Old management systems stand in the way of modern leadership
If management and development are to be effective, we must look at the big picture. A development in one area often depends on developments in other ones. Yet we still see development initiatives and major change projects being implemented without any consideration being given to the impact on other areas. It is quite unusual that “the old system” is dismantled in a controlled manner while a new one is brought to bear.
Nowadays, many people talk about a new leadership philosophy, a philosophy in which the manager “coaches” his or her employees to produce good results without plotting the course ahead in detail. Bjarte Bogsnes (a member of the Beyond Budgeting Round Table and also a guest columnist with the entry entitled “The future ain’t what it used to be”, see link on the right) describes this change as a move from management to leadership and the creation of an environment that makes success possible. In the latest edition of the Harvard Business Review (January 2008), Linda A. Hill (Professor at the Harvard Business School) describes the managers of the future using the term ‘leading from behind’, which essentially is about leading through others. Similar descriptions are almost certainly included in current leadership programmes both within private companies and in the public sector.
But what happens when the manager returns from his or her leadership course filled with inspiration and new ideas, only to find a management system that speaks an entirely different language? A system where responsibility and authority provide very limited scope for decision-making. A system where the planning and follow-up process prescribes detailed plans and reports that must be checked and approved by the immediate superior. A system where rewards are based on behaviour that is completely different to the sought after leadership qualities, seizing the initiative and making things happen?
The opposite is equally problematic. A new management philosophy is implemented with a focus on targets that can be monitored, extended scope for operational managers to act and greater involvement from employees. There is nothing wrong with the management philosophy in itself, but are the managers in the organisation given enough leeway to be able to work according to the new organisational paradigm? The new control philosophy is often misinterpreted as a “nicer” method of control, when it actually places higher demands on both managers and employees. This changed climate is described by the authors of Beyond Budgeting (J. Hope and R. Fraser) as a high-responsibility environment. The question is whether this changed control philosophy corresponds with the leadership being exercised in the modern organisation and the premises on which existing managers have been recruited. Were they recruited on the basis of their leadership qualities, as a reward for good work within their specialist area, or for high performance? In the latter cases it is perfectly understandable that they will feel uncertain when they suddenly have to apply leadership based on management by objectives.
The management’s initiative to change is commonly based on good ambitions and a desire to create a successful control structure in the organisation. But when the interdependence between leadership and the formal management philosophy is overlooked, there is a major risk that these initiatives will fail.
It is therefore important to adapt and change the formal management philosophy simultaneously with the leadership development process in order to bring about a change in practice!