Single point management #2
I’ve never really been a fan of what I call single point management (SPM). This is where a manager thinks that just because they have responsibility for something that means that everything relating to that function must ‘go through’ or ‘be approved’ by them.
This approach is okay for taking control of a situation or assessing the current state but it doesn’t really do anything for the organisation or the advancement of management theory.
But my main problem with single point management isn’t that it inefficient and completely ignores advances in communication tools (or even legacy communication tools like CC’ing emails). My main problem with the single point management approach is its effect on governance.
I tend to define governance in very simple terms as ‘what managers the managers’. Under this definition of governance the single point management approach gives a manager the opportunity to avoid responsibility.
Take for example the case where a quality manager says ‘I’m the quality manager so all work products must come to me for review’. In the event that a defective product is released into production or to the marker the quality manager is, by definition, responsible. However, by using a single point management approach the quality manager will undoubtedly have a way of avoiding responsibility. The chances are that the quality manager can point to an instance where a work product was not submitted for review and approval. Alternatively, the quality manager can claim that they didn’t have time to review and approve all the work products being sent to them.
So while the single point management approach might be an effective strategy for the individual manager it is actually bad management. In this case the forces that are actually managing the organisation (eg. ‘what collaborating individuals share’) are those of poor governance.
Like I’ve said ‘Management by inspecting - Governance by sampling’. Managers must ensure they met their responsibilities without reviewing all work products.
This approach is okay for taking control of a situation or assessing the current state but it doesn’t really do anything for the organisation or the advancement of management theory.
But my main problem with single point management isn’t that it inefficient and completely ignores advances in communication tools (or even legacy communication tools like CC’ing emails). My main problem with the single point management approach is its effect on governance.
I tend to define governance in very simple terms as ‘what managers the managers’. Under this definition of governance the single point management approach gives a manager the opportunity to avoid responsibility.
Take for example the case where a quality manager says ‘I’m the quality manager so all work products must come to me for review’. In the event that a defective product is released into production or to the marker the quality manager is, by definition, responsible. However, by using a single point management approach the quality manager will undoubtedly have a way of avoiding responsibility. The chances are that the quality manager can point to an instance where a work product was not submitted for review and approval. Alternatively, the quality manager can claim that they didn’t have time to review and approve all the work products being sent to them.
So while the single point management approach might be an effective strategy for the individual manager it is actually bad management. In this case the forces that are actually managing the organisation (eg. ‘what collaborating individuals share’) are those of poor governance.
Like I’ve said ‘Management by inspecting - Governance by sampling’. Managers must ensure they met their responsibilities without reviewing all work products.
posted by Matthew at
6:37 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home