Crafting the Art of Management (Tips from an Amateur for the Amateurs)

"The conventional definition of management is getting work done through people, but real management is developing people through work. "

The manager is an artist  He practices the art of making problems so interesting and the solutions so constructive that everyone wants to get to work and deal with them.The manager has the gift that every artist has, inspire. His  masterpiece is the the work done by those under him and his canvass, the workplace he manages. But how does the manager achieve his masterpiece. Is there a recipe that lie within?

Well I am no manager but what I can tell you is that managers would want things done in the quality that it should be. He would guide the workforce to use any means at their disposal and at the same time manage those resources with efficiency in order to achieve that quality. At the same time he would take responsibility for his and his subordinates' actions as well as his decisions and its consequences. But the manager should not act as a tyrant but rather as an example and inspiration for his men.

Its kind of an irony for someone like me to talk about management and more so of it being an art. Well for one I'm not much of a manager. I don't have an MBA or whatever management degree there is. And I'm not an artist myself (people who know me would be proof of that). But I  do try to observe from others and learn from them and my experiences on being a subordinate. And so  I would like to share my views on the matter. Here it is, my tips on crafting management for success:

• Build good interpersonal relationships with your subordinates. We humans are "social animals", per se and thus we are judged on how we deal with them. People under you would not show trust and respect to you if you would not respect and trust them. The manager should see his subordinates as equals not as subjects. We no longer live in the medieval age of lords and ladies and thus, respect and goodwill in the bureaucracy should come both ways., up and down.
• Able to communicate effectively. It is common sense, is it? How would work be done if  you could not communicate your orders properly. The philosopher Sun Tzu in his Art of War has emphasized that " if orders have not been clear it is the fault of the general". Well as the general of the workplace, managers should be able to interact effectively in person, mobile phone, internet, or print. 
• Builds the team. The "lone wolf" personality, like those old school  action heroes (eg, Rambo) going against the enemy alone, has no place in the modern workplace. They could not achieve anything. So it is up to the manager to ensure that collaboration exist. People also feel to be more creative and more productive in the hands of a good team builder.
• Leads by example. Well, how could your people follow  you if you could not also follow. Simply, for people to do good, as their leader you should also do good. If the manager is lazy then the workforce is also lazy. People are like a flock of sheep they would always need someone to guide them and how can you guide if you are just like every other sheep?
• Help people grow and develop. A friend once said that the life is a continuing cycle of learning. "Rome was not built in a day" as the saying goes. Learning does not end when people stops working. New things are formulated everyday. It is up to the manager to be that  molder.

And thus endeth the lesson. We should know that being a manager is a task and remember that no task done in its best is ever easy. This is just my viewpoint on how roper management should be. I do not attest that they are the infallible code of management for each of us has our own way on how to deal with people and situations. How about you? How do you craft the art of management?

Sources:

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/topics/leadership.html
http://smallbiztrends.com/2012/01/11-tips-for-building-managing-a-team.html

The Ethics of Killing in the Art and Science of Healing: Euthanasia

Imagine caring for a person suffering from a disease in which there is not a  possibility of   recovery. Think of living a life waiting everyday  for that morbid moment  to come . Fathom the thought when finances, time, and efforts have all but run out. Reaching a point in which every inch of hope has been lost .  Will you help that person, if given a chance end his suffering? But not in the sense of murder, but in the good sense of aiding and caring. Allowing  that person to finally rest and the family to move along with their lives. Will you be that Angel of Death? But the question is, if you will be that angel, will you break the mores and morals  to spare a life from a long time of suffering. Does your principle dictate that it is murder and could never be justified and that no death is good?Or that the end justifies the means, that a good death is better than living in the burden of pain and suffering.  Before opinions would be hurdled against this delicate matter, let us first examine the facts in a  logical and educated manner. 

What is euthanasia? As posted on the BBC website (http://www.bbc.co.uk) it is the termination of a very sick person's life in order to relieve them of their suffering. Euthanasia stems from "euthanos", Greek for "good death". It is usually carried out at the person's request but there are times when they may be too ill and the decision is made by relative or, in some instances, the courts.   It  has been at the center of very heated debates for many years and is surrounded by religious, ethical and practical considerations. 

Pro-euthanasia arguments have stated that  it is part of the  civil rights of the person to have the right to control his/her body and the right  to determine at what time, in what way and by whose hand he or she will die. Behind this lies the idea that human beings should be as free as possible - and that unnecessary restraints on human rights are a bad thing. Death according to these arguments is the opposite of life but the dying process is and it could be either good or bad. People also have the right to try and make the events in their lives as good as possible, thus they have the right to try to make their dying as good as possible  The philosophy that "rules are for the happiness of mankind", believes that euthanasia will make people more dignified and happier from choosing their death. 

Supporters of the anti-euthanasia stand, clearly state that euthanasia, no matter how the sugar coating, is still killing and thus against the very mores and laws of our civilized society. Religious groups would always give the two millennium old answer that life is sacred and no one but God has the right to take it, not even the person who owns it. Secular arguments pointed out that euthanasia is bad because of the sanctity of human life. All human beings are to be valued, irrespective of age, sex, race, religion, social status or their potential for achievement. Practical argument  insist that euthanasia is unnecessary due to palliative care and it would have a negative effect on the care of the terminally ill, if approved or legalized.

Let us now ponder with  our thoughts. Euthanasia is in fact killing and no religion, society or state presently in this earth condones such action. The thought of killing a dying person abhors most societies. Yet in this modern world people have been questioning those mores. Modern and postmodern philosophies have argued for the happiness of mankind and quick end to suffering and thus the admiration of suffering is no longer a fad.

So where do I stand on this matter? I am split with regards to this. Yes, I always believe that it is killing and  justification of it goes against our very norms and that God alone has the power to take that life. It is barbaric to kill. Yet, when the person do demand it or when you see that suffering has already been enough,  isn't it caring still? Is  dying a sign of surrender from the fight? Of course not, it is mainly easing the pain and the suffering. The end justifies the means as they say. It is better to do evil for a greater good. 

But that is me.  Now the bottle points to you. Where do your principles stand? Would you kill a life in order to save it? Or would you allow the person to live in pain in order to save him? 

Sources:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia
http://www.euthanasia.com/

In Being a Leader: Winning Hearts and Minds

Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.
- John F. Kennedy

An author once wrote that leaders when given the option of being  feared or being  loved, it is better  to choose to be feared. That man was the infamous Machiavelli, the author of the handbook of dictators. He theorized that  to wield the  iron hand is necessary to secure order and enforce those orders efficiently. In his way, to win the battle of hearts and minds, fear is the best resolve and inspiration could come latter.  Yet, do you agree? In your way, would you inspire or would you strike fear? But before we go ahead with ourselves, let us first examine  the reality we live in.

People ,unlike numbers, cannot be predicted by solutions or equations.The human behavior is more complex to understand than simple x + y. One cannot say that what would yield obedience in one person could bend the knees of another. Like an  army, it could march in pristine order in one day and then would be in mutiny the next. You cannot also say that the leadership approach would be applicable to all situations. Some require brute strength, others a soft touch of love. So with these complexities, how does a leader use his leadership to better achieve his aims and yet at the same time able to sustain the satisfaction of his followers? 

A key to any leader’s success is the ability to generate an emotional response. An example is Moses who put the fear of a wrathful God in his people and got them out of the desert  or the African-American activist Luther King whose nonviolence stance  inspired his people and millions more to rally and support  the Civil Rights movement.  Inspiration could allow  leaders to persuade people to give their best. The postmodern ethos  is empowering people  to work on their own. They are considered as team members or equals, and not subordinates. Yet as I said not all people are cut from the same cloth, some view inspiration with affection, some see it as weakness. And weakness is most of the time taken advantage of. In situations  it could lead to anarchy. No society, organization or a group of people in the history of mankind  was able to function without a semblance of order.

Thus it could not be denied that fear is sometimes necessary, albeit in the most difficult times. Sometimes  the old school 'fear of the boss' is needed to ensure that things are done in the quality that it should be,  driven by the knowledge that one’s performance will be judged by the highest standards and failure to meet a high level of achievement will not be tolerated for long. This dictatorial attitude allows people to be disciplined opposed to  leniency that when abused could result to chaos and mismanagement. But increasing pressure could boil down to dissatisfaction and unhappiness.As history has taught us, the least happy are the less productive .

Fear and inspiration when applied to leadership have both their own advantages and disadvantages. It could benefit and at the same time harm both the leader and his followers. Yet in the matter of deciding which is better, the decision rest upon to you but one should remember that in making a decision one should look into its consequences and weigh them with the benefits.

Sources:
Machiavelli, Niccolo.(1513). The Prince.
Nursing Leadership, Management, and Research notes
http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/leader/leader.html
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/12/leadership-101-fear/