Industry without Managers

There's not really much there to get your teeth into - he doesn't say anything about what the new concept really is or what type of results he's seeing. While I believe in a very broad and shallow management structure (no middle-managers) someone has to be responsible for setting the leadership vision and ensuring that all decisions are compatible with that vision. Otherwise you'll have individuals going off in every different direction - all thinking they're doing what is best for the company.

Hello Folks, I thought I must just add my thoughts here, given the interesting comments about the BBC programme on DNA Wales and my work with companies here in Wales, UK. I started this 'project' over 7 years ago, when a group if managers, CEO's and academics came together to wonder 'what it would be like' with various ideas, counter-ideas and of course 'no management' organisations. After being challenged at a management seminar "if it works so well in theory, why don't you show us how it works in practice", I began working with companies to do just that. We have over 20 companies in Wales who now operate in various stages of becoming 'management-less' .... some have none what-so-ever, others some in name only, for the benefit of outside bodies such as legal representatives. We have a mix of, Public Services; small, medium, large, national and multi-national with products ranging from services, to Hi-tec to heavy end 'industrial turbines'. Why the mix of companies/services?..... to stop people (mainly managers!) saying 'interesting, but that wouldn't work in my company'. The simply truth is that if it has more than 2 humans, it will, could and probably is. We claim that people cannot be managed like a warehouse or machine, or that some people are better than others at it, this is entirely wrong. It suggests people can be controlled, ordered, given incentives, penalties, suppressed and motivated to work. Human mess can be administered but yet administration is not management. Management tries to ignore individual needs and see people as employees by treating them as mere means to an end. However, as I am sure most will agree, to do so will simply result in people becoming irritable, subversive and quickly UNmanageable! Traditional management does not work. Traditional management, of command and control is yesterdays method and not todays. When we see the mess/damage management has on an organisation (its people) our reaction is to respond by hiring more managers to manage the mess and then more layers of managers to oversee the managers.... Of course most organisations don't do this, they simply buy in the worst type of managers..... Consultant Managers when things get really awful! How on earth can managers make strategic direction when they are the furthest from the client or customer? Managers claim to 'scientific' management yet as we know that there is no such thing as a scientist and its a shame that 'William Whewell', a poor philosopher invented the term. There are biologists, chemists, physicists, mathematicians and so on....Very bright people, but step them one pace outside their specialist area and they are no better than he rest of us. The myth is propelled by the routine consultant manager who professes more expertise than the incumbent managers. People are not cogs in a machine or easily quantified into a position, which someone 'above is able to control, direct and drive. They may do so when the manager is around but as soon as their back is turned, productivity diminishes. We have to remember there are no 'facts' only 'truths'...... a large number of them, used as and when to prove a point and gain power over others.... There are of course great reason for hiring consultants.... its easy to pass the buck, and justify spend for a new structure....but the mess (people) still remain, if just a little more irritated, subversive and hardened to management... In order to have an organisation which is able to compete it has to have trust, accept risk and be creative. The organisations of the future will need to be reactive faster than their competitors to be able to do this, they have to engage everyone in the workforce. If there are 200 people in the organisation then there needs to be 200 leaders. Of course some people don't want to take ownership of the problem, or responsibility in the organisation....but can you afford to carry those people?? If they are not 'adding value' somewhere in the system then they simply become a cost. The results of our impact, one company decreasing absenteeism to less than 1%, another increased productivity by 300% in 5 months, another increased product innovations from 1-2 per quarter to 3-4 a month. Even Public Government increased decision making from 6 weeks to 10 mins (how they simply invited everyone to attend....of course only those who had an interested did). I have so much to tell you about the companies, but I just wanted to let you know, its great to see the debate .... So if I wrote too much..... We are bytherway, free to Welsh companies, we are a non-profit making, cash neutral organisation to help. We are not consultants.......ggrrrrr... Cheers Dr Paul Thomas Business Doctor, DNA Wales

Interesting, but the article really doesn't explain what he is doing and how.

The article doesn't address the issue of how different businesses function differently in their frames of references. For instance, the business model for a bottling company is not the same as say a software development company.

Then there is the definition of manager and leader. The two are different. A leader sets and guides a team toward a common goal and vision. A manager organizes a team and the team's tasks based on the leadership's vison. They are two distinct functions, however, in many companies the same individual may wear both hats.

From an engineer's perspective, a manager's job is to clear obstacles out of the way so that his team of engineers can get to work and keep working. As an engineer, the last thing that I want to do is interrupt my day with managing program related problems when I am more concerned (and trained) to solve engineering problems.

For example, as an engineer are you interested in budgets, managing those budgets, and writing proposals for spending plans? What about project scheduling? Would you like to manage the project schedule, write reports that state why you are behind or on track? What about gathering resources and tools for completion of of engineering tasks?

There is no reason to believe that engineers can't wear those hats, too. In some small companies it is required. However, every hour that an engineer must spend on non-engineering activities is one less hour that can be spent actually doing engineering.

Chances are what a manager can do in one hour will take an engineer longer to do the same unless that engineer has been trained for those managerial duties.

I am a proponent of a lean company, but I am also thankful to the members of that company that allow me to stay focused on the problems I am best trained at solving and leave the supporting functions to someone else to battle over.

Good answer. Engineers should concentrate on engineering instead of being distracted by administrative matters, while managers should concentrate on management and not on meddling with engineering, particularly if they know nothing about it.

There is nothing wrong with companies wanting engineers to cover administrative duties as well, provided they train them for it. Of course, smaller, leaner companies may possibly be more effective, but IMHO, the real secret to a well-run company is to recognize that every staff member has his/her own strengths and weaknesses, and to utilize that staff to the best of his/her abilities.

If only such a perfect world existed.

The truth is that all activities are integrating at an accelerating rate.

The era of specialists is behind us.

milo

Might work in "think tanks," but not necessarily in every endeavour. TQM (Total Quality Management), or the "Deming Method," that Edward Deming championed in Japan post WWII, gives workers "ownership" of their work, essentially making them responsible for overseeing their own work. Problems arise with scheduling and coordination, necessitating workers to hold meetings to keep things running smoothly, whereas it may take only one person to do what a group would have to do and agree upon. And I've seen workers who absolutely don't like the idea of having responsibility -- they just want to do the work they have to do.

Bottom line is that some companies might work well if innovative ideas are the product, but I suspect factories without managers is a long ways off.

We have a member company who created a skunk works, and let the workers handle their own scheduling, bringing in material, maintenance and rebuilds etc. in a separate building. The old shop ran the old way. They kept tweaking it and measuring results. After about five years, They made a decision.

Built a new plant, moved everybody from both plants in, and ran it using the policies and procedures they had proven at the skunk works.

This was during period when industry was declining.

They invested heavily in communication and interpersonal skills training.

So it can be done. but I do think that success in this area is an exception. most managers can't stand to be out of "control." Its scary.

milo

I working in manufacturing this company has some what taken on these principles. I don't know that i would call it getting rid of the managers. Its more like tying their hands. Takes a lot of effort for a manager to change their ways. To stop criticizing condemning and complaining when things are not up to their expectations. These actions alienate the work force and an unhappy employee is usually not productive.

As it have been put to me the only boss we have is the customer. If the customers is happy every one has done their job. Since the customers are happy all the employees are doing their jobs so don't bother them. If you have to don't fault them. ask what you can do to help them achieve their goals

Does it work? To some extent yes every thing is not perfect.

For all but the smallest of organizations this does sound like a pipe dream. To some extent this boils down to a question of hierarchy: a question of who does the hiring. If management hires the engineers, then the engineers are the peons. In theory if the engineers hire the management, the managers are the peons.

In the 50's the management of many companies hired 'efficiency experts' to streamline the organization. Over time it seems that the efficiency experts have taken over management.

In theory there is no reason why a group of engineers couldn't organize a business, line up clients, and then hire managers to coordinate their efforts, set priorities, work out schedules, inform the engineers when schedules weren't being met, collect income and pay the bills, etc..

In practice it seems that human (simian) nature doesn't usually work that way. The person who says 'this thing has to get done right now' automatically has the authority position, even if they know nothing about the thing to be done. Engineers manipulate things. Managers manipulate people. Its as if engineers gravitate toward their craft because they don't have the the social skills to manipulate other people. Managers gravitate toward their craft because they don't have the mental skills to manipulate the physical world.

"Managers gravitate toward their craft because they don't have the mental skills to manipulate the physical world."

Not necessarily true. Managers who enjoy their work enjoy working with people. I know many managers that started as engineers and they were very good at it. They decided that they wanted bigger challenges and jumped at the opportunity.

I understand that there are many "bad" managers, just as there are many "bad" engineers. However, any manager who is worth their salt is a problem solver that removes the obstacles and barriers that impede their team from reaching leadership's goals and assigns resources toward that goal.

Of course its not necessarily true. Thats why I used the term gravitate. There are always exceptions.

I read it as a complete statement. As such it is false because it is a generalization. It is like saying all attorneys are corrupt. It makes a great social joke, but there are many attorneys that are very moral and respectable people.

It does sound like a pipe dream. At 150 employees I would not say we are the smallest of companies and surely not the largest.

Question do you like to be told what to do. Order to do some thing. Human nature is no one enjoys it. Looking at a manufacturing work force most of them don't even enjoy work or want to work.

So its how this hierarchy approaches getting the work force to do their jobs. First of all there are no peons. To look upon any one with that thought is degrading to them. In addressing them as such will only alienate them and in most cases reduce their productivity. Each and every worker has a value. A good manager will recognize their valve and place them where they can do the company the most good. A good manager should not even place his value over those subordinate to him.

The production manager now VP of production was hired with the expressed knowledge that he could hire all the personnel he needed but he could not fire them. One of the owners holds that call. He is the driving force in this change.

Does it work? Production has increased 50%. The revolving door has slowed drastically so there is greater retention of trained employees. Is it perfect no.

Highest and best use of Human being in our employ.

"A good manager will recognize their valve and place them where they can do the company the most good. A good manager should not even place his value over those subordinate to him."

YESSSSSSS!

GA

milo

Some years back (about the time dirt was first discovered), I lived near a manufacturing plant that fell onto very hard times due to inflation/credit squeeze/falling market (why that could be now!). The CEO brought in a team of "choppers" who were told to use the following criteria: They could not fire anyone if it meant impacting the production schedule or quality. Slightly over 50% of the company was let go and production never skipped a beat. The layoffs were almost exclusively middle management and support staff. The company is still there. Turns out they only needed a few white collar mangement together with working supervisors.

I don't know if there's a point to my story or not, but some companies are way top-heavy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maverick_%28book%29

I have read several books on management (Up the Organization, Corporate Cultures, Theory Z are some if the best IMHO), served in the military reserve, worked at various jobs for companies large and small, and took a few business courses in junior college. From my education and experience I have formed the following perspective:

Management is the allocation of resources to meet needs and wants. People are a resource that is best managed through leadership.

The two main principles of leadership are (1) never ask a follower to do something that you are not willing to do yourself, and (2) prepare your own replacement.

Managers that tell their employees one thing, but their actions contradict their words, they are not leaders, and poor managers as well. If you find yourself in such a situation, the best thing is to apply the Rule of Holes: When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!

(In one of the jr. college business courses, I wrote a paper on the 4 elements of effective leadership. The instructor liked it enough he read it to the entire class.) The elements of effective leadership are (1) a willingness to be visible, (2) a sense of direction, (3) initiative, and (4) decisiveness.

I worked for an engineering company once that was very effective. They brought their managers in from outside and employed them for their management skills. The managers were paid less than the engineers.

Every other company I have worked for: the best engineers get paid more for becoming bad managers. This may be a predominantly British problem.

I agree and I dont believe it is a British problem. It almost seems that "bad" managers are fulfiling the "Peter Principle" and are rising to their optimum level of incompetence.

Some years ago, I attended a seminar at MIT that was designed to offer enlightenment about business, funding and product development to non-business minded folks (primarily engineers) who had new inventions/products/innovations, that they believed could be profitable.

The philosophy of the course proposed that there are fundamentally three types of minds or personalities engaged in business.

1. The entrepreneur - who is interested primarily in pushing a business ahead into uncharted territory and doesn't bother himself with what it takes to do so.

2. The manager - who is absorbed with the control of all aspects of the business and generally has little understanding of the product or service.

3. The technician - who is intent to produce by the lead of #1.

It is obvious that the manager will be in conflict with #1 and #3 and that the manager and technician see absolutely no mutual benefit amongst themselves other than the manager providing the means to the technician, and conversely, the tech. providing revenue to the mgr.; essentially contemptuous of each other,

Can't say I believe 100% with the philosophy, but it's pretty close. The two problems I see are that middle management (in my experience) has little or no appreciation of the mechanism and people who provide their paycheck and they are too great in their proportion to the producers. Way, way, way too many meetings.

"Before a man can discipline other men, he must demonstrate his ability to discipline himself. Before he may be allowed the command of commission, he must evidence command of character. Look then to the work of his hands. Hear the words of his mouth. By his fruits you shall know him." Theodore Roosevelt.

Some times the intellect of a person can not be measured by the education they have. So if the "middle" manager is not needed, well don't have one. Allow the people in the facility to manage them selves.They will have no one to blame on the bad days and on the good days they will reap all the benefits of governing them selves. But it is the job of "the powers that be" to pic the right people to put into those places. A gold in laden resume' is not always the best judge of a person.

Good answer. edignan

Thanks for sharing that.

milo

Quote "Whenever I've ever asked anybody whether they would like to have lots of cash or job security, people normally plump for job security," This is the first mistake. This is very old thinking, people should stop looking for job security but self-improvement.

Like most had pointed out, the problem is not with manager, its their skill. Too many manager/owner lack leadership skill to lead their work force.

For more on this topic, see:

http://www.dnawales.co.uk/

We don't need industry without managers nearly so much as we need industry without any damn conference rooms for those managers to meet in. For you guys in China and India who are just becoming industrial giants, do not, I say do not, allow cubicles and meetings to be introduced into your countries. It's the road to perdition.

A GA and I gave it a vote. Meetings, in particular, are by far the largest factor robbing productivity. I once was forced (for a week) to attend daily meetings lasting 4 hours each that were meant to update the 24+ participants in the meeting of what they (as middle level management) had recommended. I finally convinced my boss that the meeting was futile for me to attend as I couldnt do the research and data analysis I needed to do if I attended the meeting.

The portion of the problem being addressed by my people was only solved because I was given the okay to not be there.