At times we miss the wood for the trees. We get so caught up in the politics of a situation that we fail to understand the bigger picture when there is clearly the need to widen the narrative to include all the factors at play.
So it was quite illuminating — to me, at least — to read observations made by economic commentator John Robertson this week that a big factor behind massive company closures in Bulawayo in the past 10 years could be none other than poor management. This had the effect of challenging the dominant narrative of marginalisation as the main driver of de-industrialisation in the City of Kings and matters are not helped either by the fact that years ago the government itself vowed that Bulawayo would not have any development coming its way as long as it persisted in voting for the opposition.
But other factors have come into play since then. Marginalisation is not the only determinant influencing the de-industrialisation of the city. Robertson has brought in a new, refreshing take on the matter. It’s like pulling people out of their intellectual comfort zones by presenting ideas in unique ways that challenge people to question their assumptions.
Said Robertson: “When qualities of management are exceptionally good, a company’s survival is much more likely,” while responding to a question on how Archer Clothing Manufacturers, taken over by Paramount Garments, was doing exceptionally well in an environment where many companies were folding.
Indeed, some managers get it totally wrong by pushing for products that they themselves want under some misguided notion of quality and class whereas the market is not impressed. You don’t do it for yourself, but for the market. If it doesn’t gel, it won’t sell.
But one of the worst sins has been that of invasive management.This is where managers intrude and interfere. They budge into every department and effect changes — unnecessary, expensive and highly damaging ones, for that matter — as if to announce that “I am now in charge” instead of taking time to take in the situation calmly. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If a system or method works well, there is no reason to drastically change it. Why tinker and tamper with something that is already working?
Yes, assertiveness is required among managers, but most of life is about being co-operative, working together, complementing each other, not seeing others as mere appendages. Managers sit in their offices looking at reports, but it’s the men and women at the coalface — those doing the work involved in a job, not merely talking about it, planning it, or controlling it — who really understand the business.
Indeed, managers have been having the easiest of rides when they should be made most accountable as much lies on their shoulders in these volatile times with the survival of companies at stake and livelihoods of employees and their immediate and extended families also threatened.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
But, no. They still get a golden parachute when they have crashed the company into the ground. A large payment or other financial compensation is guaranteed to a company executive that would be dismissed or have their contract terminated. Ordinary employees pay for this the same way taxpayers are now footing the $1,5 billion bill incurred by the Reserve Bank on behalf of known debtors in high office. There we are: That’s the thriving culture in Zimbabwe of rewarding not just incompetence, but gross incompetence That said, if we are really serious about problem-solving, we need to look beyond blaming each and every company closure in Bulawayo on marginalisation as this gives convenient cover to incompetent and even thieving managers — and that breed is growing with the fall in good corporate governance practices. We should not see marginalisation everywhere in the same way we reject the Zanu PF regime’s mantra of blaming virtually every hardship in this country on sanctions when it’s clear that Zimbabwe has been crippled by cronyism and appalling governance, which, in turn, has bred incapacity, ineptitude, corruption and repression.
Archer is rising despite or in spite of marginalisation. We can turn marginalisation on its head by implementing sound, efficient and ethical management practices. Marginalisation has no chance at all against good management as Paramount management has amply demonstrated. There is need to start to think in a completely new way about this. Companies might get endless financial injections from the Distressed and Marginalised Areas Fund (Dimaf), but without sound management, nothing much will improve. There won’t be any turnaround, unemployment will still be rife and Bulawayo’s industrial sites will look more and more like wasteland.
But have stimulus funds, where they have been disbursed, made any difference so far? It has to be asked because at State level, such stimulus packages have not gone to growth areas, but been spent on sustaining the lavish lifestyles of the political top brass. Managers in the private sector are now into this double-dipping because ethics have been thrown out of the window. They now have a vested interest in the perpetuation of misgovernance because it opens avenues for them to steal and loot as much as their counterparts in government.
Said Robertson: “Paramount has a reputation for very good management, which entails the careful management of resources, proper training and motivation to make high levels of productivity possible, which also reduces costs of production per unit and reduces waste.”
It all hinges on sound, ethical management — and Archer has shown how it’s done whether in good times or bad times!
One needs an extensive and diverse set of qualifications and skills at such a high level, not least the ability to manage people.
But how many CEOs with an exaggerated notion of themselves have left a trail of destruction in companies?
Hiring an unsuitable candidate for a top post can turn into the most expensive on-the-job training.
