FADS AND TRENDS IN MANAGEMENT

Like the sand running through an hour glass, when the last grain has dropped someone turns it over and the process starts once again.

Precisely like the hour glass, some companies every few years see the need to flip the management hour glass over and make a change to the way they manage people to improve production, increase profits, or just keep up with the times.

So, the ongoing management fad play book comes out and pending the flavor of the year, a new concept is given as a directive company wide.

Contrary to what you might think, management fads aren't fads because they're something new. Quite the contrary, what makes them fads is that companies latch onto these decades-old ideas as panaceas... one after the other after the other.

Over the years, management fads have been infused into nearly every business model in one form or another. These fads and trend are well known by the practicing managers that had the responsibility of implementing them.

They sort of increased during each decade and were either discarded, redesigned or worked for a while and then the company did badly.

In the 1950’s Management By Objective (MBO) was introduced. That was replaced in the 1960’s with Sensitivity Training. In the 1970’s we had Quality Circles. Then in the 1980’s with Total Quality Management (TQM). The 1990’s brought in Self-Management or Self-Directed Teams.

Then like an avalanche, they came in fast and furious like these:

• The one-minute manager

• Core Competency

• Matrix Management

• Guerrilla Marketing

• Strategic Planning

• Process Engineering

• Lean Manufacturing

• Six Sigma

• Team Based Management

• Walk Around

• Strength Based Leadership

• Down Sizing & Outsourcing (Yes, these are management fads and trends but nearly always done at the executive corporate level)

Naturally, the real point of these concepts, except for downsizing and outsourcing, are perceived as insightful at the time of implementation to be the golden Avenue to better performance and productivity.

However, once implemented, and put to the ultimate test of time, the process seems to begin to decline, and then the process starts all over again.

The only way anyone can ultimately differentiate fad from trend is by trying them out and seeing what worked. After all, that is the scientific method, isn't it?

Unfortunately, you can’t just “copy and paste” talent, wisdom, or breakthrough leadership. It just doesn’t work that way.

Here are some of the major reasons that the fad management styles ultimately go south or do not perform as they were touted to do.

Lack of Executive Leadership - Management fails to demonstrate its commitment by deeds to the process it is launching. Indeed, many such programs are initiated and led by mid-level managers with little, if any, involvement by executives. Even when executives become involved, their efforts are seldom substantive. The organizations that are successful over the long term, regardless of the program implemented, invariably feature the personal leadership of executive teams.

Failure to deploy - Management fails to support the program beyond the initial training or to deploy the program beyond the pilot department or group. After an initial round of improvement is achieved, no mechanism is established to keep the process going. Program activities are perceived as "homework," rather than "real work," and because many projects concentrate on "low-hanging fruit," the program stalls once its larger and fewer tractable problems are encountered. Other times, different groups within an organization adopt different programs, and then spend valuable time and resources hurling buzzwords at each other rather than searching for common ground. Successful organizations, on the other hand, synthesize their own programs from many sources, actively engage all groups on all levels and develop permanent structures to identify and resolve problems.

Seeking Shortcuts - Management adopts the superficial aspects of a program, hoping by name-magic to imitate the successes of the pioneer organizations. Yet, the pioneers usually developed well thought-out processes involving many contributing elements. Organizations that adopt some elements and ignore others fail to attain the synergy that the pioneers achieved and later proclaim: "We tried X program and it didn't work." In some cases, management does nothing more than attach a new, trendy label to an old way of doing business.

Inadequate Measurement - Management does not measure success properly. These organizations typically don't lack measurements. In fact, they are often guilty of over measuring. The problem with these organizations is that their measurements are detached from business results. Projects concentrate on making internal processes more efficient while overlooking customer satisfaction, because the former is easier to measure than the latter. Successful organizations, on the other hand, focus on the long term as well as the short-term and on external as well as internal issues and tie their measurements to validated business results.

Too often, companies try to adopt a popular program without really comprehending what makes the program successful.

They want the results but are unwilling to put in the same effort as the pioneers. They fail to measure their results, and they lack clear, focused goals. It is almost as if ideas have a half-life, like fashionable materials, losing substance as they pass from organization to organization.

But perhaps the biggest reason of fad or trend management failure is that they just don’t adequately cover every element of business.

The management style that works so well for a sales team does not have the same cause and effect in a manufacturing setting.

Or, if there’s a group of six sigma black belts walking around trying to tell skilled workers how to do their job when they, themselves don’t know how to do it, that never works out too well.