Introduction
In her article, “They need to reinvent management,” the author Julian Birkinshaw highlights the importance of the manager in the workplace and the different roles that they hold. The manager’s importance is contrasted to that of the leader of an organization. The two centers of authority are like two horses drawing one cart. The author goes on to continue with her analysis of the manager as the person responsible for the day-to-day administration of any institution. The rise of the manager is attributed to the rise of the industrial age which happened around early 1900, whereby some companies needed more staff and this eventually led to the need for a manager to oversee all the tasks being done by the employees (Birkinshaw 70). However, the role and definition of the manager have changed over time as we have seen tasks and responsibilities being watered down and being assumed as ordinary roles that can be performed by anyone.
The author introduces two firms and she clinically analyses the cause of their downfall. The firms are Lehman Brothers and General Motors. Both firms credit their earlier forms or managerial styles to them being giants in the fields that they dominated, but it is also their management styles that are being credited with their downfall. It is the rapid change of the economic dynamics that have forced the two organizations to refocus back their attention towards a better management model.
We can only say that the author’s purpose is to demonstrate the need for organizations both in the present and the future to strategize on their needs by looking keenly and addressing the issues that may be afflicting the Management model that they may be subscribing to (Birkinshaw 73).
Thesis Statement
Birkinshaw’s thesis is founded on the following hypothesis (espoused by Birkinshaw): There has to be a unifying vision that ties the organization together and the vision should be able to drive the staff to achieve greater achievements. This achievement however should not be celebrated on an individual basis but rather the achievement should be based on the hard work and sweat of the common team. The author manages to explicitly explain and detail the lack of having a unifying vision and she uses the Lehman brothers as an organization where greed was the drive that motivated the staff and employees of the firm. The author also assumes that for any organization to succeed, it must be able to adapt fast as the competition is getting stiffer and stiffer by the day. The author also uses General Motors as one of the firms that were very slow to adapt and still relied on its management that worked in the past but still failed when new variables such as the competition from other automakers increased. General Motors was credited as part of the American Heritage due to its influence in employing a large population all across America.
Major Points
The author explores the subject of an effective management model. She describes a management model as a group of options that we have to make for work to be done in any organization (Bikkinshaw 69). For the running of any organization, there needs to be a clear direct structure of administration of how work is to be carried out and the results that are expected. How the staff is given incentives for desired results and how the staff treats each other is the heart of any management model. Dealing with the staff is difficult considering that each person bears their character traits and comes from different backgrounds hence it is the role of management to harmonize the workplace and extract each and everyone’s potential while working for the organization. An environment where there is no free exchange of ideas between the staff and the management fosters a hostile environment that for sure will impact the workplace negatively. The author mentions the way, communication between the staff and management at GM was discarded and this brought about bureaucracy within the organization. The same formula that brought about the rise of GM is also credited to its demise. Lehman’s degeneration from being an International company is also blamed on the lack of a practical management model. It is said of how the staff took risks with shareholders and customers money so that they could benefit through increases in bonuses. These actions later unraveled and led to the implosion and subsequent downfall of the organization (Growers 23).
The author also dissects the issue of what led to the fall of the manager. The discipline of management as both a profession and as a discipline is quickly coming under increased pressure. In a recent survey, people said that they did not trust and respect. It is with this in mind that the author was seeking to know the reasons for the tarnished image that managers continue to hold. In a recent Gallup poll, managers were reported to be individuals of low integrity within the society. This was attributed to the bureaucracy and hierarchy that were reported within the organizations. This lack of integrity is seen as to cut across the board as it is seen as brought about by failure on a personal level by the managers.
Critical Assessment
The discipline of the management is seen as to have changed with time and become tainted. This corruption is blamed on the misconception of the roles and tasks of leadership and management within the organization. A common misconception that has been allowed to foster is that both authorities serve different results but in fact, both leaders and managers have the same duty to ensure that the organization can reach its target. The author puts this right by mentioning the cliché, “Leaders and managers are like horses drawing the same cart.” Although some of their responsibilities may different they both subscribe to the same school of thought. In the past managers were seen to be less relevant when compared to the leaders of the firm. This led to a narrow definition of the roles of the manager (Growers 2). A different principle was applied to them and this is credited as being one of the reasons why there are few alternatives to the existing management models.
Personal Reaction
Birkinshaw’s arguments are very easy to comprehend as she can articulate why we need to learn from both Lehman Brothers and General Motors on the importance of management and how we don’t need to invent the wheel when it comes to reinventing management. Modern companies do not need to come up with newer management systems; they should just look at the common problems that may be afflicting the organization at present. Just as each organization is unique with its different problems and issues, all organizations can ensure that certain actions are taken and these actions will ensure that the discipline of management stays relevant to the needs of the firm. The first action that the firm can commit to understanding the management model that one is going to implement or is being implemented currently. By doing this ensures that the driving force is ingrained in the hearts and minds of the staff and this will produce selfless commitment from the staff. The second action is to evaluate the current model and whether it can match the needs of the firm. Is the model able to counter the risks that are brought about by the model itself? These are just a few of the questions that management needs to sit down and answer before the process of reinventing takes place. Last but not least the management needs to envision the way they want the organization to be. An ideal situation or environment would be where the management works hand in hand with other stakeholders such as staff, leaders, and customers in increasing the value of service rendered to each. The process of reinventing takes time and should not be implemented in a blanket manner. There are no definite steps as to how to redefine management but it is only through experimentation of the different models that a firm can be able to get the right system that works for them (Growers 10).
Works Cited
Birkinshaw, Julian (2010). “The Critical Need To Reinvent Management.” London Business School Business: Strategy Review Spring. 2010: 69-95. Print.
Growers, Andrew, “Lehman: Consumed by the death spiral,” Sunday Times, 2008. LZ01. Print.