In a famous book on management, In Search of Excellence, the writers argue that America's best-run companies know how to balance control and delegation. Excellent companies have "loose-tight" characteristics. On the one hand, they have a simple structure, generally based on product divisions which also have great autonomy. These divisions have control over functions like product development, purchasing, finance, personnel, etc. On the other hand, the centre of these excellent companies (top management) provides firm central direction. It continually stresses the core values of the organisation, e.g. quality, need for innovation, service, informal communications and so on. These central values provide the context within which staff can be creative, take risks - even fail.
It is normal for people to like independence, to dislike control. The more educated staff are, the more they will want to make decisions, to have authority. However, it is not easy to have more decentralisation if the right staff are not available. For example, if you own a chain of stores, it may be difficult to give more authority to employees. The employees may be used to following rules, so they may not be able to take decisions, to show initiatives.
In any case — employee empowerment or control — clearly establish responsibilities.
" Responsibility can only reside in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may delegate it, but it is still with you. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence, you cannot escape it. If the responsibility is rightly yours, no evasion, or ignorance, or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point the finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible. "
Admiral Rickover
The emerging new managerial rhetoric of the last decades of the twentieth century questioned much of the received wisdom about how to organise and manage effectively. In particular, the merits of bureaucratic structure and hierarchical control were severely challenged. Such structure and control were and are criticised for their cost, lack of responsiveness, and perhaps most importantly in terms of the rhetorical appeal of the alternatives, for their deadening effect upon employee initiative and productivity. Horizontal divisions between departments as well as layers of hierarchy came to be seen as inhibitors of effective communication and creators of unnecessary managerial overhead. Most crucially, established practices apparently constrained the speed and quality of responsiveness to changing conditions and a leaner, more creative, and adaptive form of organization was commended in order to ensure that one is not left behind by similarly dynamic competitors.
Instead of a mechanistic reliance upon rules and procedures, the new organization is built, and depends, upon the commitment of all staff to shared values. The organic network, rather than rigid hierarchy, is the central organising principle. The expense and cumbersomeness of hierarchy can be avoided once employees have absorbed, and become committed to, the core values of the organisation. These values, rather than inflexible and quickly outdated regulations, guide employees to form and reform the collaborative intra- and inter-departmental teams and networks through which the mission of the organisation is realised.
With the new form of organisation comes a new kind of management, performing the new "managerial work" (Kanter, 1989). Managers are no longer required to develop and enforce the rules, which control a recalcitrant workforce. When employees are self-disciplined, and no longer require a narrow "span of control" to ensure their compliance with company requirements, levels in the hierarchy can be substantially reduced, if not entirely abandoned. Thus, the responsibility of those managers who remain employed is to act as "facilitators" who ensure that the staff are fully equipped, materially and educationally, to work organically (for example by developing new project teams that exploit emergent opportunities) to both develop new synergies in activities and deliver their full commitment to the organisation. Managers with responsibility for these new deliverables are rewarded accordingly, and not just on the basis of their formal position.
The new organisation demands new forms of managerial work. Reliance upon formal position within the hierarchy is supplanted by demonstrated ability to facilitate collaborative activity and innovation that is cross-functional and interdepartmental. Command is replaced by consent, as the key to corporate success is the development of employees capable of constantly responding, with the minimum of managerial direction, to emergent opportunities and threats. Complying with established practice and conforming to established codes of conduct are no longer a low risk strategy for achieving recognition and promotion. Instead, advancement comes to depend upon the demonstration of skills that empower, energise and support staff in continuously producing and refining quality products and services.
This is a potentially bewildering world in which old certainties associated wills the prerogative of rank and the authority of expertise no longer provide a reliable basis for action (or compliance). In the effort to eliminate rigidities and improve responsiveness, it would seem that almost everything has now become flexible and negotiable. People are increasingly valued for their contribution in unsettling conventions and rigidities that are deemed to be counterproductive for stimulating innovation and enhancing competitiveness.
based on:
Keys to Management - David Cotton (1988)
Representing Organisation - Knowledge, Management, and the Information age - Simon Lilley, Geoffrey Lightfoot, Paulo Amaral M. N. (2004)
© 2012-2024 Droid Interface — All rights reserved |
|
