The Way I See It... Is the UK Facing an Under-Management Epidemic?
Endless efficiency drives have seen the cull of large layers of management but what impact is it having on UK plc? Peter Casebow, CEO of goodpractice.net looks at claims that we are facing an epidemic of under-management.
According to US HR consultancy RainMaker Thinking the US is suffering from an under-management epidemic which is leading to poor productivity and low staff morale.
The research claims that:
Under-management is a workplace disease of epidemic proportions
The impact of under-management is harmful and costly
There are four leading causes of individual infection
Eight environmental factors support the spread of the disease
Hands-on managers tend to follow the same practices
Is the same disease prevalent in the UK? I would argue that it is and that the current vogue for leadership has been at the neglect of core management skills. The key relationship in any organisation is between the employee and their line manager.
If this relationship becomes disengaged it can lead to poor productivity and low staff morale. Line managers drive performance and productivity, and consistent support and motivation is vital for improving retention rates. Therefore, managers must provide feedback, praise and recognition for good performance and help for under-performers. This takes time and commitment. It also requires courage and belief that such efforts will bring dividends in terms of improved performance.
Managers under pressure have less time to focus on people and every survey suggests that managers feel under more pressure than ever before. This leaves staff under-managed impacting on business objectives. Communication and team involvement are essential to business success, yet lack of contact with employees means managers don’t know what staff are doing so find it hard to offer clear direction and support.
The Rainmaker study identified four main causes of the under-management epidemic:
Lack of time and/or resources: managers often struggle to balance the responsibilities of their own job with managing their employees.
False ‘Nice Guy’ syndrome: some managers misunderstand ‘empowerment’ and refuse to accept responsibility for the authority and influence that comes with their position. This leads them to resist being clear about performance requirements, operating procedures, direction, feedback on performance and so forth.
Lack of skill: most managers do not receive sufficient training in the most effective supervision techniques. As a result they tend to use their own management styles which become ingrained as strong habits over time.
Fear: many managers are afraid of the consequences of high engagement with direct reports which could lead to difficult conversations or reports which express negative feelings which then need to be addressed.
The study also highlighted eight environmental factors which exacerbated the under-management epidemic. The majority of these factors are as relevant for the UK as they are for the US:
The impact of technology and globalisation on the workplace since the early 1990s.
Organisations are expected to be leaner and more flexible. Aggressive HR policies mean organisations demand more and better work from fewer employees.
Lack of long-term security for employees.
The employer-employee bond has been turned into a short-term transactional relationship.
Managers are frustrated by employee attitudes and behaviour.
Organisational structures have become flatter with the traditional rules of seniority, age, rank and rules becoming less important. Therefore managers are losing their long-term hierarchical power.
Line managers are increasingly the primary point of contact for most employees for access to resources, rewards and work conditions.
Employees are relying more on line managers for meeting their basic needs and expectations at work – requiring time, dedication, skill and courage from managers.
The findings of the US research seem to be backed up by a CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development) report which highlighted the fact that managers have more to do than ever, due to less layers of management and a target driven culture. The net result is that managers are spending more time on figures than they do on people. This has left staff under-managed leading to poor productivity and low staff morale.
What is the solution to under-management? There is no simple answer. Alistair Mant asks "what's the difference between a frog and a bicycle?" His answer is that you can take both apart, but only one can be put back as a viable system.
He extends this analogy to organisations, to complex learning systems and asks us to consider the "frogishness" of our organisations. He points out the devastating effects of ignorant interventions by politicians, investment bankers, directors, senior executives and management consultants in such "frogish" organisations including the NHS, Railtrack, Marconi and Equitable Life.
All of these were easy to dissect but impossible to recreate if the invisible learning and mutual co-operation which held the organisation together is missing at the time of attempted reconstruction.
So sending managers on training courses is not enough. The organisation and its situation need to be considered and careful ‘systems’ thinking undertaken to find the right blend of answers. Is it a frog or a bicycle?
TrainingZONE 02-Feb-06 Categories: Management Story read 4686
Peter Hunter , 07 February 2006 @ 11:48 AM Why Are We Surprised When Management Fail To Manage People?
There was a programme in the "In Business" series on Radio 4 recently that laid some very important groundwork.
The programme, through the words of the Gurus of the last century, confirmed the basis of our disquiet with the conventional command and control model of management.
All of the voices talked about releasing the ingenuity and creativity of the workforce through autonomy.
As Peter Drucker said, "Everybody says that People are our most important asset", then they go ahead and sack them anyway.”
He said that he had been preaching the same message for the last 50 or 60 years, that "Human beings are the resource and not the cost", but that in all that time, all of his preaching has had almost no impact.
A reason for this could be that the managers who understood exactly the value of Peters words had no idea what to do with those words to make a practical difference to the effectiveness of their workforce.
The Soft Skills that show the manager how to allow the workforce to work to their full potential, to become as good as they can be, are not a part of the syllabus that we use to train managers.
Managers are trained to manage process.
Why should we be surprised when they fail to manage people?
Steve Conneely , 06 February 2006 @ 19:12 PM Under Management = Poor Time Management
Take some time to reflect on the tasks that you do over the course of a week and then analyse which ones that didn't add any value. Then ask yourself what you could have done better during the course of that week. Add up the minutes and hours spent wasting time and re-vector your priorities. Use delegation as a method of empowering your staff to report some of the figures to you so that you can spend more time managing people.....come out from your desk......get away from the PC and talk to people..GOYA = Get Off Your Ass!! and manage people do do what you want them to do! It works well - I Do It . Steve Conneely
Jeremy Thorn , 06 February 2006 @ 18:03 PM Efficiency and Effectiveness
What a thoughtful and interesting article Peter! Thank you.
My concerns about such think-pieces is often that they may seem to be rather partial 'special pleading' to those who might most benefit from them. ("We would say this, wouldn't we?"!) In practice, we privileged consultant-types might readily observe both under- and over-management, wherever we look.
My own suggestion is then to invite management teams to consider the difference not just between 'leadership' and 'management' (and we surely need both as employees and stakeholders?!); but also to think clearly about the differences between 'efficiency' and 'effectiveness'.
A helpful if very succinct thought I hope? The first does not automatically beget the latter, as the recent press comment on 'stupid companies' might confirm?
Stephen Walker , 06 February 2006 @ 17:11 PM Poor not under managed
This is a great topic!
I agree that UK plc is under managed but by far too many managers! It is my opinion that too many managers perform poorly.
The thought struck me that perhaps the people at the top know this? Perhaps they are using the Prescott model? The one where new housing is only allowed 1.5 parking spaces to make sure you can't have too many cars. Naturally the transport links will evolve to fill the need of people going shopping, to work, school etc etc.
Perhaps the people at the top are expecting something to evolve to fill the gap?
Does that sound like good management to you?
People are great - let's train them how to work! Managers too!
Rob Cockburn , 06 February 2006 @ 16:09 PM Simply read the job description
There is an article in the recent edition of The Edge from the Institute of Leadership and Management on this very topic. Personally, I think its easy enough to see from job descriptions. They will have cover-all phrases like "good interpersonal skills", "must be good communicator" etc. When you read the performance indicators however, it is a different story. There is seldom any measure for coaching and developing their staff so managers spend their time doing what they are going to be measured on. Rob Cockburn
Philip Evans , 06 February 2006 @ 14:24 PM Too little time, too much responsibility, too little time
I often see this going on in organisations across the board, where management roles being shoe horned into job descriptions and not allowing or training people sufficiently to meet the neds of those they have to manage. Often this 'pseudo management' is not paid well enough or the differencial between the supervisory and other stafff role is so small the best people are not attracted to apply Philip Evans
