The western management system that evolved in the early 20th Century has been profoundly influenced by two powerful institutions - the Army and the Church. The Western nations always had global ambitions of annexing nations for their raw materials and cheap labour. They aggressively pursued this agenda through military operations that required a clear cut line of authority and a logistic support system. Religion has always been the foundation on which these campaigns were built. The Church had an expansionist agenda and sent missionaries far and wide to all parts of the world with an objective of converting as many as possible. Most of the times, the missionary had to work independently. But since the success of his mission was dependant on relief supplies, health care and education the Church had to establish a global network of communications and organizations that ensured the flow of goods and services. Also it was imperative that the Church headquarters received the necessary feedback. The ideal organization structure for the church, like the military, was line that ensured smooth flow of decision and instruction downward while the information flowed unhindered upwards.
The industrialization in West started with a similar aggressive agenda in early 20th Century. When the West ventured into business, it was logical for them to pursue what they know best and they replicated the structure and systems similar to the Church and Military in their Organizations.
One needs to understand the contrast in India. The temples never had a single control. The Hindu religion being not controlled by a single entity ensured that the temples were more a local issue than a central issue. Each temple were managed by the locals with the patronage from the King or the Jamindar. They never had an expansionist agenda. In fact, the temples tried hard to keep the people out rather than in. The whole structure was to ensure protection in the area of operation. Mergers between temples were unheard of. The decision making at the temple level was more consultative in nature. There was a core committee of temple administrators who were involved in key decision making.
India was a conglomerate of different small kingdoms prior to the colonization. Each small kingdom had under them many chieftains who lorded over their small area of fiefdom. They maintained small armies. The King maintained a core army but he could and did call on his Chieftains to send their men in case of a necessity. These small groups had different culture, organizational structure and their loyalties were with their local Chieftain than the King. Also, the armies were essentially for self defense and were rarely used for major conquests, though there are exceptions. But the exceptions were few and far between. The western style of army organization did not work with Indians. While western army focused on collective fighting, the Indian fighters were more known for their individualistic brilliance and valour. Even our mythology is full for individual valour – whether it be Ramayana or Mahabharatham. Kurukshetra War talks about formations – like Garuda Vyooham to counter Sarpa Vyooham. But once the fighting starts, it was every one for himself. Also, extensive consultations took place amongst the elders on the evenings of the war to arrive at the ideal strategy.
The Indian businessmen obviously followed the above when they started their operations. Also, they were very suspicious of the West post independence. We can thus see certain distinct traits in Indian system,
The hierarchy is based more based on Seniority of age than Authority due to position. (I can vouch for this, for when I took over Coimbatore Sales Area of HPCL as a 25 year old, it took me two years of bloody hard work to be accepted by the Petrol dealers)
Since we were not as rigid as the Westerners, a degree of confusion in systems and procedures is considered natural since there is no clear-cut division of responsibilities and authorities. People tend to be vague, philosophical and holistic than precise and logical
The industrialization in West started with a similar aggressive agenda in early 20th Century. When the West ventured into business, it was logical for them to pursue what they know best and they replicated the structure and systems similar to the Church and Military in their Organizations.
One needs to understand the contrast in India. The temples never had a single control. The Hindu religion being not controlled by a single entity ensured that the temples were more a local issue than a central issue. Each temple were managed by the locals with the patronage from the King or the Jamindar. They never had an expansionist agenda. In fact, the temples tried hard to keep the people out rather than in. The whole structure was to ensure protection in the area of operation. Mergers between temples were unheard of. The decision making at the temple level was more consultative in nature. There was a core committee of temple administrators who were involved in key decision making.
India was a conglomerate of different small kingdoms prior to the colonization. Each small kingdom had under them many chieftains who lorded over their small area of fiefdom. They maintained small armies. The King maintained a core army but he could and did call on his Chieftains to send their men in case of a necessity. These small groups had different culture, organizational structure and their loyalties were with their local Chieftain than the King. Also, the armies were essentially for self defense and were rarely used for major conquests, though there are exceptions. But the exceptions were few and far between. The western style of army organization did not work with Indians. While western army focused on collective fighting, the Indian fighters were more known for their individualistic brilliance and valour. Even our mythology is full for individual valour – whether it be Ramayana or Mahabharatham. Kurukshetra War talks about formations – like Garuda Vyooham to counter Sarpa Vyooham. But once the fighting starts, it was every one for himself. Also, extensive consultations took place amongst the elders on the evenings of the war to arrive at the ideal strategy.
The Indian businessmen obviously followed the above when they started their operations. Also, they were very suspicious of the West post independence. We can thus see certain distinct traits in Indian system,
The hierarchy is based more based on Seniority of age than Authority due to position. (I can vouch for this, for when I took over Coimbatore Sales Area of HPCL as a 25 year old, it took me two years of bloody hard work to be accepted by the Petrol dealers)
Since we were not as rigid as the Westerners, a degree of confusion in systems and procedures is considered natural since there is no clear-cut division of responsibilities and authorities. People tend to be vague, philosophical and holistic than precise and logical
Trust and personal loyalty is extremely important and people are judged on the basis of their ability to be loyal to individuals, i.e owners.
Greater western influence over the years and a management education based on US style of Management has started making dent in our traditional management style. But its influence can still be seen and felt
