LONDON- The new head of The Body Shop is a Frenchman named Patrick Gournay. The CEO of Safeway is Spanish Carlos Criado-Perez. Maarten van den Bergh is the chairman of Lloyd’s TSB and he is a Dutchman. There has arisen a new trend of leadership positions in British businesses being given to foreign leaders. This indicates that the British system hasn’t been working, and although there are a few positive aspects to the British style of management such as their use of humour to get things done and their resourcefulness, it is easy to see why their management hasn’t been working.
British management tends to use humour to get their jobs done. This is a positive strategy as it can be used effectively to relieve tension in a situation. An example of this is a meeting in which one party was proposed a figure that was completely unreasonable. The personnel manager calculated it out and replied in an apologetic tone that he was sorry but his calculator could only process eight digits. The point got across without antagonizing or disrupting the fragile balance in which negotiations take place. Humour is also used by British managers to soften a blow. When a contract manager had to tell a subordinate that his responsibilities had changed, the manager told him that there was some good news for him- if he liked hard work.
British management values resourcefulness and thinking on one’s feet. One could take this quality as a positive one because it means that the management is able to switch directions in the short term and to be flexible. It could also mean that there is less stability in the system and therefore a greater need to be able to be resourceful.
It is apparent that British management is not working for itself, with the pattern of foreign managers getting the top positions. What then is the reason? One thing British business is noted for is the hierarchy within it. Being late is not a big deal for most British firms, however, the higher up the corporate ladder you are, the less of a big deal it is. One would think that the higher up one is, the most conscientious one would have to be about the example one is setting.
One of the main reasons that the system is not working might be that the managers in Britain tend to lead in a ‘hands-off’ manner. They may motivate their employees, they may put together groups of individuals based on their strengths and weaknesses, but they are not physically present for the most part and they do not do much operational work. As a result of their ‘hands-off’ approach, most managers in Britain value honesty in their employees. They like to be kept informed and they depend on their employees to not “pull the wool over their eyes.”
Structure is seen as something loosely defined in British management. The emphasis is on the individual and individual strengths and weaknesses are accounted for. An example of this is when a distribution manager was able to give the part of the job that he did not like to a colleague. This shuffling around of responsibilities may have resulted in too many people being hired to companies, making the system less effective.
In short, the British management, although containing effective aspects is on the whole uneffective because of it’s hand’s off manner, it’s loose structure, and the example that it gives to it’s subordinates. These flaws could be the reason why so many foreign managers have been taking the top spots in British companies.
