What Successful Management Looks Like- The 1st and last chapter

THE FIRST AND LAST CHAPTER

This book is a discussion and reflection of the state of the current American bureaucratic environment.  After describing problems unique to this environment, I offer some basic skills and techniques that allow managers to not only survive, but unleash the human potential they control.

I strongly believe the future will demand that an organization have the ability to deal with the unknown, and to handle a number of issues and challenges with which previous generations of managers were unfamiliar.  If these two thoughts were not enough, the world population growth and the ability to provide health care to a diseased population will alter everybody’s expense structure.  The growth of a total world economy with many companies becoming multi-cultural is a distinct possibility.  Finally, it is not only possible, but highly probable, that a major environmental issue will surface and radically change or reshape our world vision.

Despite the potential for negative effects on our social structures and corporations, however, it is just as likely there will be exciting and unique opportunities in our future.  It is this thought that makes me believe there are companies and organizations that will take advantage of these opportunities.  They will be the ones with work forces up to the challenge, willing and able to process the difficult issues needing to be embraced, understood, and decided upon in order to capture the moment.

A lot of my thoughts about management, business, cultures, and organizations were crystalized and tested when my organization was confronted with technology, and its effect on the attitudes, relationships, and performances of my employees.  You see, the mentality of American management in the late 80s and early 90s was to buy technology.  This was a way to increase productivity and reduce labor at the same time.  The advances in technology, coupled with a belief that we can down-size middle management and therefore create a perfect horizontal company, was the answer to America’s competitive problems.  A company would be left with a large area of responsibility, tightly controlled, with massive technology and information machines.

This management model allowed the technology to be leveraged against capital accounts, and to extend the expense over many years.  At the same time, expenses (people) could be reduced, and large depreciations created, leaving the company with profitability as well as enhanced cash flow positions.  The only piece missing from this equation is defining the ultimate role of the human being.  My experience with this equation is that the fewer human beings in the equation, the more integrated they must become for the model to work.  The more we rely on computers, the more computer operators need to work together, the more they have to be involved and integrated into the decision process.  This thought reinforces my belief in “the principle of the unintended consequences” which states that no matter what you set out to accomplish, the unintended will overpower the intended and demand to be answered.  In this case, American business set out to use technology to increase profits and eliminate people, specifically middle management.  I predict the unintended consequences of these decisions will be that the managers who are left will need to be re-trained to create a culture that fosters the human spirit and embraces the human being as the most important element to success.  The companies that learn this early will be the ones that take advantage of all of the opportunities to come their way.  The companies that don’t embrace the human element will struggle and eventually succumb to internal passive resistance.

The human being is the most adaptable and unique piece of the business equation.  I truly believe the late 90s and beyond will see the re-birth of the great human element in business.  Since the beginning of the mass production period, management has been trying to minimize the effect and contribution of the human being.  It is interesting to me that with higher and higher levels of technology, the human factor will become more and more important.  The human spirit, the very thing business would like to minimize or eliminate is the very thing that will determine its success.

What Successful Management Looks Like

It seems that for the last few decades the focus has been to limit the human factor, that workers are thought to cause too many problems, that it would be better if all business functions were handled by robots and computers.  This is simply not true.  The human factor is the difference and we must, as a management group, acknowledge this fact and take on the challenge of developing the management mentality and skills required to set the human factor free.  The only way organizations will be able to survive the future shock of a rapidly changing environment is to let the human factor process and create the solutions.  This task will require a major reculturation of the political bureaucratic organization.  As organizations change and prosper because of this re-cultivation, other companies will embrace these attitudes and values — or fail.  The future is now.

I will now attempt to define the culture and practical relationships of an organization that understands how the continuum of “types of management” is used.  This creates an environment with a high degree of standards and procedures, that is also able to handle unpredictable crises and a constant flow of issues needing resolution in order for the business to survive during a time of rapid change.

The basic type of management of any organization is a high level of standards and procedures that govern the consistency with which the organization treats its reason for being.  If it’s a sales organization or a production organization it is critical that these be understood and carried out within very tight guidelines of performance.  If the organization does not have a written base, if these standards and procedures are only communicated orally, the organization is, or will be, in serious trouble.  Like the McDonald’s corporation, the ability to make money on a continuous basis relates directly to the level of order and consistency the organization can deliver.  If a company is small, unwritten standards can be communicated and levels of success can be achieved, but the organization will reach the wall and start failing as soon as it outgrows the level it can manage in an informal manner.  The entire organizational structure and the job descriptions are totally dependent upon strong standards and procedures.  The key to this type of management is two-fold:  1) training and communication to ensure all workers share the same understanding; and 2) each employee taking ownership for the standards and procedures.

The process that best cultures this type of management requires that the bureaucrat be trained in communication skills and constantly review and refer to the appropriate procedures and standards.  There is usually a sort of audit to ensure on an ongoing basis that actual performance is matching the established standards.  Companies that effectively have this environment are described as being “strong operational companies.”  Many times you will hear people talking about the bureaucrats as quality operators.  These companies understand procedures.  The standards are high and for one reason or another the workers understand and execute consistency.  This is the basic level of operation that allows the making of money.  If the organization doesn’t make money then it means that either the standards and procedures are not good enough or the workers don’t understand, or are not executing to the standards.  In the best case the organization respects the company’s standards, understands its procedures, and makes money as a result.  The employees feel ownership and audits are viewed as checkpoints, not as witch hunts.

The second type of management needed is crisis management.  In a well-managed company there are very few crises because problems are identified before they reach that point, but on occasion some outside or internal force creates a crisis.  A crisis can happen in an individual area or to the company as a whole.  No matter what the crisis, well-managed companies handle the process in the same way.  Once the crisis is identified the steps are the same.  The senior manager identifies a crisis without first looking for blame.  The primary belief is that the crisis needs to be solved and who did what can be discussed much later.  The most important concept is to manage the crisis to a positive conclusion.  All involved parties are gathered to discuss the crisis and the potential outcomes and effects it might have upon the organization or team.  The group identifies its best plan and sets about its execution, making it a very high priority.  Other parts of the business may suffer; other tasks may not be accomplished.  Generally, one person is more affected than the others, so there is a great deal of satisfaction knowing that the team members are supporting each other in the time of crisis.  Upon completion or gaining control of the situation, there is respectful discussion of how the crisis started, and what needs to happen in the future to ensure it doesn’t occur again.  In some cases, standards and procedures are rewritten to help ensure that what is learned is incorporated into the business environment.  In the best case, all levels of the organization learn something and the company feels a sense of accomplishment and community for surviving together.  The feeling that the sum of the parts is greater than the individuals is reinforced.

The third type of management is the heartbeat of a strong and thriving bureaucratic organization.  The true test of an effective and respectful bureaucracy is that any person in the organization can raise an issue without fear, and that the culture of the organization can embrace the issue, discuss it, and feel that it will be resolved without people having to defend their territories or justify their existence.  When a need for change is required with a strong “issue management” culture in place, the organization knows how to respond, and lives in the secure faith that things are constantly going to get better.  The keys to this issue management culture are a strong, mature, and trained management, a clear and well-understood corporate mission, and a secure work force with a high self-esteem.  With these ingredients in place, issues created by the need to change and get better are handled efficiently and effectively, with the organization able to embrace the change with enough speed to capture an ever-increasing level of momentum.  The critical formula is that any individual can and should identify key issues; anybody affected by the issue has the right to be informed and participate in the discussion, with the most senior manager ultimately making a decision.  In addition, group problem-solving must be tempered with a global perspective in order to ensure the issue is resolved with the big picture in mind.  It is very important that the workers feel they have a voice in the discussion, but they do not always need to win.

Any organization with a management team that understands how to establish an effective, positive standards and procedures environment that can handle crisis without first fixing blame, while encouraging a constant process of finding ways to improve the business, will be better able to handle any change in the business environment of the future.

With this environment firmly in place, an organization will constantly focus on improving their performance.  I like to tell the following story when explaining how to know if your organization has arrived at this point:

Some time ago I opened a restaurant called Treats, which lasted for four years and was also under constant change.  Treats had a full menu, gourmet ice cream, fresh bakery goods, and lots of coffee, especially espresso.  For the first two years, our employee conversations about success were devoted to things like making sure the proper bakery sign was with the right baked goods (cookie sign with cookies, for instance).  By the hand sink next to the espresso machine we had a white hand towel which became very dirty after a few coffee spills.  Success was keeping a clean towel in front of the customers.  Near the end of the second year I noticed that our picture of success had changed to a discussion of how to make a beautiful latte.  You see, we used glass latte cups, and if you steam the milk first and then pour the espresso into the hot steamed milk, there is a marvelous layering of color — dark brown at the top to light brown in the middle to white at the bottom.  With a light sprinkling of chocolate flakes on the top, we had the prettiest latte in town.  Now the significance of this story is two-fold.  First, a latte of $1.40 that looked like what I have just described cost us no more than one priced for 89› that is just mixed together, and the customer liked to pay $1.40 for the pretty one.  But the second thought is that the story became my people knowing when we were getting close to success.  When our discussion became focused on the little things, the enhancements, the fine tuning, we knew we were getting close.