Reinventing management practices and organizational effectiveness

Management Moon Shots

Shooting the Moon in Management: Methods for Achieving Organizational and Managerial Excellence

Management theory has only been in conscious development for a century or so in the modern sense; though managers and management theories certainly predate the time of Henry Ford and the concepts of controlled efficiency and organization, but it was during the industrialization of the early twentieth century that management really became a filed of study and practical endeavor (Hamel 2009). Since that time, many different theories, some with very different assumptions and precepts at their core, have been advanced and implemented in attempts to perfect management and encourage the greatest possible levels of motivation, efficiency, and satisfaction in organizations. A good number of these theories have eventually been left by the wayside as ineffectual, but a great deal of useful knowledge has emerged from the many practical managerial experiments.

In his article "Moon Shots for Management," Gary Hamel provides a succinct yet detailed list about some of the best managerial practices to emerge from the many different managerial theories, and that prove especially effective in the fast-paced and increasingly fragmented yet unified network that is business in the digital age. An examination of just two of the management recommendations that Hamel lists in this article provides ample evidence of their effectiveness in the practical world. These suggestions may initially seem simplistic and even obvious, but a detailed glance at their theoretical application reveals that these techniques are both more difficult and more profound than they seem.

Creating a Democracy of Information

One of the key points Hamel makes in "Moon Shots" is that the more people know at every level of the company, from senior management on down to the first-level employees, the more effective the choices that the company and individuals make will be (Hamel 2009). This might come across as common sense, but it was not always acceptable managerial theory, nor would it necessarily advisable -- passing changes and decisions by superiors is traditionally preferred, with the level of seniority of the final decision maker depending on the impact of the issue at hand and the degree of change proposed, and the dissemination of information on an organization-wide basis can be costly and is often deemed an unnecessary overload (Burk 1999). These issues traditionally led to a hierarchy of information that matched that of decision making powers.

Today, however, the pace of business and the increasingly diversified organization of many businesses means that lower-level employees must be granted both more knowledge about company situations and desired outcomes, as well as the latitude to make certain decisions themselves on short notice (Hamel 2009). Creating a so-called "democracy of information" is one method of knowledge management that addresses these issues in a proactive way (Burk 1999). Essentially, information is shared and utilized equally, rather than stratified.

An informational democracy can be more difficult to achieve than it may at first seem. The sheer size of many of today's companies can make it difficult to parse the necessary information from that which is too specialized or technical to warrant sharing. Certainly, no individual should be expected to know every detail of what is going on with their company at a given moment as this would be an entirely impractical if not impossible use of time, nor would such knowledge be especially useful even if it could be practically attained. Instead, creating a democracy of information means making all pertinent and relevant information available, and bringing specific attention to matters of established performance (Burk 1999). Effective information management entails that everyone who could benefit from a piece of knowledge both as access to and is made aware of this information; creating a democracy of information lets individuals and departments help determine for themselves what is useful, allowing them to utilize information more effectively.

Depoliticizing Decision Making

Another effective management tool that runs counter to many traditional models but is highly effective in modern organizations is the depoliticization of decision making. Again, this might seem like simple good sense; making decisions based on the factual merits of the situation rather than on face-saving or boss-pleasing seems like the only rational way of doing business. Not paying attention to political whims, however, can have serious repercussions for individuals and organizations alike, and truly depoliticizing decisions requires a great deal of introspection, honesty, and self-awareness in the top management officials and decision makers in a company (Hamel 2009).

Achieving this depoliticization is certain to be even more difficult than establishing a democracy of information, as it is difficult to convince people to relinquish power willingly once they have it. The problem is that politicized decision making is only a hair's breadth away -- one might even say is simply a euphemism for -- corrupt decision making. Few debates or issues are more heavily politicized than long-term (and even short-term) government planning, and though government entities are run very differently from businesses in many regards, in this area they are remarkably similar. The politicization of governmental decision making ceases to have the best interests of the citizens that government is beholden to at heart, and instead shifts the focus to the benefit of certain political factions, or even to certain individuals within the government (Newman 2009).

Just so, the politicization of decision making in business is generally self-serving, if not economically than through a sense of pride or, as Hamel puts it, hubris. It does not take into account what is best for the company, its employees, or its shareholders, but rather serves the interests of the decision makers themselves. More effective decision making for the business requires that these officials, either in the company of in the government, give ground and let the larger population become involved in the decision making process (Newman 2009; Hamel 2009). Not only does this ensure that the people who will be affected by decisions that are made have a say in the matter, but it also provides for a much broader and often more accurate knowledge base form which these decisions can be made. Depoliticizing means equalizing, and this is greatly aided by a democracy of information.