 |
Business managers sometimes find themselves in a similar
dilemma. They sense that they ought to be doing better in the competitive
market but seem powerless to make necessary changes. Bringing about changes
in people and in organizations is not simple; or if it is simple, it is not
easy. We are dealing with momentum, with attitudes, with skill levels, with
perceptions, and with established patterns. People tend to cling to old
views, old ways, old habits. And old styles and habits are hard to change.
To make or break a habit takes great commitment, and commitment comes from
involvement—it acts as a catalyst in the change process.
Of course, the down side of involvement is risk. Whenever you involve people
in the problem, you risk losing control. It is so much easier, simpler, and
safer — and seemingly so much more efficient — to not involve others, but
simply to tell them, to direct them, to advise them.
In his book, Managing, former ITT president Harold Geneen writes
“Most chief executives slip into authoritarian roles without realizing that
the process is going on. Subtly, they change [because] it’s easier and less
time-consuming to be authoritarian.”
Most authoritarian managers and executives are not tyrants. Most are
benevolent — using the principles of human relations to the fullest
to direct behavior and get desired results.
To manage by the principles of human resources is to leave safe
territory. Involvement is a ticket to adventure. The executive really never
knows at the outset what will happen or where he or she will end up. Is the
risk worth taking?
One of the primary, fundamental faults with American management, responds
Geneen, “is that over the years it has lost its zest for adventure,
for taking a risk, for doing something that no one has done before. The
reason behind this change is the mistaken belief that professional business
managers are supposed to be sure of themselves and never make a mistake.”
So managers are caught between these two positions: the safer easier, more
efficient human relations position of directive, authoritative leadership
and the far more risky, but infinitely more effective human resource
principle of involvement.
Quality and commitment
An effective decision has two dimensions: quality and commitment. By
weighing these two dimensions and multiplying them, we can determine the
effectiveness factor. For example, let’s suppose that we make a quality
decision — a perfect 10 on a 10-point scale; however, for some reason the
commitment to that decision is low — a 2 on a 10-point scale. As a result we
have a relatively ineffective decision (by multiplying 10 and 2, we get an
effectiveness factor of 20).
Now let’s assume that by involving others, we compromise the quality of the
decision (it drops from 10 down to 7), but we increase the commitment to it
(let’s say from 2 to 8).
In this case we have an effectiveness factor of 56 (7 times 8). That means
the decision may not be as good, but it is almost three times as effective!
Nonetheless, many young or new managers hesitate to involve people in
decision making for fear of opening up other options, contaminating their
own thinking, or compromising their position.
Eventually, through experience, most managers learn that the effectiveness
of their decisions depends on quality and commitment, and that commitment
comes through involvement. They are then willing to assume the risks and to
develop the skills of involving people appropriately. |
 |
