Management tasks describe the actual responsibility of a manager. It is not a matter of taking on as many tasks as possible, but rather of recognising the small number of tasks that a manager should perform at a minimum. Finally, a detailed description of suitable management instruments shows how the management tasks can be implemented in terms of humane management in practice.
The presentation of the management model is followed by a chapter on the ‘cornerstones’ of good management: the ‘rules of decency’ given there not only round off the picture of fair management, but also provide information on how fair management can be measured.
Against the mainstream?
One objection stands out right from the beginning. If most managers today (most likely subconsciously) follow an inhumane, dubious guiding principle, is it particularly wise or likely to yield any success to swim against the mainstream by choosing an alternative approach and to practise business and management with a sense of decency? This question, which comes up repeatedly in conversation, will be addressed in the last two chapters.
Common management concepts and humane leadership
The classifying of well-known management concepts clearly demonstrates that models addressing important components of humane management already exist in practice. These include, for example, the concepts of ‘knowledge management’, ‘change management’ as well as the pursuit of ‘agility’ and a ‘positive error management culture’. On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that well-known and widely practised concepts such as ‘lean management’ and ‘quality management’ are more likely to hamper humane management.
In conclusion, case studies will be used to show how this alternative approach is at least equal, if not superior to the conventional management practice based on suppressing employees, even when it comes to economic success. In any case, this approach makes the lives of all involved more enjoyable.
2 Questionable values in business studies
What values characterise business studies? The view originating with Max Weber16 that the economy and the science of economics are value-free has had such a patent effect that such fundamental questions are rarely asked. Günter Wöhe, in his widely used foundational work, Einführung in die allgemeine Betriebswirtschaftslehre [General Introduction to Business Studies], nevertheless points out that in business studies, where values and problems of evaluation play an important role, critical consideration is particularly needed17. However, he undertakes no more than a brief comparison of the experts in the field who advocate ‘value-freedom’ and those who have an ‘evaluating conscience’, and does not go into any more detail on the content of the values and guidelines that underpin business studies.
Ever since business studies moved away from viewing reality descriptively and into normative territory by turning to system theory and to developing decision theory, we have no longer been able to refer to it as a value-free scientific discipline. Today, uncovering the implicit values of business studies and discussing their effects seems even more important than ever. In the following we will analyse conceptions of value, conceptions which are considered a natural part of the teaching of business studies and of everyday business – or even to define them, but which are seldom reflected on, let alone questioned.
The practice of business
Thus on closer inspection, the ‘natural’ principles of business studies – frugality, profit maximisation, growth and competition – seem to be constructs which have had a long-lasting impact on practice, even though they have a questionable and destructive influence on managers and their employees.
2.1 Frugality
‘Frugality is the favourite rule
of all those who are half alive.’
Henry Ford18 (1863–1947), American entrepreneur
Like its sister discipline economics, business studies also assumes that goods are scarce and therefore require ‘economical’, i.e., frugal, handling. At first glance this basic assumption seems to make sense: there is nothing objectionable about the ethical sounding requirement of wanting to avoid waste, since frugality leaves room for alternative kinds of use. But this ethical demand is actually only fulfilled when these kinds of use are actually realised or at least intended. Frugality for frugality’s sake can be interpreted as stinginess or avarice and is anything but a virtue. In the Middle Ages avarice was rightly considered one of the mortal sins.
While the classical doctrine of business studies still counts on frugality, such as ever more sophisticated methods of cost control or the Japanese concept of muda19 that targets waste, Wolf Lotter makes a convincing counter-argument in his book Verschwendung – Wirtschaft braucht Überfluss [Waste – The Economy needs Excess], one that seems plausible and at the same time makes us stop and think. ‘Waste is good – it’s productive; it’s inventive and it’s natural. Evolution has been acting wastefully for billions of years. We are the product of that natural diversity. Markets have always functioned on the basis of wasteful supply and diverse demand.’20
Excessive frugality ultimately gets in the way of an extremely successful virtue: generosity. Generosity is letting others have something without any obligation or constraint, including giving them space to create alternative kinds of use with it. Of course, generous souls should also be warned not to go overboard and not live beyond their means.
Thus, as a basic value in business studies, frugality needs to be complemented by at least two things. Firstly, it cannot be taken to an extreme; the best person is by no means the most frugal one. Secondly, in order to meet ethical demands, it needs something that corresponds to it or that is related to it. Despite the apparent contradiction, generosity seems to be quite a fitting counterpart to frugality where, for example, this relationship can be established in helping the needy or the environment. This thought can easily be transferred to everyday business: treating resources frugally creates other kinds of use, such as more generous considerations of the company’s future by expanding research and development activities or by granting staff more leisure time, or by recompensing suppliers, employees and/or owners more generously. In short, when a company aspires for frugality, the question ‘What for?’ needs to be answered in a way that is reasonable and appropriate for all involved.
Treating resources frugally creates other kinds of use.
Besides frugality three other constructs stand out that greatly characterise business studies in a questionable and destructive way: profit maximisation, focusing on competition and growth. These are categories that have become taken for granted and are hardly questioned either in academia or in practice.
Fig. 1: The implicit values of business
At first glance, these constructs, too, appear perfectly reasonable. Companies have to turn a profit in order to survive. Heeding this goal is necessary in order to offer products and/or services. Keeping an eye on actual and even potential competitors at the same time requires not over-estimating, staying innovative and constantly developing. Against this backdrop, growth can almost be interpreted as a result of profit and focusing on competition.
Nevertheless, these three constructs conceal considerable risks. Unnoticed by many, they become part of their identity through upbringing and education. These values are already subliminally implanted in children at a young age through piggy banks and World Savings Days; school increasingly appears to be a place where profits are to be made in competition with other students in the form of good marks, whilst the goal of ‘learning for life’ is now only dismissed with a wry smile; by the end of induction week at the latest business students realise that profit maximisation is the greatest goal on earth.
The effects of these constructs
The