A Breeding Ground For Bad Management

 

I’d like to continue to address some of the implications of one of the Scenarios I discussed in last week’s blog, where a “sustainable” organization (i.e., one that stays in business over an elongated period of time) does so despite having pathologies in its business model. Either because of government intervention resulting in near-monopolistic circumstances, or due to the possession of some intellectual property, talent, or material that’s unavailable to competitors, such an organization can stay viable despite committing what we in the PM World would hold to be management science blunders. Consider what happens to the younger employees, particularly those that end up advancing in this organization, when they end up being hired elsewhere. What experiences shape their managerial viewpoints, and business strategy formulation? Will these experiences be applicable to their new environs? Will they even be valid at all? Based on the frequency with which I have encountered the phenomena, I’m guessing that almost all of GTIM Nation has encountered a manager who will reminisce about “how things were done” back at their previous company, especially and particularly if that previous organization is well-known, profitable, or well-known for being profitable.

About All Of Those Time-Travel Movies…

I happen to believe that time travel is an extremely lame plot device, but many of the movies that feature them have one thing in common: the protagonist(s) seeks to go back in time in order to correct a mistake, made by them or another, in order for things to be “set right” once they return to their original time. I think something similar happens when managers advance in their careers, and assemble a kind of codex of management decisions and their ultimate results. Management tactics or strategies that, once employed, result in poor (or even catastrophic) consequences are typically removed from these managers’ repertoire, akin to fixing a previous error, whereas successful management techniques are remembered as such, and only await similar circumstances or environs to be re-attempted. Having had experience forge their management strategy technique collection so, it’s only natural that, when introduced to a new organization, these will employ what they “know” to be successful, and stridently avoid repeating a mistake.

But there’s the rub. Often lacking a complete understanding of the nuances of their new management environment, such managers may employ tactics that are utterly inappropriate for their new circumstances, resulting in chaos, friction, and, often, failure. When such failures occur, these managers tend to blame the organization, typically pointing to an inchoate “reluctance to change.”

This phenomenon is so prevalent that it’s become axiomatic that, when a new upper-management team is introduced into any organization, demonstrated loyalty to the new technical agenda becomes the coin of the realm. Any challenge to the new management approach can be seen as disloyalty, no matter how well-intentioned or ultimately accurate such challenges may prove. Abysmal management flourishes because those introducing the new agenda have insufficient appreciation for the differences in their new circumstances, and anyone who dares to point this out may be tagged with the disloyalty perception, often leading to severe career damage.

Adding to and accelerating this toxic cycle is the easy blaming of these “disloyal” team members when the new, poorly-considered management style proves to be, shall we say, sub-optimal. The new executives weren’t in error, oh no! It was the host organization’s “unwillingness to change.” Very convenient.

I’ve seen this exact scenario play out more often than I care to count. The upheaval, the unnecessary conflict, the elevation of the slick politically-savvy or overtly docile team members over the genuinely talented happens over and over, resulting in a thwarting of the natural business tendency of merit to trump conniving (or, in Maccoby archetype parlance, the Jungle Fighters are getting the better of the Craftsmen[i]). As this “sustainable” organization continues on in spite of the pathologies in the business model, the breeding-of-bad-managers effect quickens, as the truly talented will be the first to find an alternative, leaving behind the politicos, dociles, and newbies to fill in the management structure. The newbies will look around them at the dead-handed “success” of the organization, observe the workings of the business model (if partially, as it impacts their specific job), and be inclined to believe that the former is caused by the latter, entering their future managerial codex and awaiting the opportunity to manifest if and when a leadership role becomes available.

In extreme circumstances, the non-merit-based and yet sustainable organizations become long-term producers of just straight-up bad managers. If you are not a Jungle Fighter, but find yourself in such an organization, you might try to correct things, but that’s generally not a winning strategy. It’s probably best to simply recognize what’s happening around you, and guard against employing those management strategies in your future PM opportunities.

[i] See Maccoby, Michael. The Gamesman: The New Corporate Leaders. New York: Simon and Schuster,1976.