Tools of Effective Management E-Book

Fredmund Malik

• Herausgeber: Campus Verlag
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Serie: Die Malik ManagementSysteme
• Sprache: Deutsch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Seitenzahl: 164

Beschreibung

This Malik eReading application comprises the complete Malik Management Systems: Essentials every manager needs to know, from the essence of the craft to strategy, corporate governance and leadership.

Leseprobe

Fredmund Malik

Tools of Effective Management

www.campus.de

Outline

Management is no matter of ideology, nor is it a question of fashion. Management is a craft – the universal and most important discipline of the 21st century. Fredmund Malik, a leading expert in the field of general management, provides you with the knowledge it takes to be a successful executive and manager, in any position, within any organisation.

Fredmund Malik explains what tools every executive, regardless of position and in any field, needs on a daily basis. The requirement, Malik shows, is not for a high degree of specialization in analysis or managerial accounting, let alone for the latest fad in executive philosophy. On the contrary: He emphasizes the continuing importance of mastering the essential tools of the trade, which you need every day, in any organisation, at any level of management.

Fredmund Malik’s theory is system-oriented and can thus be applied regardless of time or place. It is designed to work in all areas and industries of any society, irrespective of changing trends or  national and cultural differences. Taking as his point of departure the consistent traits displayed by complex systems – phenomena that executives and managers are likely to address on a daily basis – Malik sets the standard for sound management in a knowledge-based economy.

Read more about the Malik Management Systems:

Management Is a Craft

Principles of Effective Management

Tasks of Effective Management

The Malik Management System and Its Users

Information about the author

Prof. Dr. Fredmund Malik is a university-level professor of corporate management, an internationally renowned management expert and the chairman of Malik Management, the leading knowledge organization for wholistic cybernetic management systems, based in St. Gallen, Switzerland. With approximately 300 employees, a number of international branch offices and partner networks for cybernetics and bionics, Malik Management is the largest knowledge organization, offering truly effective solutions for all types of organizations and their complex management issues. Thousands of executives are trained and advised about wholistic general management systems. Fredmund Malik is the awardwinning and best-selling author of more than ten books, including the classic Managing Performing Living. He is also a regular columnist for opinion-leading newspapers and magazines and one of the most prominent thought leaders in the management arena. Among numerous other awards, he has received the Cross of Honor for  Science and Art from the Republic of Austria (2009) and the Heinz von Foerster Award for Organizational Cybernetics from the German Society for Cybernetics (2010).

Copyright notice

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner.

Copyright © 2011 Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main.

Cover design: Campus Verlag GmbH, Frankfurt am Main

Konvertierung Koch, Neff & Volckmar GmbH,

KN digital – die digitale Verlagsauslieferung, Stuttgart

ISBN 978-3-593-41271-9

www.campus.de

|10|Preliminary Remarks

This section deals with the tools of effective management. Or, to be more precise, it deals with the things that must be made into tools in order for a manager to be effective. The tools I am suggesting here are not tools by themselves. No one is born with them, nor do we learn to use them at school.

In a certain way the mastery of tools defines a profession. A person who knows how to work with a chisel is a stonemason – perhaps only an amateur or one who is just pursuing a hobby – but whether that person is a sculptor is doubtful. However, he is a stonemason, irrespective of whether he has a certificate of apprenticeship or a master craftsman’s certificate, whether he is a member of a guild, and irrespective of the way he has learnt to use the tool. The purpose for which the tool is utilized is another issue. It can be used for good or for bad. That does not depend on the tool.

In order to master a tool practice is necessary. Indefatigable, continuous, never ending practice and training is the only way to gain mastery of tools. There is no other way. Whether what is known as virtuosity can be achieved using this method alone is another issue. In most cases a certain basic talent must also exist. However, what is essential is not the talent but what is achieved with it. That is what we mean by effectiveness. And effectiveness requires continuous practice, as has been shown by experience and all kinds of analyses. It can be observed in those people who have taken something to a form of virtuosity, to mastery, such as successful sportsmen and sportswomen, musicians and also surgeons, for example.

The tools that I suggest for managers and their effectiveness are very unspectacular, mundane things. This creates a problem. Not much attention |11|is paid to them; they are not even recognized to be what they actually are. People think of complicated, more striking things. I often carry out a small exercise with participants in seminars before I start on the subject of tools. I ask them to tell me what they consider to be tools. In the last few years the spontaneous and immediate answer has been the computer. The computer is no doubt a tool, but it is a tool for practically everyone and not specifically or primarily for managers.

Then there is a pause; the participants reflect. I have never come across a joiner, locksmith or bricklayer who had to think when I asked them to name their most important tools. Managers always have to think. They are unfamiliar with the whole abstract category. Then come the answers, uncertain, hesitant, and questioning rather than answering, usually very complicated things: capital budgeting, cash flow analysis, efficiency analysis, cost benefit analysis, critical path technique, and such like.

These are indeed tools but I would suggest that they be considered tools for specialists. A few managers need to master these types of tools and methods; or to put it another way, every organization needs a few people who can use these tools. However, these things are certainly not required by every manager. The principal question here is: What does every manager in every organization need, and what should the manager be equipped with in principle?

Many managers are not familiar with their tools nor do they practice their application. This is true of an astonishingly large number of managers. Some, more of a minority, think they are too good for tools; this is either arrogance or stupidity. On the other hand, most are not even aware of the existence and importance of tools. They cannot imagine that tools should also be important in their profession.

Tools are, of course, not the aim and object of a profession, even though they define it in a certain way. The tools of a mountaineer – rope, ice hammer, crampons and safety equipment – do not constitute the aim of mountaineering, whatever we may see that aim as being. They are, however, necessary if we want to climb mountains.

There are seven elements that I think are suitable tools: meetings, reports, job design and assignment control, personal working methods, |12|budgets, performance appraisal, and systematic waste disposal. These tools now assume far greater significance as a result of the working conditions in the service, information, and knowledge society. The precision and professionalism with which they are used are essential for the success of a manager.

This is not a very exciting topic. It becomes interesting, informative and sometimes very exciting when the volume of work, the working methods, and the results of managers who have learnt to use their tools effectively are compared to those who have not. It is the difference between a professional and a dilettante. What is striking is, above all, the volume of work and the high degree of complexity that managers can handle when they have mastered these tools.

Perhaps one more comment on the word “tool”. I have already mentioned that most managers have no idea of this category as such. Some do not seem to particularly like the word. Of course, I would have nothing against people using the word “instrument”. Ultimately, it is not the words that matter.

|13|First Tool: Meetings

Managers spend a considerable proportion of their time in meetings. Usually this proportion is far too high. 80 percent of all higher-level managers stated in interviews that they spent 60 percent of their time in meetings. And 80 percent of the managers stated that 60 percent of all meetings were inefficient and unproductive. Whichever way we look at it, this is an unacceptable situation. Meetings can and must be made productive. They can be a very effective tool provided we follow a few simple rules.

Reduce the Number of Meetings

Improvements in the effectiveness of meetings begin with the cancellation of some meetings. In most organizations there are simply far too many meetings. This is essentially due to the following reasons, which will gain more rather than less validity in the future due to technological change: Organizational structures are getting more and more complicated. There is an increasing trend towards working groups and teamwork. Many managers call meetings simply as a knee jerk reaction without thinking about whether they are really necessary. The numbers of specialists are increasing, but due to their narrow field of expertise, they are unable to carry out a task from beginning to end on their own; they need another five or six people to help out.

Therefore, the number of meetings automatically increases if no action is taken against this trend. Furthermore, each meeting necessitates a series of subsequent meetings. Every management meeting usually means work for each member of the management team, which in turn |14|necessitates more meetings in the divisions and departments under them.

Hence, the first important step is to put a stop to this proliferation of meetings. The automatic mechanisms that lead to more meetings must be eliminated or brought under control.

Therefore, my first recommendation is: Do not hold a meeting! When we get the impulse to call a meeting, we should stop briefly and ask: Is this meeting really important? Is there another way to do the work or solve the problem? Only after careful consideration, and if there really is no other or better way, should we actually call the meeting.

Particular attention must be paid to one cause of the proliferation of meetings: teamwork. Since teamwork has become so routine, it has also become a source of inefficiency. Many “teams” are not teams in reality, they are groups. They are put together without thought; not enough thought is devoted to who should be a part of the team and who should not; the tasks and working methods are set sloppily; frequently, the objectives are not defined well enough. The more this is true, the more meetings will be necessary, not for the purpose of doing actual work, but to seek clarification and to deal with the sloppiness.

Though teamwork is distinguished by smooth cooperation, this does not mean that all team members need to attend all the meetings. Good teamwork means that the need to hold meetings is reduced to a minimum.

Managers who spend more than 30 percent of their time in meetings should give careful thought to how they can reduce the time taken up by meetings. And if this is really not possible, they should at least devote a great deal of attention to the effectiveness of their meetings.

Crucial for Success: Preparation and Follow-Up Work

The real work is not usually done in the meeting itself but before and |15|after it. The effectiveness of a meeting is determined by preparation, in practical terms this means preparing the agenda and implementation of the resolutions after the meeting.

The preparation of a meeting requires time. Therefore, we should make a space for this time in our schedule to ensure we have it. Managers do enter meetings in their diaries. But surprisingly, very few also reserve time in their schedules for the preparation and follow-up work.

Inadequate preparation can, to a certain extent, be compensated for by improvisation, and experienced managers resort to this. It should be noted in passing that this is not an innate ability but the result of long years of experience. Good managers can improvise, but they do not depend on the skill of improvisation. They prepare, they conscientiously think about the meeting and its course, and they also know that even the best-prepared meetings do not always go according to plan. There is enough demand for the skill of improvisation even with the best of preparation.

The instrument for preparing a meeting is the agenda. There should be no meeting without an agenda – with one exception that I shall explain at the end.

Usually it is neither possible nor advisable to prepare an agenda alone. As part of the preparations for the meeting, we should coordinate with all or at least the important participants in the meeting, give them the opportunity to specify their ideas and wishes for the organization of the agenda and the course of the meeting. The formal rights of motion in certain types of meetings, depending on the legal system, statutes, partnership deeds, etc. remain reserved.

Coordination in setting the agenda and deciding the course of the meeting does not change the fact that, in the end, it is the task of the person chairing the meeting to set the final agenda. Therefore, it is this person’s management decision to take up certain suggestions and disregard others. For regular meetings it is advisable to set a time by which any ideas and requests should be submitted to the chairperson of the meeting. The agenda must be sent to the participants in accordance with the provisions in the statutes or well in advance to give them time |16|to make their own preparations. These periods of notice must be borne in mind when setting the aforementioned deadline.

A good agenda has few items rather than many. The items should be really important, i.e. those that really justify the personal presence of the participants. The principle of concentration is crucial for the effectiveness of meetings. Exceptions are those meetings which deal with the processing of items and formalities agreed upon in advance, for example, dealing with legally stipulated items in the internal relationships of group companies. These meetings can have many items on the agenda, as there is hardly any need for discussion and no decisions are to be taken.

Chairing a Meeting is Hard Work and Requires Discipline

People who chair a meeting are visible and obvious to everyone. The participants instinctively notice whether or not the chairperson has everything under control. Therefore, this is an opportunity to gain respect, or to lose it, by management action. The office or position in the organization held by the person has little to do with it.

Once a person understands what chairing a meeting is all about and what must be kept in mind, the rest is just a matter of practice. As with everything else, this must also be practiced. No one can expect to become a passable tennis player without a minimum of training. The same is applicable to chairing a meeting. In the course of time it becomes routine; a person automatically does what is correct, and no longer needs to make a great effort– just as with driving.

Types of Meetings

There are different types of meetings. Some types are well prepared as a matter of course; other types are characterized by a lack of preparation. |17|However, all meetings must be well prepared if we are interested in personal and organizational effectiveness.

Large, Formal Meetings

Typical examples here are supervisory board, executive board, advisory board or shareholders’ meetings, and annual general meetings. These meetings are usually well prepared, because no one wants to make a fool of himself in front of these bodies. However, this cannot be taken for granted even in these types of meetings. The number of inadequately prepared meetings is more than people would like to believe.

Routine Meetings

Regular board meetings, senior management meetings, departmental meetings, or divisional meetings are typical examples. In well-managed companies, these meetings are adequately prepared, but the effectiveness of such meetings can be greatly improved in many cases. For example, people try to deal with too many items on the agenda. Frequently, there is an unsuitable mixing of points concerning the operative business and points which deal with the future of the company and innovation.

It is advisable to make a clear differentiation between these issues, because they have to be handled differently and, above all, the time required for each of them varies. One option could be, for example, that every second or third management meeting is devoted exclusively or primarily to innovation issues.

Meetings of Working Groups, Cross-Departmental Teams, etc.

Usually very little preparation goes into these meetings, even though |18|they are often more important than the first two types of meeting. The task of preparing and chairing most of these meetings is in the hands of group leaders or project managers who have, however, little practice or experience in this area and have also been trained for this role inadequately, if at all. These meetings are most frequently labeled as inefficient.

Small Ad-Hoc Meetings, Discussions between a Boss and Subordinate or between Colleagues

These are also meetings. They are the meetings that are held most often, and the preparations for them are the worst. In such meetings much of what is discussed is “off the cuff”. I believe this is a serious mistake and is one of the most important reasons for inefficiency. A manager should not simply allow someone to call and say: I must speak to you…, or let people simply barge into the office saying, … could I quickly …

It is quite acceptable to pursue an “open door policy” as a manager; managers must be accessible to their staff. But this should not degenerate into an open invitation to inefficiency and a lack of preparation. A formal, written agenda is not required, but a habit should be made of asking. You want to speak to me? About what? What is the objective? What do we want to achieve with our talk? Approximately how long will we need for this meeting? And how do I prepare for it? It makes a considerable difference whether the person only wants to tell me something quickly, or whether he requiresa decision from me that necessitates a few minutes of preparation on my part, such as quickly reading through the most recent correspondence on the issue and briefly thinking over the alternatives.

With these types of questions we should urge our subordinates to prepare for the meeting, even if it is short, and to think about what the outcome of the meeting should be.

All subordinates complain in interviews that their bosses do not have enough time for them; and managers complain that they have to |19|devote far too much time to their subordinates. Both are right! People always have and get too little time. The solution to this problem lies not in spending more time but using the little time we have more profitably. The key to this is preparation.

What many managers overlook time and again is the fact that many meetings with their subordinates take up only a little time. Often just 10, 20, or 30 minutes are spent briefly discussing an issue; then everyone can return to work.

However, there is one meeting that must last more than an hour, most probably two, or perhaps the time aspect is best left open. These are meetings that are not concerned with an issue but with people, interpersonal relations, or personal matters. Time must