Eric Abrahamson and Joanna Barsh on radical management remedies

¶ … videos centered on the topic of radical remedies to management design flaws, by Professor Eric Abrahamson, . Points that I agreed and disagreed on will be noted. Conclusions that can be drawn from these videos will be discussed, along with any other topics that struck accord with the topic of the future of leadership and management.

Professor Eric Abrahamson, of Columbia Business School, overviewed his radical remedy to management design flaws as a theory that organizations need more of less. Abrahamson makes some interesting points about organizations needing to move away from increased organization, increased systems, increased processes and procedures. I agree that these mechanisms often lead not to the empowering of employees, but to increased bureaucracy that hinders the daily operations of the organization. In fact, empowering employees can reduce stress levels and increase productivity (Siedl, 2009). He also speaks of the need for less change. At first, when he began this second prong of his ideas, I disagreed. In today's hypercompetitive world, organizations have to change to meet rapidly advancing threats and to take advantage of limited opportunities. However, Abrahamson further clarifies his idea of less change as having periods of rapid and greater change followed by periods of stability, which is a much more agreeable idea. I especially agree with giving only general directions and tolerating a certain amount of messiness and chaos from capable employees, empowering them to find the best way to accomplish tasks. Of course, in certain instances, more specific directions may be needed; however, these employees should still have the ability to try new methods to discover even better methods. As I'm unsure of the Professor's previous background, I would also like to know if his first-hand knowledge extends beyond the world of academia, and has tried this chaos management theory in a real world organization. Like many ideas, it may look good on paper, but real world application may be more difficult than it first appears.

Joanna Barsh

Joanna Barsh, of McKinsey & Company, feels that the greatest flaw in management is an invisible flaw, which is why it is so often ignored. This flaw is management's inability and/or unwillingness to channel emotion to help their employees create and innovate. Barsh insists that organizations suppress emotion through bureaucracy and that this suppressed emotion comes out in negative ways. She uses Avon as an example of a company that effectively uses emotion to drive their business, and that particular emotion is love. The love the independent representatives feel for the company, the love the CEO and top management uses when communicating with their organizational members, and the love consumers feel for the company all are reasons for Avon's success. Although I agree that emotions can be powerful motivators both internally in the organization and when marketing to customers (Momeni, 2009), I would argue with Barsh's statement that companies suppress emotion through bureaucracy. Instead, I would suggest that any emotion suppressing comes, in the workplace, from what is socially acceptable as a means of cultural custom.

Conclusion and Thoughts

Each video covered a different issue with current business management. The primary conclusion that can be drawn from these three very different perspectives is that bureaucracy is a bad thing for an organization. Each of the three speakers' solutions were centered on countering the negative influence of bureaucracy. Abrahamson favored messiness and chaos. Barsh felt bureaucracy stifled emotions that could be better used than suppressed. Surowiecki surmised that bureaucracy led to the traditional key decision maker, the CEO, not having all the information he needed to make the best decisions possible.

My thoughts are that this is not a new concept in organizational management. For years scholars and executives alike have talked of the benefits of going with a flatter organizational chart and a more organic business structure. Around the country, companies have worked hard to destroy the silos that once hoarded information. Time and again we have been told bureaucracy is bad. However, it still remains, albeit often in a more diluted state, in organizations today. I personally don't know if bureaucracy is the most important concern for organizations.

I believe the future of leadership and management will be concerned with minimizing bureaucracy, but should be more concerned with nimbleness. Today's rapidly changing world will mean those organizations that can transform themselves to meet changing market demands and environments will be the ones that are most successful. Being nimble will lead to a reduction of bureaucracy naturally. However, it will also promote more proactive strategies, as opposed to the reactive strategies that Abrahamson sees causing companies to constantly be in ineffective states of change.