Management and Organization Design: A Personal Conceptualization - Coursework Example

 Abstract This paper focuses on a personal reflection on the many Management Philosophies available to the student of Management. While the development, practice and publication of such philosophies provide invaluable assistance to the potential manager, it is also essential that the individual develop a particular, personal management philosophy. This philosophy must encompass a subjective, personal approach to management, and describe a concept of personal approaches to the design of organizations. Hence the subjective style of this paper – much will be narrated in the First Person for the most part – and the synthesis of many approaches to arrive at an overarching personal approach to management and organization design, influenced by analysis of my own beliefs, and the knowledge and skills gained in the course, MBA 7503. The abundance of advice on management techniques, approaches to business and organizational leadership, “instruction manuals” (writer’s quotation marks) for achieving personal and business success implies that there are no immediate, quick-fix solutions to ensure that the individual becomes a successful, effective manager. New, radical, exciting approaches are published almost on a regular basis, and it is difficult for the individual not to accept the latest theory as the ultimate answer. I have been tempted to adopt a particular philosophy – something appealing like the Japanese Management Philosophy or some such – myself on occasion. The appeal of taking on a tried and tested approach, and subjecting an organization to the parameters of that theory is clear: if it has worked there, it could work for me and my organization, and replicate that success. The danger is that while the theory may seem appealing, the practical impossibility of transferring all the conditions under which the theory was developed to your organization remains. Each business will have its own unique set of challenges, its individual requirements for change, and its own human component. I suggest that a personal management philosophy should be developed by each manager, dependent on the contexts he/she is in and the experience and knowledge he/she has built up. This approach will prevent the uncritical adoption of a particular philosophy as the basis from which to work within an organization. The knowledge and work of others should not be abandoned, though. An effective manager, in my opinion, will learn as much as possible from the work and experience of others. This must then be subject to one’s own thinking: does this theory apply to my organization; am I able to implement these advised actions; in my experience, does this work? Hence, a personal management philosophy can be developed by an interaction between the theories available, personal experience, and the actual contexts of the organization one is working in. In all organizations, the influence of humans is paramount. It is people who are able to drive the organization toward becoming effective, profitable (in the case of a business) or successful, and adaptable. It is thus essential that knowledge regarding the human interaction within an organization be part of the manager’s approach. The more traditional aspects of the business – productivity, efficiency, marketability, and so on – are not to be neglected, but the structuring and management of interpersonal relationships, teamwork management, and personal management must be considered. One’s own development and efficacy must be part of this – the manager can only provide leadership when his/her own self-awareness is ongoing. A new manager in an organization must be able to identify, analyze, and modify a business, and in the physical dimension, this is possible more easily than in the metaphysical. Change has regularly to occur in organizations, and the manager needs to drive change. Thus again personal abilities, and understanding of human reactions, are required. The manager has to be able to lead people effectively to change organizations. It is my contention then that a humanist approach to management must form the basis of my personal philosophy. Human potential has to be used to best effect by every manager. While this does make the measurement of effectiveness slightly more complicated – at least not as easy as the measurement of profit and loss! – I believe that I will have to learn to tap into the abilities, and capabilities of the people in an organization in order to achieve success as a manager, and consequently a successful business. There is certainly a place for the more rationalist approaches to business. I do not argue that the understanding of financial principles and economic theories can be neglected. A manger has to be able to come to grips with such aspects of business, too. The synthesis of the two approaches is, however, most appealing to me. It is, however, only when the people are managed well that the business can be financially sound. But there are some risks inherent in taking only the humanist approach in one’s thinking. Definitely, the danger exists in making decisions that are less than rational due to humanist considerations. Nevertheless the psychological characteristics – the humanity of the manager – does in my mind have enormous value. If a manager is able to overcome obstacles, without giving up, or to fail and yet continue and later succeed, it is likely that he/she has the correct characteristics to be a manager. Honesty and accuracy in evaluating past success or failure is also a necessary character trait. This too must sometimes lean toward the irrational. It is not easy to be forthright when viewing one’s own mistakes. What the manager cannot do is indulge the irrational. Often, emotion does sway the decisions one makes and this is often not appropriate. Resistance to change is also a major risk – we do not always want to work hard enough to embrace necessary change, and we may want to keep things as they are, irrationally. This is, though, an instinctive reaction, and not easy to overcome, either as a manager or as a human being. Admitting that one was wrong is never easy – yet the manager must be able to do this without compunction. If one has to admit that an institutional practice, a traditional way of running the business is wrong, this can be almost impossible. Change has to occur though and the manager has to learn to adapt and implement new practice, and motivate others to follow. The benefits of the changes may not be immediately evident and visible: the manager will have to persevere for the right amount of time, before declaring that the strategy was good or bad. Also, if the changes you want, as the manager, are wrong, you must be ready to accept the criticism that will follow inevitably. Thus, emotional decisions can be made, provided that they are made with an awareness of their effect, and the appropriate recognition that some rationality can temper their implementation. It is my contention that the manager has to think for him-/herself, as long as the consequences are anticipated, and the realization is clear that should the plans go wrong, he/she will have to take full responsibility and accountability. To be an effective manager, I will of necessity be able to raise a business’s revenues, reduce the costs of the business, and improve the internal processes of a business, while ensuring that the business if perceived favorably by the public. The achievement of these objectives is absolutely connected to a personal analysis of the situation. My role within the situation must be clarified in my own mind before I am able to engage with the co-workers, and co-managers of the organization. An integral part of my management philosophy is the necessity for introspection. I argue strongly that it is vital for a manager to find the time to think about his/her own progress. I will need constantly to identify my own needs in managing: do I need more education; am I working with other in the most appropriate and effective way; am I using my own time most efficiently? Reflecting honestly on my own life, both personal and business, will encourage me to recognize weaknesses and strengths. A more objective approach to management will be possible. I will realize when I am being an ego-driven manager – something I do not want to become – by thinking of the interactions I have with staff, and the tolerance or intolerance I am showing. I also find that my confidence can grow if I honestly acknowledge to myself that I have done something well, rather than only revisiting mistakes constantly. When I do think about mistakes, sometimes new, more creative possibilities occur to me, ones that I could have used in the situation. This encourages me to think more creatively about possibilities when I am facing the next problem. It is also necessary for me to realize that sometimes I do not allow for balance in my life, when work dominates everything. I would suggest that any manager needs to create balance, where a good, satisfying work life is balance with an equally good satisfying personal life. Confidence and security in one’s personal life will enable one to work more effectively with the people one is managing. In management positions, it is easy to succumb to the authority and power you are given. It must be tempting to act as a disciplinarian, with much autocratic decision-making power, and the ability to inspire fear in subordinates. But this is not aligned to my personality-type, neither is it effective in leadership in business. Modern thinking on business and even institutional management is more progressive. I have no desire to become a military-style leader who commands obedience and respect from workers. Rather, I would strive to become a motivational leader, creating an environment where people enjoy what they are doing, and can be recognized for doing it well. Rather than finding the weaknesses of employees, I would prefer to manage the structure and allocation of work building on people’s strengths. Although I predict that it will be difficult for me, I want to be perceived by the people I am managing as sensitive to their needs and abilities; sometimes vulnerable to the same difficult experiences that they have; and as able to acknowledge my weaknesses and mistakes. This kind of openness will, I believe, lead to employees respecting and supporting me, because I respect and support them. This will also allow them to realize their co-responsibility in the success (or failure) of our ventures. A level of trust will also result, enabling me to motivate people to do well, even if they cannot see the immediate necessity or logic of decisions I make. This also will encourage employees to give of their best. All of these are components of development of employees, to which I will return later in this paper. This is not to say that I ascribe to the view that the rules of the company should be overlooked in approaching its people with respect, and trying to ensure a good working environment. It is still essential that the manager is “in charge” (writer’s quotation marks), and ultimately responsible and accountable for decisions and results. But a staff and a company able to be flexible, innovative and adaptable is more likely to succeed than one which is rigid, and exclusively rule-bound, I believe. Even when teams self-manage, and individuals have to manage their own productivity, though, the imperatives remain: increasing revenues, reduction of costs, improvement of processes, and maintaining positive public perceptions. And, again, I as a manager must remain aware of my own development, my people’s development, and the needs of the company. Importantly thinking and reflection must ensure that I learn from others, and from my own experience, so that my future work improves. And, perhaps even more importantly, thinking has to inspire action in me. This reflection must include my continued adherence to the company’s rules, goals, and overall purpose. Much thought, analysis, and conclusion-making is good but it has to inform my next actions. Additionally, over-thinking must be avoided. It is essential that I select and sift. Only when things are significant should time be spent on them. The thoughts of Vilfredo Pareto, analyzed and discussed by a myriad of business writers, suggest that a manager identify those twenty percent of activities that take eighty percent of the time. Then, find the twenty percent of activities in the business that account for eighty percent of the total cost of running the company. This is the so-called Pareto’s Law, and the advice is to find ways to enable a concentration on the significant things in the business, rather than spending time and resource on the insignificant. This good advice should, in my opinion, be an important part of any manager’s approach. Again, this does require adaptation and change in the manager him-/herself. A purpose and goals must be established in the individual’s mind, and a strategy will have to be in place to ensure that those goals are met, and the purpose achieved, and remain in line with the company’s direction. My intention is certainly to become a high-focus, high-energy manager, with clear purpose and effective actions. For this to happen, managing my own time is a prerequisite. Time has to be spent on thinking and activities which align with my purpose and goals. I need to know which activities are effective; which I could be delegating to others with the same effect as my own doing of them; and which activities do not need to be done at all. Establishing this clearly will enable me to use time far more productively to achieve my goals. To return to the establishment of purpose and goals, I propose that this process should be driven by an analysis of what is necessary. I would have to identify the task that is required. Thereafter, either as an individual or as a team, I would have to create ways to systematically establish the best ways of completing the task. Essentially, systems would also have to be created to check, and recheck that the process is working well. As a manager, I believe implicitly in some form of program for business improvement, on an ongoing basis. Perhaps the Total Quality Management program is closest to my ideal but there are other programs that have influenced my thinking in this area. Again, this time on a company-wide scope, the intention has to be to identify and focus on the essentials in the business. And explicit in many of these programs is the notion that the manager has to focus on improving the quality of his/her management. This ranges from the simplest of things, such as being on time, and accessible to workers and colleagues, to the most important of strategic decision-making. All the elements of a business should be constantly monitored, with the aim of continuously enabling improvement, and motivating for betterment. People at every level of the business should be involved in such a quality control system. The improvement that results from such a strategy must be measureable, and ongoing. The experience of customers, employees and investors must be enhanced through such systems. While such systems do not necessarily prioritize earnings per share, they do seem to motivate and empower people to be responsible and accountable, creating an excellent business environment for clients, employees and investors to enjoy. This definitely leads to “the money taking care of itself” (writer’s quotation marks). Very prominent in my thinking around management is the notion that a manager has to be aware of the individuals and the teams being managed. The people must be recognized as individuals with particular talents, strengths, and abilities. Recognition of good work, of valuable contributions and ideas, and the correct utilization of people must be the base of my management style. Giving people both the responsibility and the credit for quality management may be very effective in maintaining standards, and creating the environment where improvement is possible on a continuous basis. This recognition of the contribution of people to achieving goals and being true to purpose leads to another aspect of my management philosophy, alluded to earlier in this paper: the continuous development of employees. This belief holds for both employees and me of course. As a manager I would strive to become the best learner – the more I learn from others, the more the employees and my colleagues can learn from me. If I am able to be an example, I will be more effective as a manager and leader. People need also to be given the opportunity to learn from their own mistakes, and accept the recognition for their own successes. In each of these cases, the manager, I propose, should be able to share in the learning process. At all times, however, the manager has to strive for, and insist that everyone else strives for, excellence and the perfect outcome. The implication is that as a manager, I would have to empower employees to make decisions, and take the responsibility that goes with decision-making. And in order to facilitate this, I would have to encourage continuous learning – both by example and through making opportunities available to the employees. This learning, I believe, should not be exclusively work-related: thinking skills, self-improvement courses, general educational courses – all would contribute to a workforce that is able to think creatively, innovate, and problem-solve more effectively. The need to recognize and reward such continuous self-development is also clear. Certain aspects of the theories of leadership have also influenced the philosophy of management which I am in the process of formulating for myself. Perhaps the most essential quality that I believe is essential in a good leader, and hence manager, is being able to maintain the values of honesty in action, and truthfulness in communication. One specific aspect of leadership that interests me is the idea that a leader needs at times to be led. Given technological advances, and change to communications, as well as the need in many businesses for very specific expertise, I need to acknowledge that there will be occasions when people who are “subordinate” (writer’s quotation marks) have more knowledge, and more highly developed skills in a particular field than I have. In instances such as these, the leadership in certain situations will have to be taken by the expert. It is also vital that the individual skills in the group, whatever it may be at the time, are utilized and managed appropriately. As I have commented earlier in this paper, knowledge of people is essential for an effective management philosophy to be developed. Tied to this is also an awareness of self, and the confidence to let leadership be taken by others, without feeling threatened. The leadership of a group may sometimes have to be passed on, but the management of the group – directing it toward a goal, organizing the roles within the group, and ensuring that tasks are completed – will not be handed over necessarily. The manager will also remain responsible for the performance of the group and the successful or unsuccessful completion of the task. Thus leadership must be shared within the group, whereas management will tend to be imposed, albeit in the right manner, by the manager. Here it is my belief that the manager being involved with the employees’ tasks is essential. It is also true that the manager must contribute to the leadership of the group. This is possible when he/she learns from mistakes; remains motivated despite setbacks; and he/she continues to motivate those around him/her in all circumstances. In short, the manager has to be part of the team, rather than separate from it. To emphasize the belonging to the group, I would have to make sure that I remained accessible, not a distant observer. Communication – including my own, and feedback from the employees – would be vital. My practical contributions would also have to be visible to the members of the group. And this again ties in with my contention that managers have to be people of action. Thought, introspection and reflection are good, but they have to be translated into effective decisions and then actions to be carried out. The process that culminates in action must begin with me, as the manager, finding out and formulating the vision of the company, its objectives, and the needs that we would have to meet in order to realize our goals. An analysis of the environment and context we would be operating in is also required, and a theoretical course of action can be planned. This plan would, of course, need to be revisited frequently, and re-aligned, even changed to meet the ongoing reality. As the manager, my task then is to design the sub-tasks that will be required, to allocate the resources – both human and material – and manage the process toward the goals. This action is where the management philosophy of the individual comes into play. And an additional aspect of my management philosophy will be to re-evaluate and change processes at regular intervals, even if the strategies and tactics the company is using are working well. I believe that the revisiting of success does contribute to future success. This evaluation will allow the manager to recognize the successful strategies, but may also enable the formulation of even more effective strategies. Importantly, the employees of the company will also need to be motivated into adopting this mindset. It is not only failure or mistakes that need to be critiqued and dissected in order to improve (that, in my opinion goes without saying). Successful tasks, once completed can also give insight into the capabilities of people that may have emerged; or the modifications to good strategies that could potentially transform them into great strategies; or the potential to smooth out processes so that they yield the same, or even better results with minor adjustments to the actions taken. Again, this is even more likely to yield results should the failures of the business be so closely and realistically revisited. It is not always possible to know when one is being the best possible manager. What employees allow one to see in their reactions to one may not always be accurate. It is clear though that certain aspects of being a manager are essential to my understanding of being good. Competence is one the key factors. For me, being able to manage the day-to-day administration, time management, customer/employee/colleague interactions is very important. Each of these things, even though they seem small and almost obvious, is in my mind key to showing a confident and trustworthy face as a manager. I want to be able to recognize even the smallest of achievements of my employees. If I am able to encourage confidence, competence, and achievement in them, I believe that I will be able to contribute to the success of the overall business. If the employees are happy, empowered, and responsible in their work, I will look good as a manager, and the “bottom-line” will be affected positively. The relationship of mutual trust between us will make my job easier and more effectively performed. When dealing with employees, I need to be aware of my style of communication and interaction. While not wanting to be a complete authoritarian, I want employees to be able to hear me, and to trust my decisions. Sometimes, a manager will have to make the unpopular decision, and I would prefer it if the relationship between me and the employees allowed them to support me even if they do not always agree with me. They would need to accept instructions, even when they do not like them, and I would have to work hard to make this possible. Part of the trust relationship I would like to establish would rely on my being able to put their interests ahead of external distractions and influences. They would need to feel supported in their decisions and actions by me. Obviously, the parameters of acceptable behaviors would have to be accurately and clearly established by me – they would need to be very aware of what I could support them in, and when their actions “break the rules” (writer’s quotation marks). This trust would be further strengthened if I am able to admit mistakes and acknowledge wrong decisions. My consequent responses to both my own mistakes, and theirs, will be positive: an honest attempt to correct errors, and to learn from them as far as possible. As a manager, I believe that employees should be encouraged to innovate and to share their ideas openly and honestly. It is, however, likely that any manager will have to tread carefully, as most new ideas, be they good or bad, will not be implemented directly or immediately in the company. The handling of this process is, in my mind, essential. A manager would have to reject ideas, without discouraging the formulation or presentation of future ideas from the workforce. This will require real skill in communication and people management, and I hope to gain experience enough to deal with this aspect properly. Authority over other people, as I have mentioned before, may be seductive, and encourage me to treat others disrespectfully because I can. My aim is to avoid this trap, and instead cultivate my attitudes of tolerance and respect for others in my role as a manager. A personal management philosophy of necessity includes some understanding of one’s own views on organizational design. The traditional, purely hierarchical structures inherent in some businesses seem to me outmoded. So much business is conducted outside the actual structure of the organization: service providers like communication providers; IT specialists; financial consultants; advertising agencies all fall outside these traditional structures and the effects on the productivity of the business due to such providers is profound. Yet, the autocratic manager may want to be in direct control of such external aspects of the business, too. This is not possible. Business relationships, managed with external stakeholders such as clients, customers or service providers and suppliers seem to me to form the framework for internal structures. People can be fairly independent of management in specific and specialized jobs. As part of teams, set up with tasks in mind, the management toward, and achievement of goals lies in a prior motivational, creative culture which the manager should be able to construct in the workplace. In fact, many companies may become networks, rather than traditional companies, when they outsource more and more. Organizations already have to be flexible and adaptable – as the markets and the world economy have changed, companies have had to keep up to survive. People have become the chief asset of many companies. Innovative, creative and unconventional thinkers have to be searched for, employed and retained. The conventional manager-employee relationship, where the manager is hands-on and controls the employee’s progress at all times, is no longer possible in many situations. The role of the manager then, is to ensure the continued focus on delivery among many players sometimes not directly employed by the company, and therefore not subject to all its rules. Only delivery counts and the manager in my opinion is pivotal in making this delivery possible. But, the role of the manager is now as coordinator, motivator, and overseer. Thus, I would propose that a flatter, more egalitarian structure within companies is more likely to be effective. The manager does not need to have clear lines of authority above and below him/her: instead good relationships of mutual trust and supportive motivation are necessary. As I mentioned earlier in this paper, however, it is still essential that it is clear who is in charge – the responsibility for making things happen, and for delivery to occur, still resides with the manager. While this may represent harder work for the manager, it is likely that a system based on teamwork, cooperation and mutual respect will work effectively. The manager will have to maintain timelines, plan schedules and coordinate deadlines very efficiently, while dispensing the right level of support, and creating the appropriate expectations in the mind of all parties employed. Businesses, to remain contemporary, have to rely more on the people employed, and the intellectual capital available to the business. A particular expert may, in fact, be more necessary to the success of a project than a manager is, at least superficially. The advance of communication technology means that the location of everyone connected to a business in one building, or office park, is no longer required all the time. Again, the traditional hierarchies – offices on higher floors for more important executives, for example – need no longer apply. Levels of the organization can be reduced, given the necessity for experts in particular fields and, as mentioned, outsourced personnel. Partnerships with other companies, freelancers or consultants will certainly increase into the future. Managing these becomes a process of mutual agreement, rather than top-down management structures. Organizational structure in the end has to be fluid, and most importantly it has to work. Within the framework of my management philosophy, a flatter, more egalitarian structure is possible for organizations, but the clear knowledge of which manager is responsible and accountable for what part of the tasks of the company is essential. Since all the activity in a business should be directed toward specific outcomes, some organizational steps must be taken to guarantee that competent running of the business is possible. Whether this is reliant on the competency of purely business managers in a traditional hierarchy, where length of tenure or rank determines power, is debatable. Instead, I believe that this efficiency in business is likely to be due to the experts within the field, or the expert manager, and the cooperation among them and other employees. The expert manager will motivate, allow process to flow smoothly, and ensure the reliable commitment of people involved in tasks. He/she will create a climate of motivation, and personal responsibility, in which employees are both empowered and responsible. Management will be, to my mind, best represented by the service-based leader, who enables, rather than directs progress and successful work. I do believe that there is no one completely effective management philosophy applicable to all situations, and able to be implemented by any manager. Rather, a personal style of management is necessary for every individual, and able to be changed according to the context and environment in a particular company. The primary function of any manager remains, though, to create the optimum climate to enable the best possible delivery from a company’s employees. References The prescribed course text, personal lecture notes, and memory and experience. Read More