The end is nigh for ‘command/control’
I am fairly certain that most of us will have heard lots about the global financial crisis and maybe even experienced its negative impact personally. One of the clear messages emerging from the chaos is that the traditional ‘command and control’ management practice is fundamentally unable to cope with the dynamic demands of today. The result of greed and excessive risk taking was not tempered by the ‘management’ of many organisations and in fact was actively encouraged by them as these meant yet bigger bonuses/rewards. The result was, as we have come to experience, one of the worst global financial crises of all time and the worry is that no one yet can say that we have reached the bottom of the recession.
It is well understood by many of us that all the apparent safeguards associated with ‘command/control’ style of management is not usually robust enough to stop the type of financial abuse that we have learned about. The main weakness in ‘command/control’ is the dependence on someone being in ‘charge’ who knows exactly what needs to be done by those who they are expected to ‘manage’. The reality is usually quite the opposite in that the people being ‘managed’ actually know much more about what needs to be done than the ‘manager’. However, the hierarchy demands that each ‘level’ in the organisation needs to have a ‘manager’ over those who work ‘for them’. The outcome from this process tends, unfortunately, to lead to increasing mediocrity in whatever is being produced.
Time for change!!!
Many experts tell us that we live in a world that is information rich and time poor. Therefore there is the tendency to be overwhelmed by the amount and complexity of the information coming our way. This is why the managers operating a ‘command/control’ type of structure are generally unable to effectively handle all the information produced by their: superiors, peers, subordinates, suppliers, clients, trade associations, etc. However, there will be people in the organisation with part of the knowledge of what needs to be achieved and by connecting all these people a clearer picture is likely to emerge of the what and how to get it done.
Many years ago I promoted the notion of an organisation being like an amoeba in that its shape and structure could change to take account of the needs of the present and respond effectively to perceived future challenges. It is therefore very interesting to learn that a number of organisations are adopting a ‘cell’ like structure which in many ways is similar to the amoeba concept. The ‘cell model’ metaphor has been described in a number of ways and the one I prefer says that it is a structure that has elastic edges the can dynamically expand and contract and are porous with a central nucleus that regulates semi-independent processes. It is a fluid structure that allows the free circulation of critical knowledge, information, and energy. Like cells in the human body these organisational cells are alive!
A new order is beginning to emerge
The ‘cell model’ could appear an exciting environment to be involved in although I guess that there are a number of people who would still prefer the safety that the ‘command/control’ hierarchy usually offers. I believe that we need to have a number of different structures to meet the different needs of each organisation. However, whichever structure is developed by an organisation it needs to have the capacity to energise and engage all its people in ways that enable them to produce truly effective results. Unfortunately the evidence shows that those with traditional hierarchies are prone to creating a culture that produces general mediocrity.
Most of us will have heard lots about the global financial crisis and its devastating effect on people who have lost fortunes made by lots of hard work over many years as well as those who have lost jobs and homes. Although it is unlikely that we could ever act in ways that stop downturns and recessions in the global economy there are certainly opportunities to equip people with the skills that enable them to make effective contributions to whichever organisation they are involved with. This is why a new order is slowly emerging that is based on a different working paradigm in that we are encourage to be ‘self-managing’ to a much greater degree than exists for many of us today. However there are a number of hurdles that need to be overcome before the new order can be established.
Strong hierarchical DNA exists in people/organisations
It is interesting to review the history of many of the potentially powerful initiatives that have been introduced into organisations over the years. Here are a few examples:
- Total Quality Management with its Quality Circles that were designed to actively involve those at the sharp end of the organisation.
- A number dealing with Customer Service that was once again designed to involved those facing customers.
- Process Re-engineering with the aim of simplifying and improving business processes.
- “Management Competencies” were seen to be a great way to define management roles from strategic to the supervisory.
- Employee Engagement as a strategy to enable all employees to feel involved and committed to achieving the best results for the organisation.
- Leadership Academies that aim to share and develop effective leadership knowledge and skills.
In all these examples the potential to produce significant improvements within organisation was available yet somehow or other those who drove the hierarchy appeared to quickly drain the energy and enthusiasm of those involved until the initiatives slowly die.
The reason was twofold, firstly, the initiative did not have a sponsor who was committed for the long term, who owned the initiative, inspired those involved, had enough ‘power’ to make things happen, and enough power to negate the efforts of those who resisted any change to the status quo. Secondly, the stifling effect of command/control methodologies that needs to get everyone to conform to a set of rules that are designed to limit risk. However, these rules are often created with the purpose of dealing with deviant behaviour by the less than 5% of employees yet have such a negative impact on the 95% who really want to do a great job.
A relatively minor example of the constraining power of those who manipulate the hierarchy was observed by how it handled “mufti” days. This was an initiative designed to introduce a degree of informality and encourage a more relaxed working environment. Friday was often chosen as the day because it was at the end of the week and usually not particularly a highly productive day. In many instances the people were left to select what to wear with in some cases a guide in terms of it being “smart casual”. In a number of organisations that I have experience of many of the senior manager were very uneasy about the experiment as in their view their people could not be trusted to be sensibly dressed. As one could expect, and as they did, 5% of the people did appear in dress that was certainly unsuitable for the occasion and after a short time in many instances the experiment was cut short or more appropriate guidelines were introduced.
Although this happened some years ago the general relaxation in dress standards within many organisations fuels my confidence that, given an increasing number of people who see the value in creating different working practices, they can make it happen. Therefore, I believe that the value of self-managing in terms of effective achievement and personal fulfilment will be increasingly recognised by many.
Describing the new order
My confidence in seeing new ways of working is reinforced by the fact that there are an increasing number of leaders who are introducing new working arrangements that go a long way to enabling people to be accountably self-managing. I will invest time in my next blog to set out what I see as the new order with the confidence that there are leaders already exploring and implementing effective ways of encouraging self-managing practices.
Tom
{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }
Super Tom. I had several thoughts when I read this. I welcome the day when command/control is dead. Understanding not only one’s personal power but also how to be ‘good to go’ as the amoeba develops is the challenge. We seem to get it all wrong when we appoint our CEOs that don’t seem to be ‘good to go’ to lead the amoeba. Am I naive to think that the picture you paint of the changing order is dependent on getting such leadership? I keep focusing on the cells developing within organisations despite the blocks and command/control.
I certainly agree with what you have written about, infact I have agreed with similar articles in HBR to ‘NZ Employment Today’ yet it does seem a slow moving evolution. There are still so many command and control managers in place that it is difficult to acceptance and trust to create change. I’m a convert and even though am in middle management will always try to keep those cells developing…..