The Dean's List

I read an excellent article last week in the Wall Stree Journal August 21st edition on “The End of Management.”  The article is based on Alan Murray’s book Essential Guide to Management.  He says that evidence suggests that modern management as we know it is dying a slow death.  In his opinion the greatest management stories have not been the triumph of the corporation, but triumphs over the corporation.

I can relate to this point having witnessed how much effort is spent on waging war on the corporate bureacracy in order to implement organizational innovation.  In my opinion, entrenched cultures, stacked management hierarchies, and multi-layered decision making processes eventually lead to frustration and will suck the life out of many highly motivated change managers.

Murray states “Corporations are bureaucracies and managers are bureaucrats.  Their fundamental tendency is toward self-perpetuation.  They are almost by definition, resistant to change.”  I believe the corporations that will win in the 21st century are those that are learning how to be flexible, agile and adaptable.  How can we motivate and inspire the workforce in today’s complex organizations?  How do we increase their committment and engagement?  Trust me, you won’t find the answer in the corporate bureaucracy?  The answer should be found in new organizational structures that encourage innovation.  This will require a serious rethinking of 21st century management science and a significant investment in bureaucracy busting.

What do you think?

I am calling for a radical revision in the concept of matrix management.  Multiple reporting lines, confusion over accountability, competing functional priorities, lack of role clarity, too many people involved in decisions, lack of support from senior managers….these are all complaints I have heard from managers stuck in matrix management systems.

In my experience these reporting structures hinder rather than help managers work effectively.  Global organizations today are more complex and require accelerated decision making.   I argue that reporting lines must be clear with a defined chain of command to avoid decisions based on political expediency.  A matrix deliberately sets out to trade clarity for flexibility.

The politics surrounding dual solid lines, indirect functional reporting, and dotted line management all lead to additional layers of compromise and more challenges to decision making that managers don’t need.  Moreover, these relationships can become more unworkable when there is distrust or competition at the level above.

I believe matrix management is overly complicated and unwieldy.  Put yourself in a multiple matrix reporting structure with two solid lines, a functional dotted line manager and two global projects and I believe you are being mis-managed.  This matrix forces a manager to choose between competing priorities.  Dotted line managers should be totally eliminated in favor of building a network of strong senior management relationships.

I am recommending the traditional hierarchy as the optimal reporting structure for managers who work in today’s organizations.  Let’s return to one set of priorities, clear chain of command, one performance rating and most important…an empowered manager!

I have had the opportunity to read many performance reviews in my work as a consultant.  Many mis-guided managers are seeking more passion from their subordinates in these reviews.  In my opinion passion is an over used word and over rated factor in business. 

Everyone in business that I work with is already charged up and switched on.  Passion is a commodity with a notoriously short shelf life.  I believe you can’t replace preparation and execution with passion and hope to be successful.  Remember, there was a lot of passion at the Alamo….and they all died!

Nearly every manager I work with today is overextended and suffering from schedule overload. Since creating a 28 hour day is impossible most managers rely on “multi-tasking” and 12 hour days as the solution to their time management problems. In my opinion “multi-tasking” has some benefits but is not the answer to managing your time more effectively.

Experts in this field explain that the problem is not managing time but managing priorities. We are all faced with competing priorities every day as our schedules are jammed with meetings, conference calls, interviews and various appointments. Very little time is left to do our own work!

I have found two techniques that work for me. The first is printing out my schedule for the last 4 weeks and the next 4 weeks and assigning a priority rating for each activity. Each activity receives a high, medium or low priority rating based on my objectives. A quick analysis reveals what percent of time I am spending on each priority level. Also I am able to adjust my time going forward to better emphasize high priority items. Low and medium priority items can be delegated or removed from my schedule. High priority items get my full attention.

The second technique is a simple one. I schedule 30 minutes of “personal time”right after upcoming important meetings or appointments to allow me to review notes, do follow ups or send email queries while the information is still fresh and before rushing into the next meeting.

If you don’t control your schedule….it will control you.

I am a firm believer in the adage “It is better to reward the right things than to measure the wrong things”. Most organizations either have developed, or are developing, a management reporting system made up of financial scorecards, operational dashboards and technology performance metrics.

In my opinion these reporting tools don’t really measure the differentiating factors that drive competitive advantage. We all know that the company with the strongest leaders and best managers wins. However, I don’t see organizations today investing in tools to effectively measure and reward leadership and management attributes.

In the absence of these measurement tools, what essentially drives behavior are the traditional rewards. Who gets promoted? Who gets Paid? Who gets the best assignments?

If the best managers and leaders are the ones being paid and promoted then the right message about what is important is being reinforced…if not…you get what you pay for.

Finding great consultants is not an easy task for managers. The marketplace is flooded with global firms, niche providers and industry experts in the business of consulting. The majority of managers that I work with have had both good and bad experiences with consultants. They ask one of these two questions. 1) How do I go about finding a great consultant? 2) What distinguishes them from the rest of the herd?

Great consultants in my opinion demonstrate three distinguishing attributes.

Expert Problem Solving: The ability to consistently recommend practical solutions to complex problems. Quickly breaking down complex problems into manageable, executable solutions is highly valued by today’s over-burdened executives. Great consultants span the credibility gap by helping managers quickly get traction on solving problems and taking advantage of organizational change opportunities.

Communication versatility: Demonstrating written and verbal communication skills at all levels from the boiler room to the board room. Information must effectively cascade down through the organization and be escalated up without losing the message. Great consultants serve as a conduit for ensuring clarity and understanding of direction. In many cases they must be able to explain the nature of organizational resistance and the path to mitigating those obstacles.

Coaching the execution: Implementing change in organizations requires daily vigilance. Organizations today are faced with external market pressure, increased regulatory oversight and internal cultural and structural challenges to change efforts. This requires exceptional coaching skills – going beyond the Powerpoint presentation. Working side by side with managers to implement real solutions, not concepts, is the mark of a great consultant. Coaching the execution is working at the “tip of the spear” encouraging managers to stay on point and on strategy.

What is your experience with consultants in terms of these attributes?