>> MIM Speaks
HORNING SKILLS IN HANDLING DILEMMAS
OCT 20, 1996 -
NEW STRAITS TIMES
DEALING with choices can be a dilemma, especially if both
alternatives are equally appealing. Many of us in fact started
to learn to deal with dilemmas from a young age.
And as adults, we still sometimes agonise over choices. It is
either the down-payment for a house or a car. But we often
don't have the luxury of having both.
A very real dilemma faced by highly-visible executives is the
choice of a fast-paced lifestyle, with functions almost every
night, or a more relaxed style, with entertainment at a
minimum.
Very often, a decision is made only after their health starts
to become an issue.
We will look at seven of these dilemmas faced by top managers.
* High Visibility vs. Broad based Leadership
MOST of the senior managers felt the need to be highly
visible, that they have to be out there leading the troops and
shouting commands.
Paradoxically, these same top management people appreciate the
importance of making leaders out of the managers or
supervisors who man the other tiers of the corporate ladder.
Making leaders out of lower-rung managers would mean the need
to let go (to a certain extent) of ones hold on power or
authority. But some top managers have a real problem sharing
that power with others.
On the other hand, they are very conscious of the fact that
successful organisations today have to empower their manager
in the middle-levels and their supervisors so that they can
function with increased zeal and commitment towards achieving
organisational goals.
Autocratic organisations not only produce managers who are
afraid to make decisions (for fear of being shouted at by
their bosses) they also stifle their employees competitive
drive and creativity.
* Independence vs. Interdependence
ALMOST all organisations today are structured along functional
lines such as Marketing/Sales Division, Finance and
Administration, Production Division, Logistics and Warehousing
and so on.
Each division is headed by a manager. The tendency is each
Divisional Manager takes care of his people and turf without
much sympathy for the other divisions.
Some corporate CEOs or General Managers find it more
convenient to practise the policy of `divide and rule' so that
their subordinates would not gang up against them.
Some divisional heads, especially those who are more clever or
ego-driven, enjoy `one-upmanship'. There is also a third
reason, and that is performance evaluation and renumerations
are closely linked to each division's bottom-line or
effectiveness. This discouraged co-operation.
Inter-departmental rivalry therefore is commonplace throughout
the world. Only extraordinary corporate leaders have found the
way to achieve a fine balance of harmonising employees'
loyalty to divisions and divisional co-operation.
Corporate common-goals are easily verbalised or they look very
impressive and noble in company's mission statements and so
on.
But in reality, getting divisions to operate at their best,
and getting them to pull their divisional strengths together
in one direction, towards a common goal, is a wish all CEOs
desire but have difficulty achieving.
But one thing is certain: organisations whose employees feel
that they are all in the same ship and are committed to
achieving their company's goal are more successful.
* Long Term vs. Short-term
KENICHI Ohmae, a prolific management writer once told the
story of two Japanese sewing machine manufacturers, Brothers
Corporation and Recar.
Brother Corporation looked at its main business, sewing
machines and realised that fewer and fewer Japanese women
actually sew. They buy ready-made blouses.
This long-term view made Brother Corporation diversify into
office automation. It quickly became one of the world's
largest makers of electronic typewriters.
On the other hand, Recar failed to take a long-term view. It
planned only around its sewing machines, concentrated on
perfecting its products without adapting to changes in the
market even though there were indications that demands for
sewing machines were softening.
In early 1985, Recar Sewing Machines went out of business.
* Creativity vs. Discipline
BUREAUCRATIC organisations are effective because capable
managers ensure company policies are adhered to. Those who
step out of line are swiftly reprimanded.
Without discipline, managers cannot run an organisation
effectively. But when an organisation is run this way, it
accumulates more and more "red tapes" over time, and they
stifle creativity and impede change.
If you are a creative young man in such an orzanisation,
whatever you try to do to put you creative idea to worK, you
will meet all sorts of restrictive `company rules'.
In due course, either your creative urge is turned into
cynicism or you leave the organisation and try your luck
elsewhere.
With few exceptions, every organisation can appreciate the
value in creative talents, but it is the few rare
organisations which can provide the fertile ground for
creative experimentations.
Many justifications or excuses are offered in order not to try
out something dif ferent. Risk is one. Fear of economic loss
discourage CEOs who prefer conservatism-why invest money in
something where the chance of success is one in a hundred? Why
rock the boat?
There is also another factor here. Creative individuals very
often are feared by their superiors or peers. They do not want
to see an individual achieving success.
It makes others feel inadequate or rob someone else s chance
of promotion. So, unless a organisation has the culture of
tapping the creative talents of its employees there will be
very little opportunities for such individuals.
* Trust vs. Change
MORE than 80 per cent of the time, organisations trying to
reengineer themselves failed because the employees are unable
to trust the top management's intentions.
Old work groups fear that their jobs will become redundant
once a more efficient and effective way of doing things is
successfully implemented.
So what are perceived as positive changes by the top managers
are perceived negatively by the workers. Without trust, we
can forget about implementing organisational restructure.
It simply won't work. Far too many companies have tried and
few had really got the message.
* People vs. Productivity
TRY asking any employee which organisation rewards employees
productivity fairly and equitably when productivity goes up?
Or is it more familiar that when productivity goes up, top
management attributes that to new technology and newly
installed machinery?
Furthermore, almost all organisations still rely on the
old-fashioned performance appraised system which evaluates
individual employees contributions and rewards them
individually (with favoured individuals getting the cream and
the dedicated workhorses getting the peanuts.)
To make matters worse, when organisations or departments do
well, the credit is often claimed by the heads of department
or organisation.
Studies have shown that in every organisation, there are bound
to be about 20 per cent of employees who are dedicated and
hard-working. Unfortunately, only the lucky organisations
find a way to achieve a win:win situation with these
workaholics.
Must organisational cultures ostracise and punish individuals
who perform beyond normal levels.
* Leaders vs. Capability
THERE is a genuine dilemma between leadership and managerial
capability. Leaders need to have people-and-vision skills.
Whereas managers only require managerial and technical
competency to ensure or enhance operational effectiveness.
Without leaders to provide the strategic directions and the
people skills to communicate the vision downwards to the
shop-floor, and to motivate the workforce to pull their
energies in a given direction, managerial capabilities alone
are not sufficient.
In John Kotter's book Leading Change, 1996, the Harvard
professor made it quite clear that it is leaders who lead
change, and managers lacking in leadership skill simply can't
lead change.
* Conclusion
MANAGEMENT dilemmas are as ancient as the great pyramids of
Egypt and they will continue to be problematic or offering
opportunities to the more creative.
As the rate of change continue to gather momentum into the
21st Century, organisations simply need to be more responsive
and one of the ways is to encourage work-teams at all levels
of the corporate hierarchies.
This entails, therefore the need to develop leadership skills
and equip their managers and supervisors with the skill of
handling dilemmas so that they won't be made impotent by them.
|