According to Fontaine and Ahmad, the process of leading an organization can be compared to driving a vehicle. On this basis, we can draw parallels between a leader/manager and a driver, a route and a strategy, other cars on the road and competitors, etc.
I find this analogy cogent and well-thought-out. First of all, it describes the key points of managing an organization in simple and understandable words, which, in its turn, makes the whole concept comprehensible for everyone, even for people who are not familiar with this field of study at all. Besides, with the help of this analogy, the authors easily win and keep the readers’ attention. It is interesting to continue reading and find out what parallels have been drawn, which concepts have been compared, and so on. On the other hand, this analogy is rather superficial; it encompasses only the most important points and ignores many details. Even the authors write, “we realize that this analogy is far from perfect” (Fontaine and Ahmad 4). However, when it comes to analogies, details do not really have so much value.
The second paragraph of this section describes the difference between conventional and Islamic strategic management. I think that this duality is justified – although conventional and Islamic perspectives have very similar goals, the ways to achieve those goals are too different. Conventional strategic management focuses on the aim, the probability of success, and the least possible time for which this aim can be achieved. Even more, since the time has to be minimized, the rights of the stakeholders (or the passengers, according to an analogy with driving a car) are to be of minor importance. Islamic perspective, on the other hand, implies that “the rights of all stakeholders is a shared moral duty” (Fontaine and Ahmad 4). Islamic management would never sacrifice those to achieve the goal quicker. So, while the conventional approach is goal-oriented, Islamic strategic management focuses on people in the first place. Thus, it is people-oriented. By the way, that is where the analogy is extremely useful. Pushing out a stakeholder seems to be not a big deal in management since it is just a business, and there is nothing personal about it. However, if we use other terms (a driver instead of a manager and passengers instead of stakeholders), the situation turns out to be not so natural and fair.
Finally, analyzing the comparison of management and driving a car in detail, we can notice that there are some missing elements in this pattern. Firstly, companies and organizations do not exist separately; all of them cooperate with each other. To coexist successfully, they have to follow some general rules, government regulations, etc. However, that is not enough. On the road, there are small cars and trucks, cheap transports and luxurious vehicles. Drivers who own luxury cars do not only know the Traffic Laws and follow them – they also have a talent for driving. Translating it back to the language of management, company leaders should necessarily have a particular set of abilities, like critical and creative thinking, managing and leadership skills, and so on.
To conclude, the analogy used in the book is persuasive and definitely can win the reader’s attention. However, for better understanding of the concept, I would recommend the readers to search for and examine some additional information.
Works Cited
Fontaine, Rodrigue, and Khaliq Ahmad. Strategic Management from an Islamic Perspective: Text and Cases, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons, 2013. Print.