Factory owners can’t do it all themselves
To grow and fulfil its potential in the coming years, I believe Bangladesh's RMG industry needs to adapt when it comes to management. More pertinently, about the issue of organisational structure (pyramid hierarchy) and not on the "flat management" style which many of our factories have adopted over the years.
In many cases, the adoption of a flat, non-hierarchical structure by factory owners has happened by accident. Industry growth has come in sharp bursts, and leadership and management structures have been unable to keep pace. Stories of company owners with dozens of employees reporting directly to them are not uncommon in our industry—not believing in team spirit and delegation.
But if one or two leaders or company directors have so many demands upon their time, how can they get on with their core job of directing strategy and steering the business?
I believe it is vital for our garment factories to strengthen middle-management in the coming years. This will require better delegation from owners and a willingness to embrace new ideas and ways of thinking.
To do this, we need to first understand why so many of our factories have flat management structures in which the owner—and perhaps one or two trusted lieutenants—oversee thousands of workers.
As mentioned above, uneven growth is one reason. Often, factories struggle to adapt to new levels of volume and the fact that orderbooks can suddenly include several well-known brands with huge order volumes.
Another reason is the lack of training in our industry—an age-old problem. Are our colleges and technical schools turning out the right candidates in terms of management and leadership? A better question might be, do enough of our RMG factories have progressive training policies in place for the leaders of tomorrow? Do they have graduate schemes in place, (like management trainees who can be General Managers within the next 5 years) which enable our brightest minds to be fast-tracked within an organisation over a short timeframe?
This latter issue could also be an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone—training more middle managers and encouraging female workers to progress their careers. As I have discussed just recently, our industry lacks females in positions of seniority and suffers from what is known in the West as a "glass ceiling" where career progression is concerned for women.
There are other reasons for bringing more people on board into leadership positions. Businesses which rely on the owner and/or the owner and a couple of trusted directors to guide all strategy are at risk of being closed off to new ideas and ways of thinking. Look at the world's most successful businesses and how they have worked out ways to squeeze every ounce of talent and creativity out of their employees. If an employee shows potential and intelligence, there are avenues or roadmaps for career advancement. Mechanisms are created to ensure that the "cream rises to the top" or, at a very minimum, where talent is recognised—and utilised. Is this happening in our RMG industry or is talent going to waste? My concern is that there is too much of the latter now, but I am optimistic that this picture can be changed with the right mindset.
No company owner can do everything themselves. We all, as owners, have our blind spots and need other colleagues to bounce ideas off of or—where necessary—to tell us when we are making a mistake! None of us can claim to be perfect which is why we should all be open to bringing new leaders into the fold.
Interestingly, a few years ago, flat company structures were very popular (and still are in some circles). Who needs managers and who needs structure?—this was the thinking. Some of the world's leading blue-chip businesses have tried and experimented with flat structures, but have often been forced to return to business operations with layers of specialist middle-managers in place in a pyramid structure.
I am not talking about a middle-manager overload (a negative, and an expensive option which few of our factories can afford). Rather, I am referring to structures which allow for delegation from the owner downwards to specialist managers who can help implement new business ideas and different ways of thinking; who can help develop a company climate where employees are allowed to thrive and blossom; structures which foster openness and a culture of continuous learning and development. The owner cannot possibly hope to do all of this on their own.
But the owners need to trust the middle management and delegate decision making responsibilities to them to carry out on their own. The managers should not face unwanted layers, more specifically accountability to keen and kith of owners who are not professionals. Unfortunately, in many cases in some of our factories, owners still employ people in key positions whose only quality is to be of their family. So, the industry needs to nurture a culture where professionalism will be given the priority and professionals taking the risks but fetching successes will be rewarded.
On a more pragmatic and practical level, without structure and managers beyond the company owner, it is much harder to "get things done," and to ensure that the right person has all the information they need. There must be organisation—businesses need structures and processes.
When a business has more than 1,000 employees, as does almost all our RMG factories, no one person knows everything that is going on within the business to make effective, detailed decisions. A lack of structure prevents employees from specialising and progressing quickly. It can hamper progress.
More concerningly, a lack of hierarchy will mean that any leader or company owner will eventually be overwhelmed. This could mean the death of the business in the worse-case scenario.
Mostafiz Uddin is the Managing Director of Denim Expert Limited. He is also the Founder and CEO of Bangladesh Denim Expo and Bangladesh Apparel Exchange (BAE).