Muhammad Yunus

As Nobel Prize-winning microfinance pioneer Muhammad Yunus struggles to hang on to the top post at Grameen Bank, we can’t help but hope that his original vision for lending to the poor and his call to create “social business” don’t get lost in the dust-up.

Yunus is under pressure from the Central Bank of Bangladesh to step down as managing director of Grameen in what Yunus supporters are characterizing as a politically motivated attack.

Our own sense is that Yunus is being unfairly targeted. But no matter what happens to the man, what’s most important is that his ideas don’t get dragged down with him. As we’ve discussed, we think that Peter Drucker would have been in synch with Yunus’s push to foster a whole class of companies capable of competing in the marketplace but whose primary aim is to meet a clear social need, not to maximize profits.

“An organization is not like an animal, an end in itself, and successful by the mere act of perpetuating the species,” Drucker wrote. “An organization is an organ of society and fulfills itself by the contribution it makes to the outside environment.”

Underlying Yunus’s philosophy is the belief that people are motivated by a variety of impulses—not simply a desire to get rich. The existing system, Yunus has written, has “created a one-dimensional human being to play the role of business leader.… We’ve insulated him from the rest of life, the religious, emotional, political and social. He is dedicated to one mission only—maximize profit.”

Drucker took a similar view, once noting that his work is rooted in the notion that “people are diverse, often unpredictable, always multidimensional.”

What do you think: Can “social business” ever find its way to the mainstream of the marketplace, or will it always be relegated to the fringes?

Mar 022011

Photo credit: DarrenHopes.com

Imagine this: After years as your company’s accounts manager, you’ve suddenly been reassigned to communications. Meanwhile, your human-resources director has been shifted to marketing, and the in-house counsel now works in the research-and-development department.  And, no, it’s not a dream—and you and your colleagues are not being punished.

A recent Wall Street Journal article cited a poll by management consulting firm Cohegic, which found that three-quarters of the three-dozen companies it surveyed were asking executives to take on some kind of unfamiliar role. The firm’s president, Ravi Kathuria, explained that today’s most innovative and dynamic enterprises appreciate executives who “can adapt quickly to strange situations.”

Chris Preuss, once the top public-relations executive at General Motors, was asked last year to move into a new job as president of GM’s OnStar driver-assistance service. “I knew I was taking a massive career risk because I was walking away from my expertise,” he told the Journal. But Preuss recognized the opportunity, with his fresh eyes, to “challenge some of the conventional thinking” in the operation. And he said he has “zero bitterness or regrets about taking the OnStar job.”

The job-shuffling trend may be accelerating, but it’s hardly new. In his 1946 landmark book, Concept of the Corporation, which was an inside study of GM, Drucker advocated access to learning and training on the job. One way to achieve this, he wrote, is “by rotating workers periodically from job to job which shows what kind of a job the man is most fitted for.”

Later, in his 1973 classic, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Drucker asserted that  “while work is… best laid out as uniform, working is best organized with a considerable degree of diversity. Working requires latitude to change speed, rhythm and attention span fairly often. It requires fairly frequent changes in operating routines as well.”

How about you: Would you like to rotate jobs in your organization? What do you think you’d learn as a result? What could you contribute?

© 2011 The Drucker Exchange Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha