Courtesy of Google Images
This blog post is directly lifted from one of my reflections on a paper I have read.
Perhaps the insight that struck me the most is that managers, whether under business, academe, public, or any organizations, have complex motivations, goals, and objectives. After all, managers are human beings with different wants and needs.
Stripping down the titles and labels, human beings at their core already have complex and conflicting desires. When at their lowest and the need for survival is imminent, we recognize the mentality of the needy called “kapit sa patalim”, wherein they will do almost, if not, everything for themselves and the betterment of their family, even at the expense of others. Ironically, when people are at their highest and as you quoted in your paper, people with power tend to be corrupted. Maybe these people’s characteristics revolve more on self-preservation at all costs.
There are also human beings, such as genuine public servants and social entrepreneurs who truly practice the Christian “servant leadership”. Perhaps these people value selflessness more and giving value to society.
I have always pondered on the complexity of human behavior, particularly on the dualistic natures that exist in us. To cite a few examples, idealism vs pragmatism, helping society vs making profits, subjective vs objective. The easy way for these things is to isolate a half, and use them as exclusive lenses in viewing the world. We create assumptions that disregard the other half of the “dualistic nature”. This has advantages and disadvantages, but I’d like to focus on the disadvantages.
By constricting ourselves too much within one frame of mind or assumption, we commit the error of disregarding the whole truth – dualistic natures need NOT be mutually exclusive; there are plenty of overlaps. I remember my Unilever internship wherein my supervisor told us in the culminating presentation that ethics IS black and white; but until now I respectfully disagree. There are always gray areas, and there will always be because human beings are innately relative, innately subjective.
Tying all of these thoughts to your paper, I can sense multiple hats in you that compelled you to do action – both as a “rational” and “irrational” manager, and as a compassionate human being.
Rational, in the sense that a manager or chair must do what is best to reach the bottom-line (in this case, to serve students at the least cost possible), compelled you to act perhaps due to the fact that the inefficiencies of the predicament of secretaries affected faculty workflow and serving the needs of the students. If I may rightfully borrow economics thinking, solving this problem is the logical thing to do to smoothen out inefficiencies and help the department “serve its customers better”. You eliminated the “cost” of inefficiencies by acting on this manner. Moreover, this stayed true to the dept’s thrust of “Bridging Faith and Management Practice”.
However, in an “irrational” perspective, if I may again take the liberty to use these terms, the ff insights may surface. It is “irrational” to “waste” time solving this problem when you could have stay put and focused on doing research and preparing lesson plans. It is “irrational” to hire secretaries as full-time vs contractual as they add cost, in a purely economic perspective. But still, you acted “irrationally” and had the initiative to care for your fellow even though it will cost you precious time and energy.
To conclude my reflections and synthesizing what I have realized in your example, managers and human beings are better moved to do things that are mutually beneficial for themselves and others when placed in the gray areas, where dualistic natures converge. Perhaps there must be motivations from both an “idealistic” and “pragmatic” side that are compelling enough to move beyond the boundaries of rational thinking, beyond the boundaries of our preset defaults.
