The phrase, “Management effectiveness,” is generally referred to when discussing management that has achieved maximum performance. Herman and Renz (2002) have presented the best outline of the concept of management effectiveness with nine fundamental schemes about management effectiveness. Their propositions are as-
- Management effectiveness is always a matter of comparison.
- Management effectiveness is multi-dimensional.
- Boards make a difference in Management effectiveness, but how is not clear.
- Management effectiveness is a social construction.
- More effective organizations are more likely to use correct management practices.
- Claims about “best practices” warrant critical evaluation.
- Claims about “best practices” warrant critical evaluation.
- It can be important to distinguish different types of organizations.
- Network effectiveness is as important to study as Management effectiveness.
Management effectiveness is always a matter of comparison
Blumenthal (2003) suggests Management Effectiveness might result from perfection in one or more of the following features:
- Management stability would regard whether services are constantly conveyed and the organisation survives.
- Financial stability is predestined particularly on short-term survival, such as the ability to pay bills. Financial stability is frequently unnoticed as an area of importance in the time of capacity building.
- Program quality (products or services) is predestined on a measure of impact, counting sufficient research about effectual programs and effects of the management system.
- Management growth is based on be a focus on resources and provides more services. Blumenthal also mentioned that growth is not the only indicator of performance.
When determining the effectiveness of an organization, to what am I comparing the organization to conclude whether it is effective or not? For example, are I comparing to a certain set of best practices or another highly respected organization?
Management effectiveness is multi-dimensional
One indicator cannot measure management effectiveness. For example, a budget surplus or a strong product outcome does not guarantee that the organization has achieved overall maximum Management effectiveness.
Boards make a difference in Management effectiveness, but how is not clear
There is a correlation between effective Boards and effective organizations. However, it is not clear that one necessarily causes the other.
Management effectiveness is a social construction
The concept of Management effectiveness is “in the eye of the beholder.” One person might have a completely different interpretation than another person.
More effective organizations are more likely to use correct management practices
It takes care to point out that the reverse is not necessarily true – that organizations that use correct management practices will be judged as being effective. (The correct practices were identified during focus groups in various studies.)
Claims about “best practices” warrant critical evaluation
The authors explain that the results of their study do not agree with the wide assertion that certain practices, for example, automatically produce the best Boards.
Measures of responsiveness may offer solutions to differing judgments
This proposition reframes the concept of effectiveness for an organization to be about how well that organization is doing in responding to whatever is currently important. Adapted from “Field Guide to Consulting and Management Development” – to obtain the entire book, select.
It can be important to distinguish different types of organizations
This is true to make progress in understanding the practices, tactics and strategies that may lead to Management effectiveness.
Network effectiveness is as important to study as management effectiveness
This proposition recognizes that the effectiveness of an organization might depend to a great extent on the effectiveness of the wide network of organizations in which the particular organization operates.
Suggested Capacities for Management Effectiveness
Letts, Ryan and Grossman (1998) suggest four key capacities for Management effectiveness. These capacities were suggested for nonprofit organizations. However, they also apply to organizations in general and, thus, their descriptions are modified in the following paragraphs to apply to organizations in general.
Adaptive capacity
Adaptive capacity is the ability of an organization to maintain focus on the external environment of the organization, particularly on “performing” (meeting the needs of customers), while continually adjusting and aligning itself to respond to those needs and influences. Adaptive capacity is cultivated through attention to assessments, collaborating and networking, assessments and planning.
Leadership capacity
Leadership capacity is the ability to set the direction for the organization and its resources and also guide activities to follow that direction. Leadership capacity is cultivated through attention to visioning, establishing goals, directing, motivating, making decisions and solving problems.
Management capacity
Management capacity is the ability to ensure effective and efficient use of the resources in the organization. Management capacity is accomplished through careful development and coordination of resources, including people (their time and expertise), money and facilities.
Technical capacity
Technical capacity is the ability to design and operate products and services to effectively and efficiently deliver services to customers. The nature of that technical capacity depends on the particular type of products and services provided by the organization.
In addition, a fifth key capacity has been mentioned.
Generative capacity
Generative capacity is the ability of the organization to positively change its external environment. This capacity is exercised by engaging in activities to inform, educate and persuade policymakers, community leaders and other stakeholders.
Organisational Learning Approach
Senge’s Systems Model – An Appropriate Application
Many organisations are integrating systems thinking in their organisations. Senge’s (1994) model has been extensively adopted by various organisations to overcome their organisational learning. Peter Senge sketched a systems model that talks about the five disciplines which should be put into practice to an ‘organisational learning needs. The five regulations include:
- Personal Mastery.
- Shared vision.
- Team learning.
- Mental models.
- Systems thinking.
Each of these disciplines is exceptional to the success of all organisational learning and be able to be used individually or combined to devise a plan to fit organisational needs. The core of a learning organisation has a pedestal on the five learning disciplines that need an obligation to study and practice. These five disciplines provide a principle for any organisation to live an improved and more pleasant existence. Using the five disciplines provide preference to bring employees mutually toward a common purpose. It can also bring into line with the goals and values of the organisation.
Senge’s five disciplines are used broadly in both the public and private sector to produce learning organisations working a systems-thinking philosophy. It is a feasible paradigm.
Personal Mastery
This aspect is vital to an individual’s self-awareness and basic motivation. The organisation should give confidence to its members to seek learning and development in the regions that they wish mastery rather than expertise. This requires a continuing assurance to learning and growing. Encouraged members to arrive at their comfort zones, without trepidation of ridicule or shame from coworkers or supervisors. It also emphasises the significance of affecting intelligence and personal awareness. Admirations of a member need to be exceptional and individual. Cultural assortment and sensitivity preparation should be carried out on a regular basis.
All employees who go the extra distance should make reorganisation and reward contributions.
Personal Mastery would amplify self-esteem and decrease personal insecurities. It will permit an individual to focus on the positive power needed to achieve desired goals.
Strengthening the regulation of personal mastery in the workplace arrange the expected foundation and provides placement for the successful accomplishment of the organisations shared vision.
Shared Vision
All personnel and teams within the organisation should develop the intelligence of commitment for enlarged communication, effectual listening, conversation and problem-solving to effectively conquer a shared vision. This dimension might be facilitating by dialogue assembly that presents admiration to all members. There should be no personal attacks on a personnel view or feelings. Listening and not talking is a mainly significant part of the dialogue. This carries out also permits the speaker to listen to what they are really sharing with the assembly.
Talk about how personage and organisational values may perhaps differ and how to attain mutual goals. It will need to carry out employee and community support surveys to measure the organisation’s effectiveness among internal and external customers. Under this regulation employees get confidence to ask ‘why’ and ‘how,’ when they do not realise something clearly. This discipline also creates a personal action diagram or a mental plan for self and group goals and objectives. Interactive workouts ought to be used which allow members to grow together and not spaced out such as in spirited environments. Workshops that promote teamwork such as the ‘chains’ self-confidence building course might be effective in carrying groups together towards a general purpose.
Team Learning
This discipline needs to promote an environment favourable to learning and evaluating the trainer’s methods of coaching for effectiveness. It evaluates the assortment of learning manners within the organisation by governing a learning proficiency assessment instrument. It should create an equilibrium of talent and variety that will offer a positive power to all participants.
It also emphasis promoting a unified environment and highlight that group achievement relates to interdependency and bilateral faith. Recognising that every person does not be taught at the same level in the same way. One should share his skills and talents with others and learn from each other. It must convey that knowledge is exhausted if not recycled. All should pressure the value of diversity, creativeness and change.
Mental Models
Personnel will judge or refuse another person or group due to being short of complete perceptive. Stereotyping is a general indication of this behaviour. As specialised in a field that is sworn to protect and provide all equally and categorically, it would be obliged to move forward to instruct own about the penalty of conditional respect. The Mental models create a fence within the self-learning process.
Exercise in the area of understanding and concern lend support to generating a better understanding of the folks and cultures they get in touch with on a daily basis. It also considers that negativity is a learned behaviour. Therefore, it can be relearned with the appropriate information essential to formulate more appropriate conclusions. This is the area where nuisance and favouritism cases originate. Through approving a zero-tolerance strategy for the contempt of any individual this type of difficulty can be greatly abridged and eventually prevented.
Systems Thinking
This approach is meant to complement and not replace a specific way of the existing approach. By presentation of diverse situations with a broader-view problem-solvers will be much better to bother the authentic problems and not just an indication of the problem. Unsuccessful application of this approach may construct additional problems that were not even at the first part of the original issue.
Therefore, the whole thing within a process and system is inter-reliant and interconnected. This system sights everyone as concerned as a whole, not just a portion of the entire operation. Equivalent values are placed on a personnel mind, body and soul. All assistance is observed as significant. A systems thinking organisation may not insist that anyone leave private problems at home. The organisation should help its employees in looking for assistance to solving the problem. Still, as tolerant the negative impact emotional suffering can play in workplace efficiency, accident, injury, ill leave so on. The organisation cannot be ‘systems thinking’ if the personnel who dwell in the framework but don’t practice the philosophy.
References
Hershcovis, M. S. et al (2007), Predicting Workplace Aggression: A Meta-Analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 2007, Vol. 92, No. 1, 228–238. Web.
Jackson, M. C. (2003), Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Wiley, Chichester.
Markowitz, A. C (2001), Employment and Workplace Change. Web.
Flood R.L., & Jackson M.C., (1991), Creative Problem solving: Total Systems Intervention, Chichester: Wiley.
Yang, J. & Zheng, H., (2001), Interests-coordination soft system methodology, Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems Science, v 2, Wroclaw, Poland.
Checkland P., (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Jackson, M.C. & Keys. P., (1984), Towards a system of systems methodologies, Journal of the Operational Research Society.
Jianmei, Y. (2000) Systems Metaphors, Systems of systems Methodologies and Total Systems Intervention, Systems Engineering, v.18, No.2.
Images of organization – Morgan.
Hockings, M., et al (2006), Evaluating Effectiveness: A framework for assessing management effectiveness of protected areas, 2nd edition, Cambridge, UK.
Hockings, M & Dudley, N. (2007), Protected Area Categories and Management Effectiveness, IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Task Force, Andalusia, Spain. Web.
Karen A. Black, The Systems Approach: A Model for Organizational Learning, (C) Florida Criminal Justice Executive Institute Associates. Web.
Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organisation” Random House, London.