I often read about and observe business change projects that fail to deliver. Why is this?
Those who write about project management or business change usually focus on people and process. This is important. But, I think the problem often has more to do with structure.
So, is it time to question the command and control culture played-out in many organisations?
I think so.
Command and Control Management
Many organisations portray a command and control approach to leadership. This structure has its roots in the military and is still a dominant force. It is one where the senior manager is in command and therefore in control of employees.
But the problem with command and control is this: it does not guarantee people will do what you ask.
What’s more, it could be the reason people are dissatisfied and choose to leave employment.
Let’s take a look at the top 4 reasons people leave their jobs:
- not being treated with respect or dignity,
- being prevented from making an impact on the organisation,
- not being listened to, and
- not being rewarded with more responsibility.
Command and control impedes creativity and decision-making because corporate culture dictates the relationship between employee and organisation. Almost everything goes through the chain of command.
This constrains people.
Command and control management is impotent!
Command and control is ineffective because it:
- limits engagement and commitment,
- inhibits communication,
- obstructs course correction, and
- Assumes the leader knows best.
Let me ask you some questions. How often do you see your CEO? Is hierarchy and authority more important than conveying the message? Do people seek permission to put out the fire? Do employees have a voice? And finally, do senior managers let fear and ego get in the way of progress?
Collaborative Leadership
I know — you know — that many people want to contribute but are constrained by the limits of command and control. We recognise this encumbers and stifles innovation.
So, what should we do?
I believe the better alternative is a collaborative approach. One where we invest in relationships and focus on motivation, support and leadership.
But first, we need to recognise that we do not need to have all the answers or need to take the credit. Only then may we work together for a common good.
For those leading change it has to be about sponsorship: connecting ourselves to something important and lending it our credibility.
Sponsorship is not simply filling a seat in the project boardroom. It’s about providing a positive influence, seeking out advice from people, and empowering them to do something with authority.
Are you ready to change from commander to sponsor?
Creative Commons image courtesy Marcel Douwe Dekker.
Martin,
There are certainly exceptions to the old military style leadership. I have worked extensively with a military model which is any but command-and-control. You can read more on this at The Professional Outsider: Green Beret Leadership
http://iexecuvision.blogspot.com/2010/12/green-beret-leadership_24.html
This might be a useful addition to your thread.
Hello David, Many thanks for posting a comment and linking to an informative and thought-provoking article. I think you are correct: the military is embracing change. Moreoevr, I think hierarchies have a life of their own and need dismantling. As you say in your post, this takes courage. As ever, Martin.
“Command & Control” doesn’t work for all the reasons you suggest, and yet since the mid 2000’s there’s been nothing other than a headlong rush in that direction. I think it’s true to say that in some sectors of the service economy, many employees are really regarded now as replaceable commodities. Jobs have been deskilled to the point where a chimp could do them, presumably in the expectation that the computer system that has replaced the middle manager to micromanage them will operate better. Terms and conditions are worse, salaries are lower – it’s been pretty much all one way traffic.
The 2-tier economy that has developed in the USA has been described thus:
” The onrush of technology largely explains the gradual development of a “two-tier labour market” in which those at the bottom lack the education and the professional/technical skills of those at the top and, more and more, fail to get comparable pay raises, health insurance coverage, and other benefits. Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households”. (source: C.I.A. World Book – Aspects of the Economy)
The American Central Intelligence Agency is hardly some bunch of lily-livered bunch of liberals. In fact they consider the situation to be a potential threat to the economy –
“Technology is changing the lives of ordinary people at an unprecedented rate, with the ultimate effect of making the rules and inhibitions that once governed the conduct of most people seem less and less relevant. Perhaps the most important contribution of technology—including that of economic organization—has been to remove from over the heads of many people the once controlling certainty in their lives: the knowledge that their survival depended on their willingness to work.”
Both in the UK and USA there are millions of workers suck in a place they did not expect to be, and from which there seems to be no escape. It looks like a return to serfdom.
One point of note is that many people in this sector have been educate to expect something other than this. Very, very many will have degrees.and so are burdened with student loans that they will never repay. The Government now say that the Higher Education System, which essentially was aiming to be self-funding, will now incur a debt of £0..3 trillion, a figure that many argue is an underestimate. (source – Parliamentary report, August 2014) .www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn01079.pdf.
(It is a terrible irony that the most popular choice of degree is currently Business and Administration Studies. Last year it accounted for 14% of all graduates. They were aiming to be middle managers, not realising as they were studying these jobs were vanishing.)
As the saying goes, actions have consequences, and I don’t think we’ve yet seen them. I’d welcome any ideas or comments you have..
Hello Roger,
You paint a bleak picture in your comment. I’m not sure I see things as you do. Yes, technology is changing lives. But maybe not as you suggest?
Also, I thought the CIA was referring to personal conduct when online, where people hide behind anonymity. And, the fact that people can now chose to earn a living in front of their PC doing what they want.
But, I do have some concerns about our (UK) education system and the fact that universities are out of step, and seem to spend beyond their means. Are they interested in delivering a quality education or churning the wheel to create more revenue?
In the workplace, we see change through technology. Some good, some not so good. Often jobs go and tasks are transferred to the manager. But technology can be an enabling power.
However, the real problem is a deficit in leadership. Whether on the top table or at the coal face, people are slow to take personal responsibility. You said: “millions of workers suck in a place they did not expect to be, and from which there seems to be no escape.” We always have choice. Maybe too few exercise it.
As ever,
Martin
Hello, Martin.
You say “We always have choice. Maybe too few exercise it”
It’s our inability to do as you say that concerns me.
Cheers,
Roger
Great article.
People by nature are not designed to be managed by anyone else. As you have said, our behavior was shaped by the historical military needs and also by industrialization after the world war: the need to rebuild the countries quickly. Then come the factories and functional automation with supervisory roles to make sure all the work is done.
Most of the people who became managers were not guided to overcome this “command and control” attitude and were not properly informed of the significance of their role towards their team.
We might think that people like to naturally develop others, which is not true.
There is a famous saying: “who has knowledge has power”
Most of the time, new managers unconsciously follow the path of this archaic attitude, because management has always been done in this way and are largely influenced by their peers.
Moreover, even if all employees claim a more humanistic, more responsible attitude and more free to think and act, even if it is necessary to transform the attitude of the leader, the global economy remains good: companies are business, growing margins, etc.
So the management is not so bad, is it?
As long as the economy is going well and companies will channel the malaise and turnover of employees, there is no need to transform managers …. according to managers.
Indeed, we all have the choice, but the question is not whether we want to be better at what we do, but rather: do I really want to do it? did I really understand what my role was? How can I do it?
As long as companies do not redefine what managers have to do (what I mean by that is their role towards people) and how they should fill it out, we will always discuss the same topic at conferences and through social media: why is it so unhealthy to act like a bully and what are the benefits of being a caring manager, but without solving the root causes…