Are you a Manager or a Messenger?
Do you make the decisions or do you convey the decisions of others?
Do you apply the generally accepted principles of management to your work on a daily basis or do you do as your told?
Do you apply the company's policies to individual situations or do you convert them into rules, procedures and orders?
Do you willingly accept responsibility and accountability for your decisions; or do you allow it to flow to a team built consensus?
Do you have authority over assigned assets of the company or do you supervise the applied skills of the workers?
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Breathing Problems
To have a disciplined mind, means to do things without thinking. For example, a discipline of the human body is to breath.
An innovative mind on the other hand, cannot function without thinking. For example, an innovation of the human body is to work.
I would suggest, that to try to innovate without discipline is like trying to work without breathing.
An innovative mind on the other hand, cannot function without thinking. For example, an innovation of the human body is to work.
I would suggest, that to try to innovate without discipline is like trying to work without breathing.
About a Liberal Education
I once had a student protest in my class that he was not paying for a liberal education. I asked him if he agreed with a statement by Harry E. Fosdick, “No life ever grows great until it is focused, dedicated and disciplined.” He said he agreed.
I then told him that according to Albert Einstein, “No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.” The student asked, “What does that have to do with anything?”
It took some time to explain that only through education do we find “liberation” from ignorance, arrogance, intolerance and irreverence. Only then, can we rediscover the power of the mind, transform to a new conscience and solve the problem.
I then told him that according to Albert Einstein, “No problem can be solved from the same consciousness that created it.” The student asked, “What does that have to do with anything?”
It took some time to explain that only through education do we find “liberation” from ignorance, arrogance, intolerance and irreverence. Only then, can we rediscover the power of the mind, transform to a new conscience and solve the problem.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Top Down verses Bottoms Up
A great internal debate has raged for many years within the management ranks of US corporations. Should strategy be top down or bottoms up? Both sides agree strategy is about organizational change. The battle seems to be over who controls the change.
The top down view is that while Strategy is about change, organizational change and Strategy are not the same things. Organizational change is a result of strategy, not a driver of strategy.
To simplify, the highest levels of management, a group I will label as executive management determines strategy and passes it down through the organizations management layers. Middle management is responsible tactical efforts, preparation and readiness. First level managers are responsible for execution and operations.
The Top down crowd sees strategy as finding a direction and setting a course. It is about matching the ways, means and ends. Strategy is not about preparation to execute or the act of execution. Strategy must be a top down effort.
The Top down crowd even has laws that guide the philosophy. Chandler’s Law, which has been the rule for well over a half a century -- structure always follows strategy, and systems always follow structure. And Ghoshal’s Law, which has been a supporting rule for the last decade -- process always follows purpose and people always follow process. With the most current Top-down philosophy interweaving these two laws together – Purpose to Strategy to Process to Structure to People to Systems.
The bottom line is that the intent is organizational structure and systems will change, in order to implement the strategy. Bottoms Up strategy tends to be more about culture driving strategy, which means that structure and systems driving direction.
The top down view is that while Strategy is about change, organizational change and Strategy are not the same things. Organizational change is a result of strategy, not a driver of strategy.
To simplify, the highest levels of management, a group I will label as executive management determines strategy and passes it down through the organizations management layers. Middle management is responsible tactical efforts, preparation and readiness. First level managers are responsible for execution and operations.
The Top down crowd sees strategy as finding a direction and setting a course. It is about matching the ways, means and ends. Strategy is not about preparation to execute or the act of execution. Strategy must be a top down effort.
The Top down crowd even has laws that guide the philosophy. Chandler’s Law, which has been the rule for well over a half a century -- structure always follows strategy, and systems always follow structure. And Ghoshal’s Law, which has been a supporting rule for the last decade -- process always follows purpose and people always follow process. With the most current Top-down philosophy interweaving these two laws together – Purpose to Strategy to Process to Structure to People to Systems.
The bottom line is that the intent is organizational structure and systems will change, in order to implement the strategy. Bottoms Up strategy tends to be more about culture driving strategy, which means that structure and systems driving direction.
Management is a Practice, not a Culture
I have worked with various Boeing organizations over the last twenty-seven years. Not to long ago, I was working with an IT team. During that assignment, we had the good fortune to attend an internal conference on project management.
It should be noted, that there are four very different cultures between aircraft, space, military and computing. However, the views on project management practices were not very different between the cultures of old technology guard. Project and program managers on the manufacturing side agreed on basic principles. The odd team was the new technology guard of the computing folks.
Looking into the differences became a fun research project that yielded some interesting conclusions. In fact, the differences were not unique to Boeing. It turns out; there is a very curious difference between the “old” technology industries born between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II such as the airplane industry, automobile industry, the electric industry, telephone, radio, television, etc.; and those “new” technology industries born after World War II, such as computing, software, etc.
The first group matured with the American version of “modern” management, which was born after slavery was outlawed in 1863. In this group, project managers are what I will call “real” managers. This means they are they same as any other manager, they are decision-making agents of the corporation. They are accountable for their authority, which is appropriate for their responsibility. In fact, employees who move out of an area of craft expertise and into a management role must undergo extensive programs of education and training to master the skills of management before accepting the role.
The second group was born after the end of World War II, essentially during a time when there was no competition on a global scale. With out the need to be disciplined, the effort of training managers in the principles and practices of management had totally lost its meaning. The role of the manager was transformed from a hierarchy of asset controlling decision makers to a hierarchy of skill controlling supervisors.
As a result, project managers in IT areas, unlike their counterparts from more mature industries, rarely have control of the team, budget or schedule. The result of course is some amazing statistics in terms of project failure rates.
It should be noted, that there are four very different cultures between aircraft, space, military and computing. However, the views on project management practices were not very different between the cultures of old technology guard. Project and program managers on the manufacturing side agreed on basic principles. The odd team was the new technology guard of the computing folks.
Looking into the differences became a fun research project that yielded some interesting conclusions. In fact, the differences were not unique to Boeing. It turns out; there is a very curious difference between the “old” technology industries born between the end of the Civil War and the start of World War II such as the airplane industry, automobile industry, the electric industry, telephone, radio, television, etc.; and those “new” technology industries born after World War II, such as computing, software, etc.
The first group matured with the American version of “modern” management, which was born after slavery was outlawed in 1863. In this group, project managers are what I will call “real” managers. This means they are they same as any other manager, they are decision-making agents of the corporation. They are accountable for their authority, which is appropriate for their responsibility. In fact, employees who move out of an area of craft expertise and into a management role must undergo extensive programs of education and training to master the skills of management before accepting the role.
The second group was born after the end of World War II, essentially during a time when there was no competition on a global scale. With out the need to be disciplined, the effort of training managers in the principles and practices of management had totally lost its meaning. The role of the manager was transformed from a hierarchy of asset controlling decision makers to a hierarchy of skill controlling supervisors.
As a result, project managers in IT areas, unlike their counterparts from more mature industries, rarely have control of the team, budget or schedule. The result of course is some amazing statistics in terms of project failure rates.
Inspired
With the election of Mr. Obama, I have been newly inspired to take up the pen and write again. I beleive the next three years will be a very tough economic time for all of us. We will need to find new courage to shed our cultural and political differences and work together. I hope to be a very active author in the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)