Reflections on Management

In a sidecast for the main Talking About Organizations Podcast, I presented several different meanings of ‘efficiency’ and how the pursuit of each creates different behaviors in organizations – including how organizations measure their own performance, and how an organization’s preferred model of efficiency may lead to inefficient behaviors of a different form. But this theoretical argument probably didn't scratch everyone's itch -- it is one thing to complain about ideas of efficiency, what does one do about it? How can one pursue efficiency of organizational performance into practice?

In this episode, I concentrate on a specific conundrum facing public sector organizations -- in which decisions made to achieve efficiencies in operations often pursue improvements in technical efficiency (the government equivalent of productive efficiency based on per-transaction costs of delivering government services) when the real efficiencies are likely found in improving allocative efficiency, despite the problems this may cause as discussed in the sidecast. What is the conundrum, and how can decision makers get beyond the easy path of measuring only what is measurable and make the hard calls on the nature and levels of service provided?

Taking on leadership positions often involves the acceptance of personal risk. There is no finer example of this than the opening vignette to this episode where I found myself reading through an exhibit depicting a line of national leaders over a twenty-year period who were murdered decades later when the nation was conquered by another. The naval tradition of "the Captain always goes down the ship" is another example.

Contrast this with other situations in which the leader is essentially protected from harm, either because of organizational culture or presiding checks and balances that constrain leaders' actions. Not all circumstances demand that the leaders take personal sacrifices but leadership and personal responsibility do not always seem to be aligned. To what extent does this create problems between leaders and the led?

A prominent scholar and practitioner in strategic communication said to a conference of military communication specialists, "The enemy is fast, flexible, and more attuned to the cultures where they operate. We talk Narrative, but Narrative is where they beat us." While the 'we' and 'they' in this context were adversaries in the war of ideas regarding violent extremism, they could have been any organizations in a competitive situation. Some organizations are simply better at telling their stories and aligning words and actions better than others.My view, drawn from experience, is that organizations lose when their attempts at 'narrative' are narrowly focused on what stakeholders want, and then force fed to organizational members whose behaviors remain unchanged (and who might reject the message). That's not how one properly uses 'narrative.' So what is proper? I sift through varying definitions of narrative in this episode and offer my own construct -- that there are two types that serve vastly different purposes.

I believe sometimes we are too quick to jump on bandwagons and assume that something changing in society is going to move forward unabated, when in my experience societal change often spurs countering movements (that is, once retrenchment of the status quo ceases to have meaning). A recent example (about eight years old at the time of this recording) was the Arab Spring, which demonstrated the potential power of social media to bring people together, have their voices heard, and make change happen... very quickly.

Fast forward to today, and social media is now viewed with a lot more skepticism due to tensions with governments, concerns over information assurance and individual privacy, and a splintering of the movement -- platforms coming and going and extraordinary efforts needed by individuals to keep up with all the latest apps (and avoid the latest pitfalls).

In 2011, articles were being written that compared the Arab Spring to the Protestant Reformation, when Martin Luther's 95 Theses were spread worldwide in a short time and brought about a challenge to the dominance of the Catholic Church. In this episode, I take that story a century and a half further and suggest that the rest of the story of the Reformation has lessons for today.

Oh, the ‘Vision’ thing! Consultants and leaders talk a lot about the value and importance of vision to foster change. According to popular change management literature, good vision statements must be simple, inspiring, awesome. And yet there are really bad vision statements out there that are fodder for YouTube videos and Dilbert comic strips. So we know what wrong looks like, but have you ever actually tried to write a good one? Where do you actually start?

Surprisingly, perhaps, I've seen some good ones that were effective and a few that qualified as great -- spurring on the desired transformational changes. But what made them successful had a lot to do with how one defines a vision. As you will see in this episode, I advocate for what I call visions of action that describe how the future organization behaves rather than what it merely looks like. I also introduce some approaches I use with students to help them write vision statements.

The myth of the heroic leader – the original leader archetype, reinforced by modern bureaucracy! Although some leadership scholars view the archetype with skepticism, there are instances where the presence of someone in a leadership position is equated with effective leadership ("presence," for example, is an explicit quality expected of military leaders). Call it charismatic leadership a la Conger and Kanungo or fulfilling the role of 'figurehead' a la Mintzberg, scholars have been pursuing constructs that capture the essence of a leader who 'looks' or 'acts' like a heroic leader.

And then there is the leader as 'celebrity,' as one whose public presence goes beyond what is typically associated with serving in a leadership position. Steve Jobs may be the best contemporary example as he exemplified more than Apple but he evoked a spirit of innovation. I served for leaders who were similarly thrust into the spotlight (generally unwillingly) and whose name became somewhat of a brand. In this episode, I explore the question as to whether this is good or bad (or even if such measures apply), and when.

To close my first season of this podcast, I wanted to focus on something beyond the boundaries of organization. The Christmas season--traditional celebrated through December and into early January--marks the end of the calendar year and provides opportunities for get-togethers and celebrations of all sorts. For years, the U.S. has seen a lot of commercialization creep into the period, which has generated a lot of controversy. As one who has spent a lot of time traveling around the world, I've had the opportunity to witness and partake in a number of Christmas-related activities elsewhere. In this episode, I relay particular experiences in Germany and Indonesia, where the season is celebrated a bit differently than in the U.S., and perhaps retains at least a little of the holiday spirit that sometimes feels lost in the long lines at the malls. I also include some emergent traditions in military organizations that I have served in that capture the same spirit.

Sometimes reflection can help bring about new insights on an old problem -- and cause one to rethink one's own view. In this episode, I revisit my own sidecast with the Talking About Organizations Podcast from earlier in this year. Titled Milton Hershey and an Organization's Commitment to its Members, the sidecast presented the story of Milton Hershey, who is rightfully lionized in the region where I live -- south central Pennsylvania in the U.S. -- as a good man who founded both a company and the town around it. In doing so, he made special effort to provide for the needs of the people. I showed how he served as a perfect contrast to the seemingly uncaring or hands-off forms of management that one sees nowadays, such as in algorithmic management.

Well, I gave my views some additional thought. Not that my views of Milton Hershey had changed (they have not), but that the idea that organizations have some sort of innate responsibility to provide for its members was too simplistic. There was more to the story -- and that individuals, organizations, and societies had to be considered in the conversation. But in what way?

One of my dissertation subjects told a story about graduating from the War College and going to the new assignment, and on the first day was effectively told that what was learned would not be useful. The exigencies of the moment would consume all available time. The overprogramming of time has been a recurring theme -- whether in the field or in educational settings. A seemingly irresistible trend is to add new requirements to an already busy organization without full consideration of the workload already present. Although organizational members certainly appreciate being told they no longer have to do something, removing a requirement is incredibly difficult. Why is this and what can we do about it?

One clear answer is instituting reflection in one's professional life. Reflective thinking, reflective writing, reflective organizing are all possible if one can make them habits. Starting with the diaries of Eisenhower, I show how important reflection is and introduce several ideas and methods proposed by organizational scholars and practitioners. (This podcast series is about reflection as well...).

I read an interesting article some years back in which a consultant described the experience of his client's passing, and how he had to cope with the situation--both within himself and regarding his relationship with the organization. It was eye-opening and reminded me of a case where a member of the senior leadership team in an organization I served fell victim to Lou Gehrig's disease. Despite the toll it took on the body, the leader insisted that the organization carried on. And it did.

Now that I am older, this episode carries much more meaning. Searching for a term to describe how the members of the organization responded, I came to use the term grace. Grace is typically associated with religion, but is also defined non-religiously as “the condition or fact of being favored.” But grace is normally thought of as an characteristic of the individual. In this episode, I tell my story and explore the idea of grace at the organizational level.