A Revolution in Management: Efficiency Redefined?
April 14, 2020
I read “How COVID-19 Made Old-School Management Irrelevant: No More Pointless Micro-Management.” I think a more suitable subtitle would have been “A Millennial’s Howl for Me-Ness.”
The essay is interesting for three reasons.
First, it predicts the future. Predictions are easy, but as “now” yields to the future, most are sort of correct. Management changes may be a tough discipline to change. Why? The notion of organizing tasks and orchestrating the completion of those tasks requires responsibility. That’s an old fashioned concept, but remote control may lack some of the intangibles that traditional management principles rely upon.
Second, the notion of irrelevance is a mostly a point of view issue. Who determines relevance? Perhaps shifting from externally imposed obligations or expectations to an individual determining if those obligations or expectations are “relevant.” Reliability, particularly among many colleagues, is a slippery topics. Without reliability, tasks may be difficult to complete. Relevant or irrelevant issue? The answer depends on whom one asks.
Third, the idea of micro management annoys some people. On the other hand, there are individuals who do their best work within structures and expectations about behavior. One can make generalizations about direct interaction in person. The number of exceptions can undermine what one wants to be true. In fact, the generalization may be an attempt to impose what an individuals wants and needs upon others. Arrogance, stupidity, or a certain blindness?
Now the write up. The article asserts:
The need for a manager who “checks on you” has suddenly evaporated.
Interesting but the emergence of new methods for monitoring seem to be a growth industry: Mobile phone surveillance, Slack, and even Zoom meetings are monitoring, control, and directive devices in some ways.
Here’s another interesting mental construct:
In this new world of “work-from-home”, creatives feel free from antagonisms of the old, and the creators of new. Getting people to perform competitively in environments where remote work relies on individual resourcefulness, the in-your-face old school management has died.
The phrase “in your face” reminds me of a bright sprout deeply offended by a grade school teacher’s statement, “Pay attention to the assignment.” The reaction of some people to being told to deliver is rebellion. That’s not a reason to discard some management methods. In fact, I term this type of anti-management behavior as high school science club management methods or HSSCMM. The idea is that a few smart people gather and know what’s better, faster, and cheaper. Does this sound like some of the Silicon bro ethos? It should because this world view has created some interesting challenges; namely, employees who don’t do what’s expected. Employees who protest, leak, strike, and submarine work so it has more flaws than normal.
The write up identifies what has changed since the global pandemic modified some established patterns; for example:
- Work from home will become more common
- We are in a cultural tsunami
- Social distancing is “demolishing age old officer hierarchies”.
These sound ominous or life affirming depending upon one’s point of view. The flows of digital information undermine hierarchies. I addressed this subject in my Eagleton Lecture (sponsored by ASIS and Bell Labs) in the late 1980s. As digital information zips around, the “old” patterns are weakened and some collapse; for example, knowing about a company’s legal problems once easily concealed until ubiquitous “publishing.” The cultural tsunami picked up steam in developed countries as newer technologies and tools became widely available. Change does not speed along when certain capabilities are classified and available to a comparatively small number of individuals. Diffusion of tools accelerates diffusion of behaviors. New ideas flourish in such an environment. The datasphere is a hot house. The work from home or WFH is definitely becoming more common, just not for everyone. It is difficult to create certain products from home. It is difficult to reach some decisions from home when a golf outing, lunch, and one to one sizing up is necessary.
I grant that change is taking place, some good, some bad. I agree that in some sectors, the 19th century approach to business will not be successful. I support the idea that a 9 to 5 workplace of the “organization man” will be the only or best way to build an organization.
However, if one takes even a cursory look at different cultures at different points in the past, interesting commonalities emerge. Examples range from a group’s appointing a leader to provide guidance seem widespread. Specialists perform certain tasks, often working alone or in concert to deliver an artifact that cannot be crafted alone in a different location.
Several observations:
- WFH or work from home is not right for everyone. Multiple methods are needed. Picking the most suitable method to achieve the goal is the job of management. I think a manager from a Roman engineering brigade would agree in part. A stone cutter working in a quarry is of zero value to team in trans Alpine Gaul.
- Management evolves. Take a flip through Peter Drucker’s management books. The ideas seem both in tune and out of step. Why? Individuals organizing resources to achieve a goal have to adapt to the cultural environment. A failure to adapt is the ultimate failure of an enterprise.
- Some people need the structure of an organization and a routine which may involve a commute, annoyances like a cube in a bigger space, and people making noise, suggestions, and waves.
Net net: Generalizations which are focused on a narrow slice of those who need to work are interesting but self centered, not objective, and wishful thinking. Parts of life will be like grade school. Suck it up. Deliver something of value.
Stephen E Arnold, April 14, 2020
Comments
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
