There are two fundamental kinds of organizational role:
value-generating work which produces artifacts (physical objects, intellectual property and other intangible assets) that have value that in some way translates into the money that feeds the organization;
the enablement and direction that is required to remove obstacles to value-generating work, keep it on track, define what value is and link it to financial survival.
Management is concerned with enablement and direction, both of which need just enough to keep value-generating work moving smoothly. Too much management tends to be characterized by excessive direction (micro-management) which creates constraints that disable value-generating work. Too little tends to be characterized by a lack of direction, leading to fragmented and dissipated working. Too little is produced and, once completed, is of little value.
Management is therefore concerned with trying to balance itself on a very fine line. In situations where the management role senses its ineffectiveness, the commonest solution is to direct more (often by employing more managers). If over-direction is the source of low capability in producing valuable work then a self-reinforcing downward spiral begins. Once this happens it is very difficult for managers to “let go of the reins”.
The answer is to recognize this and concentrate more on enablement. Where there is a conflict between directing and enabling activities, focus on enabling. The goal of every intervention is to get higher value from the work. Therefore, set goals that prioritize highest-value work ahead of lower-value work and minimize the cost of working. In an IT setting, avoiding rework (e.g. fixing bugs) by assuring reasonable quality levels is a good approach.
One final note is that management roles tend to attract people with planning tendencies (the ‘J’ Myers-Briggs type), which lends itself more to directing activities than enabling ones.
SOURCE:
Amarinda Consulting
