Rol cited my list of the functions of managers in n LO and then listed a
number of questions begged by my contribution.
My meta-comment is that Rol's list is a marvellous description of the
nature of management which demonstrates why it is an art and not a
science. Our organisation (in which I am both a line worker and a
shareholding director) is a peculiar hybrid - a commercial company
conducting academic research into organisational systems. The mix is very
useful. We are always able to reality test our research findings against
our own management experience. Rol's questions are our questions.
Commenting on Rol's questions:
What is the information a manager provides to the system? In an innovative
organisation this is ever changing. It is more important to ask what
information a manager should GATHER to have on hand when an identified
need emerges.
Who is the system? There is a core and there is a periphery, and there is
an environment. However the parts of the system to whom information needs
to be provided is self-defining and changes constantly. I guess the
ambiguous areas involve what information should be available (either on
purpose or inadvertantly through the nature of internal access) to
customers and competitors. In our business we face this daily. We are
frequently (more often than not) required to form teams including people
from 'competitor' organisations. Are these people part of our system for
information access? Of course they are. Do we suffer competitive
disadvantage by revealing, say, our costing procedures to them? No - in
fact it gives us an advantage in operational reality.
Do we know what is 'best'? No. But we can often know what is 'better'. If
we are undertaking a novel operation we can often only know what is 'good
enough'. If we only do it once we may never know whether we could have
done it better, although we get better at knowing this with experience.
Does 'best' change as the context changes? Yes.
Who defines the blocks and impediments? How do we recognize them? They
are self-defining by the people who are experiencing them. At least they
ought to be. However one block may be that the organisation suffers from
learned helplessness ('Who gives a damn anyway?'). This block is one that
is experienced by, and should be defined by, the managers themselves.
What if people disagree? What if managers disagree? Can one person's
block be another's enabler? Yes to the last. But we can reach resolution
on all these questions by refocusing those involved on the shared mental
model and the goals of the organisation. We will then eliminate some
disagreements because it will be found that one party's problem is being
defined in terms of a narrower focus. More will be resolved by insights
such as 'Now we can see that this impediment you face in doing your own
tasks is, unfortunately, unavoidable because if we did it differently the
system as a whole would work slower/less effectively.' Those that remain
give the manager priorities for intervention.
Are we sure that teams are always the best way to do work? No. They
aren't. But less often than detractors assert.
What are the programs to implement? Indicated by answering the other
questions.
How do we know which are really practical to implement? Unfortunately it
is often the case that we can only do this by trying. But, of course, this
is no answer if large scale investment is required. The line workers
usually know the answer best. This is also where benchmarking in LO's is
valuable.
How, in a world with overwhelming communications, do we_really_ scan for
external threats? If we don't we're doomed. More especially, if we're not
scanning we miss the opportunities as well.
What does it mean to keep out of the way? To not interfere with systems
processes which are functioning as anticipated (which may include the
expectation of improvement).
How does one know when to 'get in the way'? When somebody asks for help or
complains. To resolve conflict. When the data indicate that a process is
not functioning as anticipated. When it is necessary to brief people on an
environmental or process change. When one wants advice or feedback on
one's own performance. In order to tell people they are doing well (if
it's true). When leadership is necessary because people are taking their
eyes off the ball. To stimulate innovation.
Rol concludes:
"The real meat of a manager's work is to find the
answers to those questions -- and many more -- and to act in a way that
aligns with the corporate vision. The way the manager acts day-to-day
creates the vision-in-action, which is a much more real entity than the
vision described in corporate planning documents."
I absolutely agree.
-- pcapper@actrix.gen.nz
Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>