Why management fads don’t deliver
Last few decades of management fads and fashions have been notable fo the number of panaceas and theories that first become ‘indispensable’ then fall out of favor. I mean fads like Management by Objectives, TQM, Six Sigma, Zero-based Budgeting, Matrix Management and the like.
There’s little or no hard evidence that they add anything to company performance (Check out this article by Freek Vermeulen, an Associate Professor of Strategic & International Management at the London Business School, referencing a study by Barry Staw and Lisa Epstein of University of California, Berkeley.) It’s not really surprising that they found the major benefit of jumping on the latest management bandwagon was in improving the markets’ short-term perceptions of the company (plus the compensation package of CEO). None of these techniques seemed to have produced any positive benefit for corporate results, despite containing what sometimes looked like little more than basic common sense.
What goes wrong?
One possibility is that most of these techniques are swallowed whole and applied mechanistically—not fitted to the individual circumstances of the user. Another is that name and broad outline of a techniques is used, but managers then cherry pick the bits they like (or which fit with present preconceptions of the culture) and ignore the rest. It also seems likely that all such fashionable techniques are marketed as universal panaceas by consultants hoping to make big profits, but that, in truth, only work in a few, quite specific circumstances.
It’s certain too that many demand specific skills not usually available. They’re like getting a recipe from a gourmet chef that tastes wonderful in the restaurant, but demands skills, ingredients and cooking apparatus simply not available when you try it at home. Cooked from the recipe in a home kitchen and it’ll turn out like your normal cooking, not what you tasted in the restaurant.
Today’s endless lusting for the quick-fix
What all fashionable management fads and techniques seem to have in common is that they promise a quick fix based on a simple recipe.
Taking on a fad is typically a substitute for thought. Instead of spending the time to work out the true nature of the problems you face, you pick a solution and apply it, hoping it will work. The evidence is that typically it doesn’t.
I suspect the only reason that most don’t do active harm because they are rarely given much more than tepid, surface support. Most employees have been through the cycle before—sometimes quite often. No one expects the enthusiasm for the technique to last once the consultants have left—and it doesn’t. As a result, employees pay lip-service to whatever is the fad du jour while keeping the bulk of their actions unchanged.
What’s the alternative?
Let’s be clear. You won’t solve any problems without thinking deeply about them, taking into account their context and history as well as the current manifestation and coming up with a solution that fits the specific circumstances and available resources.
Theories and grand panaceas are always general; actual problems are always specific. It’s a fundamental mistake to try to fit your needs into some grand and general scheme, when you really need to consider is what’s unique about them—not what’s similar to something being used by everyone else.
Many leaders also make the mistake of thinking that categorizing something solves it. Managers are very prone to wanting to fit everything into their existing patterns of thought. In reality, it’s more likely that something is important precisely because it doesn’t fit. It’s warning you that the present categories and the thoughts based on them aren’t sufficient any more.
Of course, there’s nearly always something useful within each of these high profile management techniques. The best use to make of them is mostly as a ‘quarry’ for ideas that you can adapt to your own specific needs.
Reality is much more complex than any management fad. Don’t treat every problem as a nail, simply because you’ve been swept up in the enthusiasm for a new type of hammer.
Technorati Tags: management fads, management fashions, panaceas, management techniques, management consultants, simplistic answers
October 9th, 2008 at 9:51 am
All generalisations are sweeping in nature and that holds for standardardisation. There is nothing wrong with the new techniques and models as they throw new light into human knowledge. But you don’t take chemotherapy for any desease because it works in cancer cases. Each organisation is unique and the people in charge must understand this. This brings creativity into play to face whatever hurdles they are facing or whatever improvements they are seeking to implement. They must identify the strength and weaknesses of there organisation while seeking to take advantage of the opportunities or challenging the threats.The medicine can not be blamed for mistakes in diagnosis. It is the doctor and to some extent the patient for choosing the doctor.Unfortunately the doctor is rarely made to pay for it.
October 9th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
@sambit: Trouble is, some at least of our existing management models are simply wrong; others are self-serving and superficial. Getting off the bandwagon is our only chance to sort out the good from the bad. Keep reading, my friend.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:31 am
Could it be that effecting change actually requires more thought, effort, and time than we ever suspected? Perhaps impacting individuals in a personal way within organizations - is what will transform our organizations - from the inside out? I suspect this may be true. We’ve forgotten that employees have souls that they bring to work with them, that they want to make a difference but need to feel a sense of connection to something bigger. We’ve been lazy all these years in trying to fix it quick, get in and get out, do it on the cheap.
The good news is that some really special organizatons and communities are waking up, understanding, and are willing to roll up their sleeves and do the tough and complex work of engaging employees.
October 10th, 2008 at 7:15 am
@Mary Jo Asmus: Yes indeed, Mary Jo. Change and success do take more thought, effort and time than people imagine. What we have seen in management over the past few decades has more or less exactly paralleled what has been going on in the financial markets—an unthinking belief in the quick-fix, on-the-cheap, lazy approach. Look where that has got us. We have to change our management models quickly, or face still more misery and frustration. Keep reading, my friend.
October 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Excellent post, Carmine. On the adoption of ideas/fads, you’re absolutely correct that it’s both a substitute for thought and a search for magic. There’s also the fact that managers pick and choose what parts of an idea to use.
When Frederick Taylor did his shovel study at Midvale Steel, he made recommendations about the positioning of the coal pile, the design of the shovel, the number of shovelsful per time unit, etc. He also recommended breaks for the shovellers and shorter work days. When companies adopted his recommendations, they usually left out the breaks and shorter work days.
W. Edwards Deming’s Fourteen Points are lauded by many managers. But few are willing to adopt them all. There’s always a reason why “it won’t work here.”
October 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
@Wally Bock: Thanks, Wally. I agree with you. Managers tend to cherry pick the bits they like from some piece of research, then claim the credibility that went with the original work for their cut-down, cheapened version of it. I’m glad you made the point so clearly. Keep reading, my friend.
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:18 pm
I especially liked this paragraph:
“Many leaders also make the mistake of thinking that categorizing something solves it. Managers are very prone to wanting to fit everything into their existing patterns of thought. In reality, it’s more likely that something is important precisely because it doesn’t fit. It’s warning you that the present categories and the thoughts based on them aren’t sufficient any more.”
It is amazing to me how organizations in my field, the automotive industry, will publicly advocate an objective, data-driven, “Six-Sigma” approach to solving problems, but the implementors (managers) inevitably fall back to categorizing a new problem as one they already know. They’ll even expend great amounts of energy trying to force-fit the problem into a known category, citing their experience as a “reason”. (?) Huh? In the process they miss out on what makes that problem unique, just as you stated, preventing them from reaching a complete solution.
They never truly empty their cup of previous encounters with similar problems to look at it through a child’s eye. When prodded, that manager will claim that this approach is done only in an effort to simplify the issue and deal with it quickly, or more “efficiently”. They want and reward ACTION, regardless of content. What they fail to grasp is that long before there was a box to think outside of, there was imagination.
Many solutions are derived by taking a deep dive into our imagination, long before fully understanding and applying our knowledge of the natural physical and organizational restraints we’ve become conditioned to. I say forget the box–take the time to study the problem deeply as it is and USE YOUR IMAGINATION. Then apply the known restraints around a proposed solution, questioning their validity as you do. Maybe you’ll streamline the process and eliminate wasteful beauracracy in the process.
Unfortunately, so many managers do the same with people. They don’t take the time to understand them. They would rather cite their “very good judgement of character”, “intuition”, and “decisiveness” to categorize their employees and thereby consider the problem of matching that employee to the right work function “solved”. Make no mistake–many managers cite these “attributes” as justification for promotion through the management ladder. Taking time to think about what makes that employee unique, what makes him/her tick, and how to maintain a motivating work environment, well that is just too hard. “Besides, I’ve got 130 emails in my Inbox to answer.” This is where their priorities lie, because it is easier to deal with emails and apply a quick-fix du-jour than to relate with actual people.
In my career, I’ve come to the conclusion that all you can do to genuinely solve problems as a subordinate leader is:
1)Diplomatically demonstrate the type of behavior your seek from your manager-i.e. spending time getting to know him/her, understanding her whole character, genuinely appreciating her strengths, and showing objectivity toward her and others.
2) Patiently demonstrate to your managers and peers the advantages of a slower, deeper approach to problem solving. This will allow you to measure twice and cut once, so to speak, by implementing a concrete solution rather than fixing it over and over. They will see value in this, therefore causing them to value you.
3) Be patient with yourself. Don’t allow others to rush you into action for the sake of action. But don’t dawdle either–present your ideas as soon as possible in an open, face-to-face forum.
3)If possible, carefully pull away from these managers if you feel them de-energizing you and seek out more progressive, trusting, and patient leaders that value the time it takes to, as Douglas Ross put it, “do the right thing, and the next right thing, and doing things right”, with integrity. (http://www.slowleadership.org/blog/2008/10/whats-the-problem-with-problems/) You may even find yourself using some of the trendy techiques, or at least in a more practical manner.
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:22 pm
@Free Thinker: Thanks for a great comment and so much useful extra topics for thought. I’m really glad you took the time to do this and share your experience with the rest of us. Keep reading, my friend.