Strategic CIO // Executive Insights & Innovation
Commentary
4/23/2012
02:05 PM
Venkatesh Rao
Venkatesh Rao
Commentary
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

How The Enterprise 2.0 Managerial Model Was Born

In this first of a three-part series, we explore the evolution of Management For Opportunity. How did "manager" become a dirty word?

But whereas managers in the empire era were challenged to meet non-negotiable goals by any means necessary (Andrew Carnegie, for instance, was notorious for his tyrannical, hard-driving production targets), the Druckerian idea of autonomy was based on negotiated goals. This was a consequence of work becoming complex and specialized enough that senior executives simply didn't know enough to set goals autocratically. They could predict demand to some extent (the 1950s to '70s were characterized by unusually predictable growth in demand), and they used that knowledge to negotiate goals down a chain of command that collectively knew how to grow capacity.

Druckerism didn't replace the process-oriented business management pioneered by Frederick Taylor. It created a layer of planning-oriented information workers above it. The Taylorist factory remained, creating steady-state baseline performance conditions. Druckerian managers were taught to drive the underlying Taylorist machine into new markets, guided by demand forecast maps.

By the early 1980s, as the business environment grew increasingly uncertain and competitive, and the maps started turning into nonsense, a refinement was added: Management By Exception (MBE).

I haven't been able to trace the origins of the term, but I suspect it rose to prominence during the late 1980s and early '90s, when business process re-engineering (BPR) was all the rage. BPR proved to be a fad, but it did achieve one thing: It forced a shift from a deliberative management orientation to a deliberative-plus-reactive one. It was able to do so because it dealt with end-to-end processes in a feedback loop, with the external world, rather than functional silos, as the fundamental unit of organization. The result was that a new feedback stream of information was added to the feedforward stream that emerges from the forecasting models and long-range plans of MBO.

MBE is best understood as a layer between MBP and MBO. Uncertain market conditions make operations messy, and exceptions start to become more frequent. At the bottom, the MBP layer requires frequent retuning as a result (an activity captured in late Taylorist models like Lean and TQM). At the top, frequent reassessment of objectives becomes necessary (the aspirational state of "agility" is about being able to do this well), since plans may suddenly become infeasible.

Old-school supervisor-managers used to fairly steady conditions can no longer keep the MBP machine humming smoothly as demand grows chaotic. On the other hand, the MBO managers who decide where to go can't rely on the assumption that the machine is functioning and in control, or that forecasts will be accurate next month.

Tom Peters rose to prominence by talking about this regime of chaotic operations as thriving on chaos, so let's call MBE the Petersian model. Peters had a bold vision that you could actually feed on chaos and turn it into competitive advantage by doing MBE well enough.

So at the dawn of the Internet era in 1993, we have a management stack that looks like this: MBO on top of MBE on top of MBP. Depending on environmental uncertainty, the manager does a better or worse job balancing MBO and MBE functions.

Usually, a worse job.

As a result, the word "manager" became a dirty word by the late '80s, and a different archetype, the "leader," began to rise.

In Part II of this series, we'll look at the rise and impending fall of the idea of Leadership and how "manager" became a dirty word.

The Enterprise 2.0 Conference brings together industry thought leaders to explore the latest innovations in enterprise social software, analytics, and big data tools and technologies. Learn how your business can harness these tools to improve internal business processes and create operational efficiencies. It happens in Boston, June 18-21. Register today!

Previous
2 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Deb Donston-Miller
50%
50%
Deb Donston-Miller,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/6/2012 | 1:17:30 AM
re: How The Enterprise 2.0 Managerial Model Was Born
Senior managers can see all of that data but will they? Do they have time to? It seems to me that having the data more readily and effectively doesn't change the fact that it takes time and other resources to analyze it and act on it.

Deb Donston-Miller
Contributing Editor, The BrainYard
Sam Iam
50%
50%
Sam Iam,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/25/2012 | 11:57:04 PM
re: How The Enterprise 2.0 Managerial Model Was Born
Leader is the universal term for manager, despite most leaders in middle management not having the authority to change course or do anything other than control. I think the terminology has changed, but the system is still: Senior executives set the strategy, middle management layers control, and first line executes. The largest disconnect I see is that all of those middle management layers are no longer required with the advances in technology. Senior management can be provided with real time, automated dashboards of project or KPI performance. They can use new communication technologies, e.g. e-mail, to communicate directly with the people executing the strategy. As people are managed by objective and there is no need for the distribution of information downward or the manual collection of reports upward, the middle tiers are really not necessary.
BrainiacV
50%
50%
BrainiacV,
User Rank: Apprentice
4/24/2012 | 6:03:12 PM
re: How The Enterprise 2.0 Managerial Model Was Born
I always called it "Industrial Age Thinking", management (that I've ever worked for) has not caught on to "Information Age Thinking", they want us to record how long it takes to write a functional block of code with the insane idea that they can use that to estimate how long it is going to take to write a different block of code and draw up schedules based on that.
The Business of Going Digital
The Business of Going Digital
Digital business isn't about changing code; it's about changing what legacy sales, distribution, customer service, and product groups do in the new digital age. It's about bringing big data analytics, mobile, social, marketing automation, cloud computing, and the app economy together to launch new products and services. We're seeing new titles in this digital revolution, new responsibilities, new business models, and major shifts in technology spending.
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest - July10, 2014
When selecting servers to support analytics, consider data center capacity, storage, and computational intensity.
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join InformationWeek’s Lorna Garey and Mike Healey, president of Yeoman Technology Group, an engineering and research firm focused on maximizing technology investments, to discuss the right way to go digital.
Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.