The Issue With Current Business Management Philosophy

While the idea of synergy has been commonly espoused throughout the business environment and surely does end up in many good benefits, it’s rarely the solution to issues, since the synergistic approach is intended to supplement various other management philosophies and practices, not entirely supplant them.

Business Management Philosophy

The fundamental concept of synergy –

That cooperative interaction creates an end result greater than the value of individual efforts – has manifested itself in various ways, a lot of which are dependent upon the total quality management wedge. But there is a classic adage that says “When every person is responsible, no one is responsible.” And the strict adherents to the synergistic approach sadly (or conveniently) forget that adage. Those proponents/adherents love to believe that group dynamics is the sole method to problem-solve. But what they forget about is the fact that somebody still has to recognize final responsibility for trouble resolution – a person has to be the “Keeper of the Problem.”

Businesses can’t operate properly when everything is done by the committee process

Which is ordinarily the outward manifestation of the synergistic approach – there are merely way too many different disciplines involved in the running of a thriving enterprise for everyone being greatly engaged in all. Sure, examining issues from a variety of disparate points of view creates brand new perspectives and uncovers extra potential tactics and solutions. But what goes on after the identification of deficiencies as well as their resolutions is what distinguishes the original management philosophy from a totally synergistic approach. In the synergistic model, all stakeholders in the problem as well as resolution identification system feel that they all share responsibility for resolution implementation. This is often a logistically-unworkable situation. although the traditional design recognizes the importance of exterior input while nonetheless placing responsibility for resolution implementation squarely just where it needs to be, with an individual or maybe department with specific and direct expertise, responsibility and authority for the problem at hand – the “Keeper of the Problem.”

Along with organizations which claim to entirely accept the synergistic approach

There usually are a few vestiges of the regular management model: Departments are often delineated by common function; individuals in most cases have employment descriptions/titles connoting their specific functions; and certain hierarchical building generally exists. So there is a bit of recognition of function and also rank delineation, based mostly on subject matter expertise, which in itself concedes that everybody cannot know everything about every thing; and that also concedes that order and efficiency necessitates some job as well as hierarchical rank delineation. In other words, every company must identify subject-matter expertise & assign commensurate authority and responsibility – to the “Keeper of the Problem.”

Keeping almost everyone aware and advised of everybody else’s problems as well as problems is basically an excellent idea – it provides a broader perspective and allows every person realize the “big picture.” But what usually occurs is men and women begin to think they am aware everything about everything, and that they are able to therefore fix everything. So everyone becomes included in everything ELSE, frequently to the exclusion of the own job of theirs.

In days of yore, when dinosaurs roamed as well as ruled the world

Everybody had a neat and compartmentalized task. Everybody knew exactly what his job was, and it had been expected – nay demanded – the jobs be carried out to an excessive level of excellence. Then when everyone had a job and knew how-to get it done and in reality did it, everything got done good, and the earth was happy. Because there had been “Keepers of the Problem” – people with duty and commensurate authority and accountability.

This is not a new idea – it’s tried-and-true. We did not get away from this idea because it did not work; we got away from it because the management gurus (ala Tom Peters) found that providing new means of doing things with the expectation that things might improve would sell the programs of theirs. But what they forgot to put in their books and videos and training programs was that change doesn’t always bring good results; change may also bring negative results. Change isn’t always better, it is just different. And… something which has been said for far more than any of us have been around is nevertheless oh-so-true today:

Too many cooks spoil the broth.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *