Management and economic development
It can be said that there are no “underdeveloped countries.” There are only “under managed” ones.
Management creates economic and social development. Economic and social development is the result of management. It can be said, without too much oversimplification, that there are no “under developed countries.” There are only “under managed” ones. Japan a hundred and forty years ago was an underdeveloped country by every material measurement. But it very quickly produced management of great competence, indeed, of excellence.
This means that management is the prime mover and that development is a consequence. All our experience in economic development proves this. Wherever we have only capital, we have not achieved development. In the few cases where we have been able to generate management energies, we have generated rapid development rapid development. Development, in other words, is a matter of human energies rather than of economic wealth. And the generation and direction of human energies is the ask of management.
Demands on political leadership
Beware Charisma.
Charisma is “hot” today. There is an enormous amount of talk about it, and an enormous number of books are written on the charismatic leader. But, the desire for charisma is a political death wish. No century, and never have political leaders done greater damage than the four giant leaders of the twentieth century: Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Mao. What maters is not charisma. What mater is whether the leader leads in the right direction or misleads. The constructive achievements of the twentieth century were the work of completely uncharismatic people. The two military men who guided the Allies to victory in World War II were Dwight Eisenhower and George Marshall. Both were highly disciplined, highly competent, and deadly dull.
Perhaps the greatest cause for hope, for optimism is that to the new majority, the knowledge workers, the old politics make no sense at all. But proven competence does.
Salvation by society
The end the belied in salvation by society may even lead to a return to individual responsibility.
Surely the collapse of Marxism as a creed signifies the end of the belief in salvation by society. What will emerge next, we cannot know; we can only hope and pray. Perhaps nothing beyond stoic resignation? Perhaps a rebirth of traditional religion, addressing itself to the needs and challenges of the person in the knowledge society? The explosive growth of what I call “pastoral” Christian churches in America – Protestant, Catholic, nondenominational – might be a portent. But so might the resurgence of fundamentalist Islam. For the young people in the Muslim world who now so fervently embrace Islamic fundamentalism would, forty years ago, have been equally fervent Marxists. Or will there be new religious? Still, redemption, self-renewal, spiritual growth, goodness, and virtue – the “New Man,” to use the traditional term – are likely to be seen again as existential rather than social goals or political prescriptions. The end of the belief in salvation by society surely marks an inward turning. It makes possible renewed emphasis on the individual, the person. It may even lead – at least we can so hope to a return to individual responsibility.
Failure of central planning
Any society in the era of the new technology would perish miserably were it to run the economy by central planning.
The new technology will greatly extend the management area; many people now considered rank-and-file will have to become capable of doing management work. And on all levels the demands on the manager’s responsibility and competence, her vision, her capacity to choose between alternate risks, her economic knowledge and skill, her ability to manage managers and to manage worker and work, her competence in making decisions, will be greatly increased.
The new technology will demand the utmost in decentralization. Any society in the era of the technology would perish miserably were it to attempt to get rid of free management of autonomous enterprise so as to run the economy by central planning. And so would any enterprise that attempted to centralize responsibility and decision making at the top. It would go under like the great reptiles of the saurian age who attempted to control a huge body by a small, centralized nervous system that could not adapt to rapid change in the environment.