Practicing Management: Making it matter

We have seen that it can be difficult, precisely, to define the terms “management” or “manager.” Peter Drucker took as effective an approach to this problem as there is: he defined them not by what they, in and of themselves, are, but by what they do. Swept up in the distortions of our self-absorbed age, it is refreshing to have the focus turned to function, letting form take care of itself.

Top management, though, is an even more difficult nut to crack. Does it get involved in the nitty-gritty of the firm’s work, or stand aloof developing strategy and directing? Does it have its own unique set of tasks or functions, or is it simply and plainly the top of a unitary pyramid?

As always, Drucker’s answers to these questions defied what he often exposed as vacuous theory. Based on a clear-eyed assessment of effective - and ineffective - top managements across time, and national and cultural boundaries, he was able to discern some clues as to how to build a good team at the top.

For one thing, he was clear that the issue varied not just from industry to industry, but from company to company. In order to be effective, top management needs to perform an objective assessment of the managerial tasks (the same ones all management performs) that only top management can do in the particular circumstances of a particular company. These may be operational or not; that, to him, was completely irrelevant. The question always had to be: Could or should anyone else do this task? If the answer was yes, then top management should stay out; if no, then whatever sort of task it otherwise appeared to be, it belonged inescapably to top management.

How are we to know if top management should do it, or, more clearly, that no one other than top management can effectively do it? First, it is likely to be multi-dimensional. All managers at levels below the top are responsible for essentially one aspect of the business (however it has chosen to define them: by function, product line, market, etc.). It is at the top that these aspects must be globally integrated and coordinated.

Second, top management has the ultimate responsibility to reach outward where results are obtained - beyond the firm’s boundaries into its markets, vendors, competitors, and regulatory and social environments.

Third, if a task, to be done effectively, requires a comprehensive perspective that encompasses the entire business, then it belongs to top management.

All tasks must be assessed with the bias that some level of management below the top should be able to perform them. But if these 3 considerations indicate that only the top can do them effectively, then do them it must, regardless of whether some other arbitrary habitual or theoretical considerations seem to suggest otherwise.

The specific implications of this approach to developing the composition and duties of the top management team are beyond the scope of this discussion. The key point for our purposes here is to avoid being bound by self-referential prescriptions the principle value of which is that they seem to fit a universally applicable theoretical structure. It is not the solution that should be universal, but the logic of the questions that help us generate solutions uniquely appropriate to our unique circumstances.

—

Please be sure see all the posts in this series!

—

Thanks for stopping by, today. If you enjoyed your visit, please take a moment to subscribe, so you can visit again in the future from the convenience of your email client or RSS reader.