Is management dead?
Interesting piece here in the Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704476104575439723695579664.html
"Business guru Peter Drucker called management "the most important innovation of the 20th century." It was well-justified praise. Techniques for running large corporations, pioneered by men like Alfred Sloan of General Motors and refined at a bevy of elite business schools, helped fuel a century of unprecedented global prosperity. But can this great 20th century innovation survive and thrive in the 21st? Evidence suggests: Probably not. "Modern" management is nearing its existential moment"
Is management dead?
Facebook
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
51,377 people viewed the community in October
With respect to the authors of the article, and of this post, I must disagree.
what of Google. Facebook. Twitter. Netflix, and others? Are they not led by successful modern managers?
These organisations exhibit innovation and evolution. They are more progressive. Their bureaucracies are more fluid and agile than traditional corporate structures.
They have to be. Technologal evolution moves fast (especially when driven by compelling forces such as war or commerce).
Perhaps we should look to the leading technology companies of the day, in search of new management paradigms for the modern age of online business.
Hi Ben. To be honest I think you're quite right. Management in the traditional scientific management style is I think dead, or if not dead very much on the way out, but a new form of management is very much needed to take its place.
I don't think you can say management is dead, it just changes. The rise of command and control scientific management, led by people like Ford, gave rise to massive increases in output in the early 20th Century. But its lack of flexibility and innovation meant it was ‘overtaken’ by new styles, especially in knowledge intensive industries that are suited to more horizontal approaches.
Firms like google are lucky they can now employ such innovative management styles, like giving people time off their core duties to focus on their own projects. I am sure more companies would do this if they were making as much money as google – problem is that when you are starting off it is a battle staying afloat. I know now google makes its money from this innovation, but in most industries giving workers time off would stretch costs and threaten the survival of the business.
Blogger, and friend of CMI, Wally Bock has written about this article. He cites a few simple guidelines for managing in a new age:
I think that's a brilliant summary Adi.
You need to hire good people and let them get on with their jobs - providing direction and encouraging and facilitating communication and collaboration.
Social Media represents an interesting platform for improving communication and collaboration internally, as well as with external stakeholders. Why not set up a project blog for example?
The much loves SMART acronym may have its place where lots of direction is needed. However I like the ideas in this thread as I too believe that people perform best when they are given a realistic level of freedom and trusted to be innovative and contribute their own thoughts. Leaders can still support, share ideas and be aware of what is happening but they will be creating the environment where the person can flourish. I still see the place for a healthy discussion around success factors and what success may look like to ensure that we are pulling in the correct strategic direction...............but enabling a positive ethos and environment are very much part of a leader's role. So being a confident leader prepared to let go and trust the people working with you.......is an important part of modern leadership.