The other day, a group of managers and I were discussing what it was like growing up in Mauritius some 40 years ago as compared to now. ?In those days,? one manager commented, ?as young Mauritians finishing our Form V, we were entirely dependant on our economic or political masters. Our economic masters were those individuals who owned the land and the businesses ? the ?gros paletots?. With their capital, they shaped, directed and controlled our destiny and behaviour. Our political masters were those that could offer us jobs in the civil service where we could climb the ladder slowly but surely. If you were in with either group, you were on your way. But if, for any reasons ? political, racial, cultural, familial, or religious ? you were not part of these two groups, your prospects were greatly reduced, if not to say, non-existent.?

?I agree,? said another participant who went on to outline the reasons for this change. He cited globalization, more democracy, enlightened lea-dership, trade union pressures and so on. ?Let?s not forget the most crucial of all the factors,? observed yet another, ?namely the fact that we live in a knowledge economy.? The room fell silent as we all turned towards him. He continued: ?And therefore if I don?t like what you have to offer or how you offer it, I can take my knowledge elsewhere.?

?What does all this imply from a motivation point of view?? I asked. ?How do we ensure that our knowledge employees remain with us and stay motivated? When I was your age, if you wanted to motivate me, the ?carrot? would have been to offer me a secure job, more money, more autho-rity and perhaps the prospects of a company car. It was unthinkable for me to leave you, my employer. If you wanted to take punitive action against me, all you had to do was to threaten me with dismissal. In our then monocrop economy, I knew that I would never find another job and I therefore had to control my behaviour.?

?Today, all this has changed,? the first participant confirmed. ?If I don?t look after my employees, they?ll walk out and if they walk out, they?ll carry in their heads all the knowledge and expertise that I need. It?s no longer a question of loyalty or seniority or race or culture or religion.?

?So what should we do to both retain and motivate our knowledge employees?? I asked

The discussion next shifted to Professors Kim?s and Mauborgne?s theory of motivating in the knowledge economy. These two respected Insead academics argue convincingly that the most powerful tool we have at our disposal to make the transition from a production-based to a knowledge-based economy, is our ability to make good decisions and act with integrity. Their central finding is that employees will commit to a manager?s decision ? even one they disagree with ? it they believe that the process the manager used in making the decision was both fair and equitable. Fair and equitable decisions build trust and unlock ideas ? without them, even outcomes that employee might favour can be difficult to achieve. ?Imagine what mess we would be in if Jugnauth and Bérenger had not followed a fair and equitable process in deciding the next Prime Minister!? observed a participant.

Core Principles

?How then do we create a trusting environment in a knowledge eco-nomy so that the decisions taken are both fair and equitable?? I asked. Those present came up with many answers. Here is a summary:

Integrity. ?Managers need to be consistent in what they think and what they do,? one participant offered. ?We cannot say X on the one hand and mean Y on the other ? nor can we say X and then do Y.?

Competence. ?We have to be competent at what we are doing,? offered another. ?If our job is to handle customer complaints in our firm, we need to do so professionally and with the right know-how.?

Openness. ?We need to be open about what we are trying to do,? said yet another. ?Everyone involved needs to understand why we took the decisions that we took. There cannot be any hidden agendas or under-lying motives that distort our message or actions.?

Engagement. ?We need to consult when we take decisions,? asserted another. ?You cannot expect me to abide and support your decisions if, to begin with, I wasn?t part of them. Engagement communicates the message that we respect others ideas and results in greater commitment.?

?All this sounds like greater democracy in the workplace,? commented the one participant. ?Is this what has changed from 40 years ago?? ?Possibly,? replied another. ?But let us not confuse democracy with the reluctance to establish a vision, implement a strategy and manage accordingly. We still have to pursue the best idea ? whether it comes from one individual or the majority ? if we want to compete and survive in this globalized world.?

Prof Eric Charoux

Feedback: [email protected]