The view on 'a management revolution' presented by Gary Hamel - Essay Example

Task Management Revolution Introduction Proper management is essential if organizations are to run effortlessly and achieve their purposes. It is through management that humankind has grown tremendously over the years. However, the tools of management on which this model is built have been in use since the 19th century, with a few changes if any (Hamel 2009). While organizations remain stagnated on this old management model, the business environment, and the entire world, has fully revolutionized (Chizema & Kim, 109, 2010). Since the business environment continues to change, managing continuity should be imperative to all organizations to develop a connection between the realities of past, present, and future (Kolb, 183, 2003). With markets opening beyond national borders, and business processes becoming faster and more flexible, business organizations have been forced to adapt to a model more suitable for the 21st century (Burgelman & Grove, 965, 2007). However, Gary Hamel (2009) calls for an entire revolutionary change of the current management model. In his article entitled ‘Moon shots for management’, he says, “The evolution of management has traced a classic S-curve,” and goes on to argue that a new management model must be invented for the new age. New challenges The current management model is vertically structured with precisely defined roles for every level and is guided by set rules and procedures (Pye & Pettigrew, 153, 2005). In the current business environment, effective change is achieved when a firm has an organized pattern of decisions that guide deployment of resources in response to environmental changes (strategy) and a mechanism that turns this strategy into output (organization) (Nadler &Tushman, 204, 1989). Overcoming challenges entail changing the entire organizational culture by setting new goals, visions, missions, values, and strategies (Sisaye, 176, 2000).Even though culture is complicated, differentiated and difficult to control, it should be manipulated to encompass a deep level of unconscious basic assumptions manifested in shared values, beliefs, behaviors, and creations (Harris and Ogbonna, 32, 2002). In order to overcome these challenges, Hamel postulates that business executives “must face the fact that “tomorrow’s business imperatives lay outside the performance envelope of today’s bureaucracy-infused management practices.” . Little is known about the strategy making processes at the top level of companies (Dewally & Peck, 38, 2010). A broader insight into the leadership structure of a company is needed as part of a broader attempt to remodel management (Pye & Pettigrew, 28, 2005). In organizations, governance and decision-making is dependent on bargaining between the board of directors and CEO. This is characterized by covert and overt use of power and influence (Daily, Dalton & Canella 2003). This drive should be towards an open, inclusive, and democratic organizational form (Mintzberg, 43, 1994). The top management executives should adopt an inclusive management style (Liedtka, 120, 1998). The Moon Shots In May 2008, Gary outlined 25 critical points that he felt should be adopted by business organizations as a way of reinventing management to better suit the present. Hamel was keen to point out that these moon shots were not exhaustive. From the moon shots, companies first have to redefine their goals. Clear redefinition of goals must encompass building human capital and engendering employee engagement (Davenport & Larding, 259, 2010). With the current management set up, companies are encouraged to adopt management practices that are socially beneficial. Today’s corporate governance structures promote the interests of some groups while oppresses others. In many cases, the senior executives and the shareholders benefit while employees and the local communities suffer (Zerbe, Hartel & Ashkanasy, 149, 2008). This is due to existence of a large gap between leadership and change management. These leaders have a high charismatic appeal and social status. This eliminates humility and personal will that is vital for a high performing organization (Morris, Brotheridge & Urbanski, 1324, 2005). This prevents their employees from making rational decisions and further their development (Kaufman & Taras, 319, 2000). They also employ old age strategies in handling the effects of these changes (Harigopal, 274, 2006). The current world is well interconnected, and organizations that espouse collaboration survive than those that breed conflict. Such organizations should move from paternalism that usurps individual responsibility and the freedom of choice, to cynicism that promotes consent of individual contribution to organization processes (O’Leary, 690, 2003). These organizations should be able to develop appropriate means to formulate timely policies that identify employee needs to increase their participation (Lane & Daft, 445, 2010). This is achieved when the organization allows for diffusion of power through discretion, recognition and relevance (Mills, Dye &Mills, 148, 2008). Changing the hierarchical model The stratified model of the current management system is the cause of many problems in any organization. Some of the problems include “disparities in power that cannot be justified by differences in competence (Hamel)”, managers hoarding authority instead of distributing it and belittling employees with little or no formal power. Furthermore, experience is valued over new thinking, and subjects have no say in choosing their leaders. Organizations should strive to have decisional hierarchies that have appropriate interdependence and are clearly defined by appropriate constraints, objectives and goals (Frankel, 66, 2008). Adopting natural hierarchical system assists organizations to solve these problems. The hierarchy should also be dynamic such that those who are adding value to the organization gain more power than those not adding value (Hyman & Mason, 1995). When individuals earn power, respect, their participation in the judgment making method will increase, and will persuade final decisions arrived at by the organization (William, 77, 2001). Under current management systems, the top executives have a deep mistrust for their employees. They typically use threats and sanctions to make employees comply with their demands. However, the manager must be available for employees, encourage them through genuine open-door attitude, and value them for their contributions (Fallon & McConnell, 94, 2007). This cultivates an encouraging culture between managers and employees because they have shared values and beliefs to push the organization forward (Peppers & Rogers, 2011). This will make employees more innovative, making the company more adaptable in the current business set up. The top executives need to learn how to share responsibility of giving the organization direction. Sharing responsibilities means empowerment (Daft & Marcic, 468, 2009). A small group of corporate executives may not be able to guide the organization. Such responsibility is broadly shared to open channels for new ideas from other employees (Carleton, 74, 2010). A positive change is possible when employees fully contribute to the organization (Lewis, 331, 2007). As Hamel puts it, “forethought and insight, rather than power and position, must determine the share of voice in setting corporate direction.” Employees should be given appropriate guidelines, supplemental tools and advice to further their independent learning (Tobin & Pettingell, 178, 2008). Companies need to be more flexible and dynamic in their resource allocation so that those with innovative ideas get the funding they need for implementation. The human touch is also hugely influential in any management set up. The current management system pays remarkably little attention to the human feelings, yet these feelings can have a substantial impact on employees’ performance. Moreover, these should encompass all the initiatives aimed at improving the personal and work life of employees (Durai, 399, 2010). The sterile business tenets should be infused with ideas that appeal to the human souls and hearts. The organization should strive to examine and positively change organizational climate and attitudes that influence worker morale and motivation (Marquis & Jorgensen, 429, 2009). Conclusion The current management system was invented in the 19th century, and has played a central position in driving industry and innovation forward. The business environment has changed tremendously. These changes have been brought about by changes in technologies, customer tastes, government regulations and competition (Anderson & Anderson, 31, 2010). The business also has to devise ways to respond to the negative changes in the environment (Scheer, 272, 2003). What Hamel and other like-minded scholars are pushing for is a total overhaul of the current management system, and replacement by a model more reflective of the new age. This, new revolutionary, management model will spur significant growth on to the next phase of business practice. These changes should revolve around changing the hierarchical set up of the current management system. Impartiality in change management is achieved when agents of change come from outside the hierarchical system (Paton & McCalman, 243, 2008). It is by giving employees more autonomy, and rewarding real contributions rather than positions that companies can reinvent themselves. The business world keeps changing fast, and companies have to come up with new ideas at the same pace if they are to remain relevant in the ever-changing business world. These new ideas can only come from employees who have been empowered and given the platform to express and implement those ideas. The new management model must strive to give more power and influence to people based on their contributions to the organization, rather than their positions in the organization’s hierarchy (Evans, 351, 2010). List of References Anderson, D., and Ackerman-Anderson, L. S., (2010), Beyond Change Management: How to achieve breakthrough results through conscious change leadership. San Francisco: Pfeiffer. Burgelman R and Grove A, (2007), Let chaos reign, then rein in chaos - repeatedly: Managing strategic dynamics for corporate longevity, Strategic Management Journal 28: 965-979. Carleton, R., (2010), Implementation and management of performance improvement plans emphasizing group and organizational interventions, Amherst, Mass: HRD Press. Daft, R. L. (2010). Management. Mason, Ohio, South-Western: Cengage Learning. Daft, R. L., and Marcic, D., (2009), Understanding Management, Mason, OH, South-Western Davenport, T. O., & Harding, S. D. (2010), Manager Redefined The Competitive Advantage In The Middle Of Your Organization, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass. Dewally M and Peck S (2010) Upheaval in the boardroom: Outside director public resignations, motivations and consequences, Journal of Corporate Finance Vol.16: 38-52. Durai, P, 2010, Human Resource Management, India: Pearson Education Publishers. Evans, J. R., & Evans, J. R., (2011), Quality And Performance Excellence: management, organization, and strategy. Mason, OH, South-Western: Cengage Learning. Fallon, L. F., and Mcconnell, C. R, (2007), Human Resource Management in Health Care: Principles and Practice, Sudbury: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Frankel, E. G. (2008), Quality Decision Management: The heart of effective futures-oriented management: A Primer for Effective Decision-Based Management, Springer Verlag Hamel G, (2000) Leading the Revolution, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Ma. Harigopal, K. (2006), Management of Organizational Change: Leveraging Transformation, New Delhi: SAGE. Hyman, J., and Mason, B, (1995), Managing employee involvement and participation. London: Sage. Ireland R and Hitt M, (1999), Achieving and maintaining strategic competitiveness in the 21st century: The role of strategic leadership, Academy of Management Executive, Vol 13. pp 43-57. Kaufman, B. E., and Taras, D. G., (2000), Nonunion Employee Representation: History, Contemporary Practice and Policy, Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe.: Cengage Learning. Lewis, P. S., (2007), Management: Challenges for Tomorrow's Leaders, Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western. Liedtka J, (1998), Strategic Thinking: Can it be Taught? Long Range Planning:Vol 31(1). pp 120-129. Marquis, B. L., and Huston, C. J., (2009), Leadership Roles and Management Functions in Nursing: Theory and Application, Philadelphia, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. Mills, J.H, Dye, K, and Mills, A.J (2008), Understanding Organizational change, United Kingdom: Taylor and Francis Mintzberg H, (1987), Crafting and executing strategy, Harvard Business Review, July-August: 66-75. Paton, R., and Mccalman, J., (2008), Change Management: A guide to effective implementation. Los Angeles, SAGE. Peppers, D., & Rogers, M., (2011), Managing customer relationships a strategic framework, Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. Pye A and Pettigrew A, (2005), Studying board context, process and dynamics: Some challenges for the future, British Journal of Management Vol.16: S27-S38. Scheer, A.-W., and Hammer, M. (2003), Business Process Change Management: ARIS in practice. Berlin: Springer. Seleshi Sisaye. (2000), Organization Change and Development in Management Control Systems: Process Innovation for Internal Auditing and Management Accounting, Greenwich: Conn, JAI. Tobin, D. R., and Pettingell, M. S., (2008), the AMA Guide to Management Development. New York, NY: AMACOM. Williams, R. S. (2001), Managing Employee Performance: design and implementation in organizations, London: Thomson Learning. Zerbe, W. J., Ha?Rtel, C. E. J., and Ashkanasy, N. M., (2008), Emotions, Ethics and Decision- Making, London: Emerald/JAI. Harris, L.C, and Ogbonna, E., (2002), The Unintended consequences of culture interventions: A study of unexpected outcomes, British Journal of Management, Vol.13: pp 31-49. Kolb, D.G., (2003), Seeking Continuity amidst Organizational Change: A Storytelling Approach, Journal of Management inquiry, Vol. 12: pp 180-183. Morris, J.A., Brotherridge, C.M., and Urbanski, J.C., (2005), Bringing Humility to Leadership: Antecedents and Consequences of Leader Humility, Vol. 58(10): pp1323-1350. Nadler, D, & Tushman, M., (1989), 'Organizational Frame Bending: Principles for Managing Reorientation', Academy Of Management Executive, Vol. 3(3) pp. 194-204. O’Leary, M., (2003), From paternalism to cynicism: Narratives of a newspaper company, Vol. 56(6): pp 685-704. Read More