Rants
Questions
Soapbox
Best Practices
Apply today for a FREE subscription to CIO Magazine!
Fri, Oct 12, 2007 15:28 EDT

|
Posted by: Elana Varon in Best Practices Topic: Enterprise ManagementBlog: Innovation and IT Strategy
Current Rating: |
As I alluded to in an earlier post, I've been reading the new book on managing innovation by business strategy guru Gary Hamel. His basic message: Managers kill innovation because they don't know how to do anything else.
Yeah, you already knew that. In The Future of Management, Hamel tells us why—and what he thinks we ought to do about it. The book is a worthwhile—and even entertaining—course in management consciousness-raising.
So what's wrong with managers? It may be the 21st century, but the people in charge, from the CEO to the product manager, still look at the business from a 20th—or even 19th—century perspective. Back then, the big challenge facing companies was becoming more efficient, and managers were trained to wring as much time, money and productivity from their business processes and their employees as possible. And we're still doing that, even though the game has changed.
We need a different mindset. So Hamel (who teaches at the London Business School and founded the consultancy Strategos) lays out the steps toward a higher plane of managerial existence. He would reinvent management altogether by replacing the senior vice president's veto with a "democracy of ideas" to which all employees can contribute; by allocating budgets for new projects dynamically to avoid "overfunding the status quo"; by letting workers choose their assignments rather than handing out orders they might not find meaningful.
In an earlier book Leading the Revolution he promoted the idea of change from the trenches. Here we learn—through examples from companies like Whole Foods and Google, along with descriptions of emerging management techniques and some pointed questions everyone has to answer for him or herself--how management has to change to accommodate it. Hamel has a blunt sense of humor about all this: He compares how companies are managed to the bureaucracies of the former Soviet Union and says an innovative leader should "think of yourself as Oprah. Your goal is to get people talking."
The analysis makes sense, and it won't surprise anyone who studies corporate innovation. But it's hard to change your world view. Hamel is something of an optimist. He assumes that you really want to work differently. Or maybe he's simply a realist. Because if you don't change, some else will force their idea of change upon you.
Hi Elena,
Thank you for the review. I think there is one necessary condition for a manager to be able to embrace the change that you (and the book) are talking about. This condition is manager's ability to consider his subordinates being his friends/family members/children of some sort. He should REALLY care about them and be ready to go to battle nurturing and protecting his team. I'm saying "really" because many managers try to fake it. May be this attempt can fly in other industries, but IT folks spot this in a fraction of a second. Since this moment the manager is "done". He will never get respect from the team.
This sets a new bar for manager's ethical qualities. Unfortunately, I see many managers not capable of meeting this challenge or not even realizing the need. It does require certain personality. Especially considering that a manager cannot expect or count on reciprocal treatment from the team - this is just the nature of the deal, unfortunately for us, managers.
Truly,
Eugene Nizker
PS. As for the bureaucrats from former Soviet Union, the author is dead wrong. I came to Canada more than 12 years ago from Moscow. As you can imagine, I know something about bureaucrats in Russia / Soviet Union. Believe it or not, the most crucial surprise for me was that Russian bureaucrats are innocent children comparing to Canadian ones. It's way more brutal here. :)
Gary Hamel writes very interesting thought provoking books. They make us step back and look at where we are, and then dream of where we might be... Leadership, as a topic, will be discussed and written about as long as people choose to organize to amplify their overall accomplishments. The article and review caused me to reflect on what I have learned.
This is what I have learned about leaders, (including how they grow innovation and care about people...) pick a good person. It's that easy, you can teach a good person to lead (and manage), it is much more difficult to help a person with good leadership skills and who can manage to become a better person. This may sound oversimplified. What is the metric of how to measure leaders...? Followers, of course.
I ask only that you think aboout the leaders you have worked with and for and draw your own conclusions.
Good to know that Gary Hamel wants organisations to be disruptive and all the other ideas...it helps.
The only issue lot of people have with Hamels of the world is that they have never run a company that has to drive profits and revenues on a qtr to qtr basis. They have a consulting company to do some engagements.
I would like to challenge them to apply their ideas to large, well run corporations and show us that they can do better than the current captains.
Mr Hamel, want to take it on?