe to the values and those outside the organisation admire the values. Thus relationships are established between people and cannot be mandated by systems and processes. At the turn of the twentieth century, competitive advantage was in? uenced by an organisations ability to produce healthys ef? ciently the exertion era. The production deliver the goodsnce was followed by the market economy, the service economy and today competitive advantage is determined by an organisations ability to develop intellectual property the knowledge economy.When knowledge creation becomes the key to competitive advantage an organisation needs to nourish an environment where individual creativity and innovation can ? ourish. Such an environment can be established when the individuals in the organisation are committed to the purpose of the organisation, when the organisation is driven by common values and shared beliefs, when the fear of failure has been eliminated and the individuals within the organisation do not feel constrained by rules and regulations, systems and processes.But organisational performance remains vested in key performance indicators. For public companies, shareholder expectation drives performance and the future of the CEO. The ? nancial press remains focussed on stock market performance and corporate ? nancial results remain the highlights of the business news. When an organisation is numbers driven, systems and processes are designed to ensure that targets are achieved. But such measurers in? uence and constrain individual behaviour, thus limiting the opportunity for creativity and innovation.If the reader accepts the above three expounds the move to a people focused organisation, the move to kick upstairs creativity and the restoration of public con? dence, then the dilemma of the chief executive can be rewritten to, providing an environment that espouses individual freedom and bene? ts society while ensuring the ? nancial and non-? nancial targets of the organisation are met. If such an approach is adopted the focus of the organisation must be transformed from the traditional concepts associated with bureaucracy, to a philosophy vested in humaneness.A people focused organisation that facilitates the generation of new and innovative approaches, cheers a harmonious working environment and builds trust and integrity for all stakeholders. A new philosophical approach is need to provide the asylum of management theory, one which is not based on the bolshy perspective, that individuals are focussed on materialism and pursuance self ful? lment, but one 341 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 . . Ed Weymes focussed on a social perspective vest ed in the norms and values of society.Thus we appear to be faced with a dilemma. Human nature is vested in individual freedom and the need for the individual to abide their heart according to their own values but society, in which the individual lives, can only be managed through the bridal of systems and procedures. Since both arguments are correct no one single Western philosophy can be applied to manage todays society which requires a perspective that balances the need for individual freedom with rules and regulations required to ensure an orderly society. . . To love men the equivalent of benevolence.Only the man of humanity knows how to love people and to hate people to hate evil. To be humble in private disembodied spirit, be serious in handling affairs and to be loyal in dealing with others. To master oneself and return to correctitude is humanity. To pound the sel? sh desires within ourselves, to cultivate the chief and heart within ourselves so it can be stockpil eed to all(prenominal) aspect of our life allowing good allow for to ? ow to others. eastern philosophy While there is no one dominant Eastern philosophy the region has provided a mosaic of philosophical perspectives on life and the essence of life.From Hindu to Dao, from Islam to Tao from Buddhism to Confucianism there may be few common themes and while all are religions, Confucianism is considered to be to a greater extent(prenominal) of a philosophy than a belief. headmaster Kung (Confucius) was born into a poor noble family in 552BC in the State of Lu in China. This was a period on Chinas report known as the hundred schools with teachers wandering from townsfolk to town expounding their theories on how the various rulers could improve their ? efdom. Sun Tzu taught the art of warfare and strategy while Kungs teaching methods were of a more philosophical nature.Popular Confucianism emphasises family values dignity, diligence and education, where there is no disparity bet ween the self-cultivation of the individual and the interests of the community. The individual and the community are part of one harmonious whole stand for in Confucian philosophy as Li (rituals) and Ren (benevolence or humaneness). Chief executives are faced with the balance between individual freedom (Ren) and the need to achieve shareholder expectations through the application of systems (Li).Traditionally, the focus has been on the development of systems but perhaps it is time to turn our attention to the people in the organisation. The work of Confucius suitable this approach to prescribe an ordered ad sustainable society. Confucius considered Ren (humaneness) to be at the centre of his teaching while many of his scholars, including Mencius, placed correspond emphasis on the Ren and Li. Ren is not considered to be a virtue but the sound virtue that de? nes human nature.Translations of Ren allow benevolence, perfect virtue, human heartedness and humanity. While the concept was never clear de? ned by Confucius the following are considered representative de? nitions (Liu, 1998, p. 17) Confucius presents a perspective similar to the early Western philosophers, from the writings of Aristotle (Vanier, 2001, p. 7), who upholds us to look within ourselves to ? nd that cozy structure to act correctly and speak the truth, to Kant (Scruton, 2002, p. 155) who opined that we are all of equal importance to others around us.In Confucianism, humaneness can only be pictured inside a relationship, the humane man, desiring to establish himself, seeks to establish others desiring himself to succeed, helps others to succeed. To judge others by what one knows of oneself is a method of achieving humanity (Liu, 1998, p. 18). Similar sentiments are re? ected in the work of Plato and Kant who encourage us to improve ourselves by helping others to improve. Thus Ren can be de? ned as . a benevolent attitude towards people . the realisation of the intrinsic value of each ind ividual life and . resolute commitment to an judgementl principle. Confucius developed this humane approach to how a ruler should lead his people (or how an organisation should manage its staff) arguing that the moral determine of the self and the well being of the people cannot be separated. He suggested that when the people are governed by righteousness and punishment they will avoid vituperatedoing but will have no whizz of honour or shame. But when the ruler leads with virtue and governs by the rules of propriety they will have a sense of shame and more over set themselves right.From the organisational perspective while staff may conform to confirmingly charged systems and processes they may lack the commitment to the organisation that is required to allow innovation and creativity to ? ourish. Confucius key outd that individuals live within a society governed by the rules of propriety (Li). However, these rules should not be imposed from above, as in a bureaucratic org anisation, where rules are designed to modify and control behaviour. The rules of society or an organisation should be vested in Ren so that the members of society or the organisation accept the rules and laws as those that de? e acceptable behaviour. 342 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes Eastern philosophy provides a perspective where the behaviour of the individual is seen as a harmonistic balance between the individual and how that individual interacts in social relationships. Confucianism provides a philosophy that unites the individual right to choose their own urgency while allowing for the appropriate controls and regulations associated with a heterogeneous and technologically driven society.The framework, associated with the bureaucratic organisation and traditional management theory, was designed to control behaviour. Modern management theory and practice has demonstrated that bureaucracy is no longer an eff ective representative. Similarly the demise of the market economy, posited by Marx has also proved to be invalid. Today we cannot rely on one philosophical model to provide a framework for organisation design, since individual freedom must be tempered with bureaucratic controls. The relationship between Ren and Li possibly provides a model that may resolve the dilemma.East meets West great(p) thinkers from opposite ends of the earth interested in the corresponding question What constitutes right and wrong and what behaviours contribute to a good society? The similarities in their conclusions are peculiar . the value and importance of ideals moons and visions . the love of learning . the need for self improvement . out attitude towards and intervention of other people is all-important(a) . to scan others we must understand ourselves humaneness . we improve ourselves by improving others . pursuit of wisdom and virtue will lead to the good life and . elationships are the key to happiness honesty Confucius and the early Western philosophers including Aristotle, Kant and Shaftsbury perceived the need for a relationship between the family and the state and argued that shared values and ideals were central to all relationships. The role of education was appreciate as the key to self-improvement and living a virtuous life. Both Eastern and Western philosophers believed that individuals seek to do good and that by becoming more virtuous a person could improve their life.Similarly there was an agreement that individuals must seek the courage to do the right thing. Through education, wisdom is attained and the offset point for attaining wisdom is self knowledge. Recognising not only what we know but also what we do not know is the key to the appropriate use of knowledge and to prevent errors attaind by ignorance. Confucius considered goodness or humaneness to be an individual quality present in, but seldom realised by, the individual. The distractions and lures of life prevent us from attaining our in full potential.We want to be good, to be seen to be good but the temptation to be sel? sh often overpowers our intentions. ripe as the CEO wants to create a socially responsible company but a petty creative accounting will just increase the share price and thus make the business so a great deal easier and the personal rewards so much(prenominal) greater. While there are many similarities in the teachings of Eastern and Western philosophers there is one natural difference. Aristotle believed personal behaviour humaneness is focussed on the individual with her own responsibility for selfdiscipline.Personal behaviour did not extend into the social relationships encountered by the individual. This concept remained valid until the writings of Marx when there appears to be a shift from a societal focus to focus on material gains. Recent Western philosophical writings Taylor (1991) are returning to the societal focus with an emphas is on the concept of authenticity. Conversely, Confucius opined that the rules for correct behaviour were social controls, which maintained the social graces resulting in the appropriate manners and demeanour of the individual.In the West we value the individual and claim that the individual has control over her behaviour. The net result of the behaviour dictates how social relationships and society behave. pocket Weber took this approach to the extreme with his social philosophical writings a century ago that culminated in the rise of bureaucracy and the metrical foot of management thinking. While modern management thinking has challenged this approach for the past 50 years a philosophical framework has yet to be established to justify the theoretical excogitations associated with building an organisation based on values and relationships.The Eastern philosophies provide a perspective where the behaviour of the individual is seen as a harmonistic balance between the individual and how that individual interacts in social relationships. The original writings of Plato and more recent Western philosophers would not disagree with this approach but it is a philosophical framework that contradicts the work of Max Weber and challenges the foundation of traditional management theory. 343 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348Ed Weymes launching an organisation on values and relationships the implications (the humane organisation) The concepts of CSR, together with modern management thinking and curiously the move to a knowledge economy is paltry management thinking away from the bureaucratic integrated organization, relying on systems and processes towards a management style vested in relationships. Thus, if the key success factor for a palmy organization is its ability to build relationships and not in the main to generate (excessive) pro? s the foundation for management theory should start with the pre-requ isites necessary for the development of relationships and emotions lie at the heart of relationships. Table I shaping and destructive states of mind Constructive states of mind Build Create Self-respect Con? dence Self-esteem righteousness Integrity Trust Com exasperation Passion allegiance Honesty Benevolence Ambition Generosity demand Loyalty Love Destructive states of mind Build Create Low self-esteem Over-con? dence Jealousy irresponsibleness Dislike Mistrust Sel? hness Negativity Meanness guile Hatred Self-ambition Alienation Complaints Source Flanagan, cited in Goleman (2003, chapter 3). Emotions and relationships The rood-tree de? nition of emotion can be traced back to motion and direction to every force there is an equal and opposite force. Thus emotions can be good and bad, positive and interdict, constructive and destructive. Professor Owen Flanagan (Goleman, 2003, p. 59) argued that bad, negative or destructive emotions are those that are calumnious to oneself or others contrary to human nature.He also supports the philosophical view, which goes back to the time of Plato and Confucius, that emotion and temperament are constantly pulling us in different directions. Take, for lesson, the case of the demise of Barings cant come off Leeson the Barings Bank futures trader based in Singapore enjoyed the good life and was soon earning a signi? cant aid on futures trading in Asia. But as the markets changed Leeson needed funds to cover his exposure. By establishing erroneousness Account 88888 he was able to expose the argot to debts of eight hundred million British Pounds.Personal avaritia and a lack of compassion together with poor systems in the Bank caused one of the greatest banking scandals of all times. Throughout ? ? the debacle Leeson did not see anything wrong with his behaviour. His values and beliefs supported his actions but the only bene? ciary was Nick Leeson (Gapper and Denton, 1997). converse situation is depicted in William Goldings (1959) ecclesiastic of the Flies with its basic themes being that society holds everyone together, and without these conditions, our ideals, values, and the basics of right and wrong are lost.Without societys rigid rules, anarchy and savagery can come to light. On the island we observe mistrust, self-ambition, deceit and irresponsibleness destroying the social norms that once bonded the group of schoolboys. Jealousy, dislike and closeness destroyed a society. As human beings we have a choice. We can attempt to work completely in the pursuit of our own personal happiness and success or we can work with others. The roaring option is to work alone but we will not inspire con? dence or trust in those around us in the long term. We will have joined the schoolboys on their desolate island.Building relationships is every individuals social responsibility. The foundation for constructive relationships Emotions are determined by attitudes, beliefs, values and feelings, which are re? ected in personality and dictate the individuals ability to form relationships. accept the premise that dreams and goals can best be attained by working with others the ? rst key lesson in developing a sustainable organization is for all staff to be aware of their own strengths and limitations, of how they react in certain situations and understand why they experience picky emotional reactions in particular situations.As part of the self-discovery process individuals are able to de? ne their own personal inspirational dream to verbalise their purpose in life. there are many examples of personal dreams Martin Luther superpowers famous speech I have a dream, or J. F. Kennedy, . . . this nation will land a man on the stargaze before the end of the decade. Kennedy had no idea of how America was going to put a man on the moon but his challenge provided the impulsion for the NASA scientists to exceed their personal best. There is always the temptation to take the easy way out but is it the right way? aroused responses drive individual feelings and dictate the nature of relationships in society. Flanagan has classi? ed these positive and negative emotions as constructive and destructive states of mind which have been summarised in Table I. Individuals who are seen as con? dent, responsible and trustworthy possess integrity, selfesteem and compassion. They are people who are committed to a dream or a vision that is focussed on improving the life of those around them. The 344 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed WeymesThe process of identifying and formulating a personal dream (see Figure 1) requires insights into individual values and identi? es the strengths to build upon. The dream represents the individuals purpose and destiny in life with its magnitude only limited by ambition, by passion and con? dence of that person. Once the dream is identi? ed it must be shared with others. Rarely can we achie ve our dream single-handed. Thus the dream should create purpose and meaning for others. Sel? sh dreams, dreams that are designed to promote the dreamholder alone are less likely to be adopted by others since there is scant(p) in it for them.Dreams that go beyond the individual and represent a challenge for others are more likely to be shared. Albert Schweitzer is credited with the following averment on visions or dreams I do not know what your destiny will be, but one thing I do know. The only ones among you who will be sincerely yours happy are those who have sought and found how to serve. The process of self-discovery provides an sagaciousness of how and why individuals react in certain situations. hatful with a high level of selfawareness recognise the danger signs associated with disruptive emotions and are more likely to keep these emotions in check.These are the people we turn to in a moment of crisis knowing that they will give a Figure 1 Identifying and formulating a personal dream measured and reasoned response to the situation, not an impulsive reaction. They are the people we trust, people of integrity. They do not criticise but ask questions, gather the facts and seek advice before fashioning a measured response. They are re? ective thinkers. They are the people we admire and interact with. They may be parents, lovers, mentors or ordinary individuals who we turn to in time of need.People who possess a clear understanding of their emotions and their jar on others also possess the ability to recognise the emotional state of those around them. They are people who are skilled in reading body language and recognise the impact that particular sight and situations can create in those around them. They understand the mood and the pulse of the situation and are able to bring forth the best from those around them. The characteristics of self-awareness, self worth and social worth provide the drivers for the science of high levels of emotional inte lligence (see Goleman et al. 2002) and provide the foundation for sustainable relationships. They also provide the basis for establishing a dream and a destiny but more importantly providing the ability to share the dream and have others buy into the dream. Some writers may argue that these characteristics provide the skills to motivate people but motivation is a process that causes people to 345 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes act in a particular way. Thus an individual may be motivated to undertake a particular task by the promise of a reward or to avoid an unpleasant consequence.Individuals may be motivated to obey rules through a system of reward or fear of punishment (the foundation of theory X). Thus an individual may be motivated to perform a task to which they have no commitment. Commitment is achieved when the individual believes in the task and is inspired by the potential results (the foundation for theory Y). Thus inspiration is more important than motivation. People are inspired when they believe in the cause they are working towards. To be inspirational required the individual to share their dream and the wider the scope of the dream the greater the potential for people to buy into the dream.Dreams that promote an individual or an organisations stakeholders alone will have little meaning for many of the people employed in the organisation. While a pro? t maximising goal may inspire the pension funds and individual stockholders it does little to motivate the individual on the shop ? oor who will receive the same compensation irrespective of share price. But an organisational dream that seeks to promote a better society has meaning for all those connected with the organisation and thus creates a purpose that can be shared by all in the organisation.An example of such a dream or vision can be foun in Merck and Co. s organisational vision (www. merck. com/overview/philosophy. html) Mi ssion The mission of Merck is to provide society with quality products and services innovations and solutions that improve the quality of life and satisfy customer needs to provide employees with meaty work and advancement opportunities and investors with a superior rate of return. Our values (1) Our business is preserving and improving human life. All of our actions must be measured by our success in achieving this goal.We value above all our ability to serve everyone who can bene? t from the appropriate use of our products and services, thereby providing lasting consumer satisfaction. (2) We are committed to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. We are responsible to our customers, to Merck employees and their families, to the environments we inhabit, and to the societies we serve worldwide. In discharging our responsibilities, we do not take professional or ethical shortcuts. Our interactions with all segments of society must re? ect the high standards we profess. 3) We are dedicated to the highest level of scienti? c chastity and commit our research to improving human and animal(prenominal) health and the quality of life. We strive to identify the most critical needs of consumers and customers, we devote our resources to meeting those needs. (4) We expect pro? ts, but only from work that satis? es customer needs and bene? ts humanity. Our ability to meet our responsibilities depends on maintaining a ? nancial position that invites investment in leading-edge research and that makes possible effective delivery of research results. 5) We recognize that the ability to excel to most competitively meet societys and customers needs depends on the integrity, knowledge, imagination, skill, transition and teamwork of employees, and we value these qualities most highly. To this end, we strive to create an environment of mutual respect, encouragement and teamwork a working environment that rewards commitment and performance and is responsive to the n eeds of employees and their families. The organisations dream or vision creates passion and pride in those working for and associated with the organisation.Collins and Porras (1994, p. 55) suggest that companies, which only focused on pro? tability, did not perform as well as those whose focus transcended stintingal considerations Pro? t is a necessary condition for existence and a means to more important ends, but it is not the end in itself for many of the visionary companies. Pro? t is like oxygen, food, water and blood they are not the point of life, but without them there is no life. Pro? ts do not inspire the individuals in the organisation and they reward only the select few.Visions or dreams that go beyond the economic considerations inspire those in the organisation and those associated with the organisation. Visions that encompass environmental and social concepts as well as economic considerations. A revised philosophical perspective for management theory Pricewaterhous eCoopers (2003b) de? nes a sustainable business enhances long shareholder value by addressing the needs of all its relevant stakeholders and adding economic, environmental and social value through its core business functions. A sustainable organisation has . a clear purpose beyond pro? . is driven by shared values and . and supported by systems and processes. Proponents of sustainable organisations argue that these organisations require breakthrough thinking that results in true innovation. It also calls for partnerships and cooperation as well as open honest dialogue with stakeholders inside and outside the company (Philips, 2002). They argue that these are not organisations driven by pro? t 346 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes maximisation but are organisations that will forego short-term pro? to ensure longer-term shareholder value. They are organisations that build trust and create an glory of authenticity, buil ding a harmonious and family-like work environment. They are organisations driven by a purpose, values and beliefs that can be accepted by a wide range of societal interest groups and they are organisations that encourage innovation. Such characteristics are not unique to sustainable organisations but are the criteria that have been referenced by many of the writers of modern management theory. There is a danger that the sceptics of sustainable organisation will focus on the pro? ability criteria arguing that an organisation will always be driven by a pro? t perspective. Return on investment has always been a signi? cant performance criterion and many organisations have found to their impairment that cost reduction increases short-term pro? tability but does little for long term sustainability. While the concept of the sustainable organisation sharpens the focus of modern management thinking the key issue concerns the relevance of traditional management thinking. Traditional manage ment theory has been create on the command and control model developed by Frederick Taylor and based on the work of Max Weber.For Weber the purpose of business was to maximise shareholder wealth. This strategy could be achieved by viewing the organisation as a closed system, subdivided into discrete units with each unit focussed only on its own activities. Staff were required to follow speci? ed procedures and innovation was not encouraged. Systems and processes, rules and regulations, dictated the pulse of the organisation. Return on investment, economic value added and share price are the metrics that dominate discussions relating to corporate performance yet modern management theories have focussed on the human side of the business for the past 50 years.Most authors and corporate leaders agree that the age of the bureaucratic organisation is past. Yet the numbers still dictate performance. The daily business reports focus on share price ? uctuations and pro? t warnings and rarel y do they report on an organisations performance on environmental or social issues. In 1999 Dow Jones launched a sustainability index to monitor the performance of ? rms engaged in sustainability projects. The rational behind this move was based on the premise that more investors are seeking to diversify their portfolio to include ? rms that have long term environmental and social issues as part of their philosophy.While it is unlikely that ? nancial performance measures will be replaced in the short term, organisations and investors now recognise that while pro? ts are important, how the pro? ts are obtained is a greater concern. A singular focus on pro? t maximisation is driven by a rigid adherence to prescribe systems and processes, requiring a highly disciplined workforce nimble to follow orders without question. Communication is uni-directional and innovation discouraged. Mistakes and errors are ascribed to individuals and a climate of fear pervades the organisation.Performan ce targets are speci? ed and the learning of the targets dictates individual performance. The Kaplan and Norton (1996) balanced score card is used to prescribe individual and organisation performance standards. victor is de? ned as an organisations ability to make the numbers. But individual and corporate numerical performance targets focus the organisation, and the individuals in the organisation, on personal, self centred, goal orientated approaches, which do little to foster the development of harmonious relationships in the organisation.Over the past 25 years management theory and practice has become more humane with a focus on people in the organisation and by an increasing focus on the importance of values, emotions and social mores. Organisations are attempting to implement the theories of modern management but appear to be unwilling to give up the controls associated with the bureaucratic organisation. Yet modern management theorists and the proponents of sustainable orga nisations are convinced that the key ingredient to organisational success is the development of trust throughout the organisation.But the fundamental premise key Webers bureaucracy and Taylors scienti? c approach to management is the assertion that the players are not to be trusted. Tasks must be prescribed and individual performance measured. Thus the basis for performance paygrade lies in the development of effective systems and processes. Rigid adherence to prescribed systems and processes will no longer guarantee success. Today the organisation must be ? exible in order to meet the needs of a apace changing environment, a discerning customer and a sceptical public.An organisation is still required to make a pro? t but society is now concerned with how those pro? ts are attained. The strategies of the robber barons, supported by the philosophy of Max Weber, are no longer acceptable. Organisations are expected to adopt an ethical and morally acceptable approach to the creation of pro? ts. In the 1980s, the TQM movement focussed on the importance of quality, yet quality was not a new concept. However, it was a characteristic that many organisations were both ignoring or failing to concentrate on.The TQM movement focussed on quality so that today it is considered a necessary but not suf? cient condition for competing. in any case the 347 A challenge to traditional management theory foresight Volume 6 Number 6 2004 338-348 Ed Weymes sustainability movement is focussing on the need for more organisations to focus on the environmental and social impacts of their organisations and strategies. The message is that organisations must pay as much attention to the environmental and social impacts of their business as they do to the economic impact.The traditional approach to management does not focus on these concepts. Successful sustainable organisations are founded on open communication and trust. Thus the basis for performance lies in the ability of the i ndividuals within and those interacting with the organisation to form meaningful relationships. Management teaching and practice must now replace the fundamental assumption of traditional management theory that the worker cannot be trusted with a focus on building and developing relationships.The organisations focus should now be based on understanding the relationships between individuals and not on the design and development of rigid and complex systems. While systems and processes are still required to support the organisation they no longer drive the organisation. A corporate vision statement or inspirational dream that encompasses the three pillars of sustainability provides a purpose for everyone in the organisation by consolidation individual dream with the dream of the organisation.Through a meaningful purpose or inspirational dream commitment, trust and integrity are built between individuals who work together in a harmonious manner. There is a commitment to exceed ones personal best and to pay attention to the detail. New ideas can emerge from anywhere. The organisation creates its own future. numeric measures are still required to provide information on how the organisation is performing and to provide staff with information that can be used for improvements and innovations but these KPIs should not be used to discipline individuals.The concept of sustainability has focussed attention on the need for all organisations to demonstrate a commitment to the environment and society as well as their own economic wellbeing. Yet the concept of sustainability is still considered to be a fringe movement in the corporate community. However, the selection of the movement is immaterial because all organisations have recognised that that the key competitive advantage lies in the creation of new knowledge. New knowledge cannot be created in an environment constrained by systems and processes and where there is a fear of failure.Knowledge can only be created in an environment where individuals are committed to the organisation and a high level of trust and integrity pervades the organisation. The concept of sustainability or corporate social responsibility provides a framework for the establishment of such an environment. The framework comes in two parts, the yin and the yang, and it is the role of the CEO to balance the emphasis between the need to create a focus for the realisation of individual dreams and an environment where innovation and creativity ? urish with the necessity for systems and processes to ensure order and the attainment of the ? nancial goals. Traditionally, the CEO has focussed on the design and development of systems and processes while paying some attention to the people in the organisation. Today that focus must change so the people in the organisation control the systems and processes and not have the people controlled by the systems. References Cloke, K. and Goldsmith, J. (2002), The End of Management and the R ise of Organisational Democracy, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Collins, J. C. and Porras, J. I. 1994), Built to Last Successful Habits of conjurer Companies, HarperCollins, London. Deming, W. E. (1982), Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Gapper, J. and Denton, N. (1997), All that Glitters The Fall of Barings, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Golding, W. (1959), Lord of the Flies, Penguin, New York, NY. Goleman, D. , Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2002), Primal Leadership Realizing the Power of Emotional Intelligence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Goleman, G. (2003), Destructive Emotions A conversation with the Dalai Lama, Bloomsbury, London. Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. 1996), The Balanced Scorecard Translating Strategy into Action, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA. Lawler, E. E. III (1996), From the Ground up, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. Liu, S. -H. (1998), Understanding Confucian Philosophy, Praeger, Westport, CT. McGregor, D. (1960), The Human Side of the Enterprise, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Philips (2002), annual Report on Sustainability, Philips, Amsterdam. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2003a), 6th Annual CEO Survey, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2003b), Presentation to EFMD Annual Conference, PricewaterhouseCoopers, London.Scruton, R. (2002), A Short History of Modern Philosophy, Routledge, London. Senge, P. M. (1990), The ordinal Discipline The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, hit-or-miss accommodate, London. Taylor, C. (1991), The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Taylor, F. W. (1911), The Principles of Scienti? c Management, Norton, New York, NY. Vanier, J. (2001), Made for Happiness, The House of Anansi, Toronto. World Economic Forum (2004), Survey on Trust, World Economic Forum, Geneva, available at www. weforum. org 348