- Email: [email protected]
Managing in an unmanageable world
.Engineering Management International, 4 (1987) 151-154 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
MANAGING IN AN
151
a
wo
H.E. HOELSCHER Houston Contechs Inc., 2420 Jamestown Mall, Houston, TX 77057 (U.S.A.)
INTRODUCTION
Today, as always, the world is in great need of people who are willing and able to accept responsibility for the guidance of societal organizations (including, of course and especially, business and industry organizations), cause change therein, and lead the resulting processes through implementation into reality. Such people are often referred to FW “leaders”. They are those special people who make things happen, then guide the happening. They are the managers of our world systems.
MANAGEMENT
AND
ADMINISTRATION
Differentiation between “management” and “administration” is difficult and there is little general agreement on almost any view, on their interrelatedness, or on their definition. I suggest the following. Key words for the identification of management functions must include “to cause”, “to initiate”,
“to guide”,
“to implement”.
Those individuals who are engaged in such activities are judged at every moment for the leadership provided. Among their most important responsibilities are (i) goal setting; (ii) the identification, prioritization, and articulation of objectives and directions for the organization; and (iii) guidance of the processes of c!lange towards such goals and objectives within identified boundary conditions. These are the “to cause” and “to initiate”, then “to O;G7.5419/8?/$03.50
guide”, and “to implement”, functions indicated above. Success is largely dependent on personal and personality factors developed by practitioners through experience. Since all such &ivities interact constantly and intensively with the social and the business environment, management is functionally a culture-bound activity. Key words for the process of administration must include “to do”, “to schedule”, and “to effect”. Administration is largely concerned with procedural matters, with methods and with details of specific actions in support of management positions. Actions tend to be - supportive and retechnique-dominated sponsive - not based in initiative. Required skills are learnable and include specific tools such as queuing theory, linear programming, scheduling and “the management sciences”, properly recognized as the tools of administration. The administrator is an important part of the management team but is not formally the manager except in the limited sense of managing his assigned tasks. And this provides another key word to functional differentiation: the administrator is assigned by delegation a set of responsibilities which comprise a denumerable task list for his particular office. Such tasks include the array of day-to-day activities necessary for the continuing operation of the organization within management-set goals, within legal boundaries and within constraints imposed by government, by competition, and in the face of multiple uncertainties inherent in the interaction of an organization with its
@I1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
152 surroundings. This is the administrative function. Among other things, it provides critical support to management. Perhaps over simple, but revealing, is the idea that, management is the ultimate initiathg function while administration is the first level of responsiveness in any organization. “Uncertainty” is at the core of both the management and administrative functions, although in subtly different ways. Uncertainty arises, specifically, (i) from our imperfect human ability to predict the future and from a generalized lack of understanding of cause and effect relationships within the surrounding culture; (ii) from elements in the environment which are not controllable by the organization; or (iii) from internal interdependencies which may order responses to fit existing patterns. Finally there may be manipulation of the organizational boundaries with or without the knowledge and occurrence of either management or administration. It is not surprising that management and administration give different emphasis to the various COXt%%iIltSoperating on an organization nor that they Ire--+ dl, these constraints differently given the fact that they operate in different responsibility worlds and that their perception of these worlds is different. They may perceive different mechanisms and different opportunities for negotiation. Basic concepts of organizational theory, structure and function may be viewed differently. Responses will then be different. Over simple, again, but revealing, is the fact that management is likely to view opportunities and concepts in longrange, strategic, systemic terms while.administration is more likely to view them in terms of this week’s work agenda. It should not be necessary to stress the obvious, but clearly there is much overlap in the management/administration function. Equally, there are those individuals who perform both within a given organization. Clearly, there is a greater status associated with one over the other in the minds of many within our society. But all this does not justifythe sloppy use of these two words.
PRINCIPLES
There is today a body of experience-based dicta that managers should be aware of. Some of these are listed here as illustrative, not definitive, statements which reflect a striving toward an idealization not an actualization. Principles
(1) In any organization there must be structure, levels of responsibility and authority, each with its own constraints and its own degrees of freedom. These are set by management but must be known and understood by all administrators in each level for their own and, minima.fly, for a level above and below. (2) All organizations generate noise. The manager is expected to be the integrator, the one able to discern the patterns within the jumble and point the way. (3) Organizational failures of any kind or any degree are the responsibility of the manager. (4) The manager is expected to concentrate organizational resources on sharply focused and realizable objectives having a high pay-off. responsibility begins with (5) Management the establishment of goals, objectives and standards. It continues with the need to ensure that (i) new employees are always the best available; (ii) that poor performers at any level are eliminated; (iii) that all personnel recognize the need to do their assigned job rather than some other job (usually somebody else’s); and (iv) that both vertical and horizontal movement within the personnel roster is to be encouraged. The manager must be sensitive to the fact that a significant majority of those at any level of an organization will be more concerned with appearances and prerogative than with issues or with facts. (6) Managers must also be sensitive to the fact that when an organizational plan or project goes awry, someone will try to
153
make it appear that there has been a change of goal or plan. (7) Meetings have a dynamism which is a function. of their size. Discussions will alway? tend to drive the issue to a first available level of confusion - thus demanding additional study rather than a decision. Results from meetings are rarely as bad as they are made to seem - indeed, they are rarely as they seem. Finally, managers would do well to note that rules which cannot be enforced should not be made; that questions should not be asked unless the answer is wanted; that decisions should only be made if necessary - now; and that consensus is a poor basis for decision - never strong enough to provide support nor so weak as to permit that it be ignored. Differences derived from culture
Managers are increasingly expected to operate globally - hence in different cultures, with different attitudes, different value systems and different concept structures. For example: - In some cultures the proper image or appearance is more important than being “right’“. “ Things are seldom as they seem” is more nearly the rule in many places away from home. In short, individual priorities are set differently, and this affects most responses to management. (Example: When ar. assigned task is due, less “face” is lost bjr absence than by admission that the task is not complete and G unlikely to be completed because the person does not understand.) - In some cultures of our world, the word “truth” denotes a variable, not an absolute. “Truth” for the manager (or, more generally, your boss) may be different from “truth” for a colleague or for a friend. Telling the boss what you think he wants to hear is accepted and standard, for that “truth” is perceived as viable, - Loyalty operates differently in many
places. Individual priorities place family and those from the same clan, village or religious group far above colleagues, business associates, co-workers or the boss. Hence, loyalties are set in accordance with such priorities. Hence, also, the notions of discretion and of confidentiality are not well defined - in our terms, - The concept of an organization chart defining relationships is essentially non-existent in some places. Hence, the process of delegation may not work. Every individual may consider direct access to the top man in the organization - the manager to be a basic right and the notion of proceeding “through channels” quite unacceptable. - The notion of a “team” approach at any level in the organization may simply not exist. It is, moreover, unlikely to be successful if introduced. The concept is foreign to many cultures. - The notion of “size” operates with different standards throughout the world. A “large” organization in many of the developing countries would fall under the Small Business Administration in the IJnited States. There is no wonder that organizational interaction is difficult. Such differences can cause a manager to become dysfunctional if not prepared for difference and if inclined to equate the word “different” with the word “bad” - an all-toocommon tendency. Changes in time: The future
But, all this is undergoing rapid change, in part because the world is changing - becoming more inter-connected - and because of new technology. The administrative functions may be modified, aided through new techniques available from new technology, but the essence of those functions is unlikely to change dramatically. This is surely not true for the management role and function in a world becoming increasingly unmanageable. Change E lrns endemic with many conse-
154
few of them easing the strains of management: - Instantaneous communication throughout the world poses dramatic new challenges to management. Noise levels are high today and rising. The separation of signal from background noise will be a problem of increasing magnitude. - Management will increasingly function in the public eye. - Increasingly, some part of the world is always open for business and a 24-hour business “day” is in the future. - The manager was once clearly in charge at every moment. Increasingly, management decisions focus on future needs and crises. Anti-ballistic system responses are those of a computer, pre-programmed by management via a series of “if-this, thenthat” intrusions to the computer. Industrial decisions are increasingly implemented at locations far from the action site in both space and time. The notion that there is a “boss” present and in charge at crisis points is increasingly fanciful. - Consensus is increasingly difficult to achieve given the “everyone is entitled to an opinion” syndrome openly espoused by the media. The traditional interfaces of importance to the management function are becoming increasingly diffuse and tenuous. - Organization forms are changing from the traditional “linear” or “~yrumidal” to those like the “matrix” openly espoused by many today. Management responses must adapt to function in such new forms.
quences,
-
And, finally, it is increasingly recognized that in problem resolution the traditional compromise between territorial demands and subject matter expertise will continue to vie for attention. Foreign aid agencies structured around an input from disciplines struggle with demands from the area-specialists or country programs. Dissatisfaction with the status quo will lead to re-organization, usually favoring in the next “round” the one that is at present “Out”. Management: of the future must realize that neither of the two “sides” should win if the organization is to flourish. This continuing transition, and the management of the resulting webs of tension throughout the organization are a primary responsibility of this office. Management and Administration are both necessary functions for any organization. It is wise to keep their differences clearly in mind. Management is becoming increasingly more difficult with time and with the influx of new technology into the system (both hardware and software). Not only does this art form continue to vary in time, but it continues to vary from place-to-place even as our world becomes increasingly inter-connected and, thus, “smaller” in the same sense. Western standards and standard assumptions about “good” and “bad”, about “honesty” and the motivation of people - among other factors - are not norms for all and not the only bases for business. The world MAY appear unmanageable to some while the others profit. “Different” does not equate with “bad” in any sense or in any terms.
MANAGING IN AN
151
a
wo
H.E. HOELSCHER Houston Contechs Inc., 2420 Jamestown Mall, Houston, TX 77057 (U.S.A.)
INTRODUCTION
Today, as always, the world is in great need of people who are willing and able to accept responsibility for the guidance of societal organizations (including, of course and especially, business and industry organizations), cause change therein, and lead the resulting processes through implementation into reality. Such people are often referred to FW “leaders”. They are those special people who make things happen, then guide the happening. They are the managers of our world systems.
MANAGEMENT
AND
ADMINISTRATION
Differentiation between “management” and “administration” is difficult and there is little general agreement on almost any view, on their interrelatedness, or on their definition. I suggest the following. Key words for the identification of management functions must include “to cause”, “to initiate”,
“to guide”,
“to implement”.
Those individuals who are engaged in such activities are judged at every moment for the leadership provided. Among their most important responsibilities are (i) goal setting; (ii) the identification, prioritization, and articulation of objectives and directions for the organization; and (iii) guidance of the processes of c!lange towards such goals and objectives within identified boundary conditions. These are the “to cause” and “to initiate”, then “to O;G7.5419/8?/$03.50
guide”, and “to implement”, functions indicated above. Success is largely dependent on personal and personality factors developed by practitioners through experience. Since all such &ivities interact constantly and intensively with the social and the business environment, management is functionally a culture-bound activity. Key words for the process of administration must include “to do”, “to schedule”, and “to effect”. Administration is largely concerned with procedural matters, with methods and with details of specific actions in support of management positions. Actions tend to be - supportive and retechnique-dominated sponsive - not based in initiative. Required skills are learnable and include specific tools such as queuing theory, linear programming, scheduling and “the management sciences”, properly recognized as the tools of administration. The administrator is an important part of the management team but is not formally the manager except in the limited sense of managing his assigned tasks. And this provides another key word to functional differentiation: the administrator is assigned by delegation a set of responsibilities which comprise a denumerable task list for his particular office. Such tasks include the array of day-to-day activities necessary for the continuing operation of the organization within management-set goals, within legal boundaries and within constraints imposed by government, by competition, and in the face of multiple uncertainties inherent in the interaction of an organization with its
@I1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
152 surroundings. This is the administrative function. Among other things, it provides critical support to management. Perhaps over simple, but revealing, is the idea that, management is the ultimate initiathg function while administration is the first level of responsiveness in any organization. “Uncertainty” is at the core of both the management and administrative functions, although in subtly different ways. Uncertainty arises, specifically, (i) from our imperfect human ability to predict the future and from a generalized lack of understanding of cause and effect relationships within the surrounding culture; (ii) from elements in the environment which are not controllable by the organization; or (iii) from internal interdependencies which may order responses to fit existing patterns. Finally there may be manipulation of the organizational boundaries with or without the knowledge and occurrence of either management or administration. It is not surprising that management and administration give different emphasis to the various COXt%%iIltSoperating on an organization nor that they Ire--+ dl, these constraints differently given the fact that they operate in different responsibility worlds and that their perception of these worlds is different. They may perceive different mechanisms and different opportunities for negotiation. Basic concepts of organizational theory, structure and function may be viewed differently. Responses will then be different. Over simple, again, but revealing, is the fact that management is likely to view opportunities and concepts in longrange, strategic, systemic terms while.administration is more likely to view them in terms of this week’s work agenda. It should not be necessary to stress the obvious, but clearly there is much overlap in the management/administration function. Equally, there are those individuals who perform both within a given organization. Clearly, there is a greater status associated with one over the other in the minds of many within our society. But all this does not justifythe sloppy use of these two words.
PRINCIPLES
There is today a body of experience-based dicta that managers should be aware of. Some of these are listed here as illustrative, not definitive, statements which reflect a striving toward an idealization not an actualization. Principles
(1) In any organization there must be structure, levels of responsibility and authority, each with its own constraints and its own degrees of freedom. These are set by management but must be known and understood by all administrators in each level for their own and, minima.fly, for a level above and below. (2) All organizations generate noise. The manager is expected to be the integrator, the one able to discern the patterns within the jumble and point the way. (3) Organizational failures of any kind or any degree are the responsibility of the manager. (4) The manager is expected to concentrate organizational resources on sharply focused and realizable objectives having a high pay-off. responsibility begins with (5) Management the establishment of goals, objectives and standards. It continues with the need to ensure that (i) new employees are always the best available; (ii) that poor performers at any level are eliminated; (iii) that all personnel recognize the need to do their assigned job rather than some other job (usually somebody else’s); and (iv) that both vertical and horizontal movement within the personnel roster is to be encouraged. The manager must be sensitive to the fact that a significant majority of those at any level of an organization will be more concerned with appearances and prerogative than with issues or with facts. (6) Managers must also be sensitive to the fact that when an organizational plan or project goes awry, someone will try to
153
make it appear that there has been a change of goal or plan. (7) Meetings have a dynamism which is a function. of their size. Discussions will alway? tend to drive the issue to a first available level of confusion - thus demanding additional study rather than a decision. Results from meetings are rarely as bad as they are made to seem - indeed, they are rarely as they seem. Finally, managers would do well to note that rules which cannot be enforced should not be made; that questions should not be asked unless the answer is wanted; that decisions should only be made if necessary - now; and that consensus is a poor basis for decision - never strong enough to provide support nor so weak as to permit that it be ignored. Differences derived from culture
Managers are increasingly expected to operate globally - hence in different cultures, with different attitudes, different value systems and different concept structures. For example: - In some cultures the proper image or appearance is more important than being “right’“. “ Things are seldom as they seem” is more nearly the rule in many places away from home. In short, individual priorities are set differently, and this affects most responses to management. (Example: When ar. assigned task is due, less “face” is lost bjr absence than by admission that the task is not complete and G unlikely to be completed because the person does not understand.) - In some cultures of our world, the word “truth” denotes a variable, not an absolute. “Truth” for the manager (or, more generally, your boss) may be different from “truth” for a colleague or for a friend. Telling the boss what you think he wants to hear is accepted and standard, for that “truth” is perceived as viable, - Loyalty operates differently in many
places. Individual priorities place family and those from the same clan, village or religious group far above colleagues, business associates, co-workers or the boss. Hence, loyalties are set in accordance with such priorities. Hence, also, the notions of discretion and of confidentiality are not well defined - in our terms, - The concept of an organization chart defining relationships is essentially non-existent in some places. Hence, the process of delegation may not work. Every individual may consider direct access to the top man in the organization - the manager to be a basic right and the notion of proceeding “through channels” quite unacceptable. - The notion of a “team” approach at any level in the organization may simply not exist. It is, moreover, unlikely to be successful if introduced. The concept is foreign to many cultures. - The notion of “size” operates with different standards throughout the world. A “large” organization in many of the developing countries would fall under the Small Business Administration in the IJnited States. There is no wonder that organizational interaction is difficult. Such differences can cause a manager to become dysfunctional if not prepared for difference and if inclined to equate the word “different” with the word “bad” - an all-toocommon tendency. Changes in time: The future
But, all this is undergoing rapid change, in part because the world is changing - becoming more inter-connected - and because of new technology. The administrative functions may be modified, aided through new techniques available from new technology, but the essence of those functions is unlikely to change dramatically. This is surely not true for the management role and function in a world becoming increasingly unmanageable. Change E lrns endemic with many conse-
154
few of them easing the strains of management: - Instantaneous communication throughout the world poses dramatic new challenges to management. Noise levels are high today and rising. The separation of signal from background noise will be a problem of increasing magnitude. - Management will increasingly function in the public eye. - Increasingly, some part of the world is always open for business and a 24-hour business “day” is in the future. - The manager was once clearly in charge at every moment. Increasingly, management decisions focus on future needs and crises. Anti-ballistic system responses are those of a computer, pre-programmed by management via a series of “if-this, thenthat” intrusions to the computer. Industrial decisions are increasingly implemented at locations far from the action site in both space and time. The notion that there is a “boss” present and in charge at crisis points is increasingly fanciful. - Consensus is increasingly difficult to achieve given the “everyone is entitled to an opinion” syndrome openly espoused by the media. The traditional interfaces of importance to the management function are becoming increasingly diffuse and tenuous. - Organization forms are changing from the traditional “linear” or “~yrumidal” to those like the “matrix” openly espoused by many today. Management responses must adapt to function in such new forms.
quences,
-
And, finally, it is increasingly recognized that in problem resolution the traditional compromise between territorial demands and subject matter expertise will continue to vie for attention. Foreign aid agencies structured around an input from disciplines struggle with demands from the area-specialists or country programs. Dissatisfaction with the status quo will lead to re-organization, usually favoring in the next “round” the one that is at present “Out”. Management: of the future must realize that neither of the two “sides” should win if the organization is to flourish. This continuing transition, and the management of the resulting webs of tension throughout the organization are a primary responsibility of this office. Management and Administration are both necessary functions for any organization. It is wise to keep their differences clearly in mind. Management is becoming increasingly more difficult with time and with the influx of new technology into the system (both hardware and software). Not only does this art form continue to vary in time, but it continues to vary from place-to-place even as our world becomes increasingly inter-connected and, thus, “smaller” in the same sense. Western standards and standard assumptions about “good” and “bad”, about “honesty” and the motivation of people - among other factors - are not norms for all and not the only bases for business. The world MAY appear unmanageable to some while the others profit. “Different” does not equate with “bad” in any sense or in any terms.