The Hindu Business Line : Tricks and techniques

Modern managers are beset with two pressing problems. Life is becoming increasingly difficult for them. They confront more complex and unpredictable environments wherein the technology, the nature of competition, and the rules of the game are always changing, and radically. The other problem is that they are bombarded with an avalanche of advice and ideas about how to develop strategies and how to improve efficiency.

The field is full of tricks and techniques — Business Process Reengineering, Downsizing, Delayering, Competence Architecture, 360-degree Feedback, and many more. But the harsh reality is that despite all such advice, or maybe because of the plethora of prescriptions, the end result is often more confusion. Managers do not know what advice to retain, and what to reject. Recent years have seen an enormous increase in the scope and velocity of change, affecting almost every aspect of organisational management. Change has become the routine — a regular and inevitable feature. Change seems to be the only invariable constant!

Pervasive change

One of the most pervasive and predominant types of organisational changes is structural change. Companies seek to induce flexibility through cross-functional and inter-departmental teams. They strive to pursue cost-competitiveness by building a lean and slim corporate management structure.

In consequence, a common and emerging trend is to label and decry bureaucracy as a deterrent to progress. Bureaucracy is identified with rigidity, irresponsiveness, and red tape. It is argued that bureaucracy must be replaced with flexibility, creativity, and involvement.

The motto is that the neo-organisation must be structured for and, more importantly, by the market. This approach spearheads and advocates the market as a moralising and purifying force that neutralises the dysfunctions of bureaucracy. Tom Peters wrote: I urge every one of you to develop a passionate and public hatred of bureaucracy.”

Sense of belonging

Exposing an organisation to the pressures of the market and the sovereignty of the consumer is a necessary criterion. But it is not per se an absolute and adequate means of ensuring the radical reconstruction required of an organisation in the current context. It is essential for every employee, every department, and every function to get closer to the customer. There is no more need to refer to or rely on the rule-books in the organisation. But it is vital to understand — and be able and willing to respond to — the market demands and customer requirements. The internal environment of the organisation must be restructured to focus on identifying and satisfying the needs of the customer.

However, there is a downside to this phenomenon that managers must beware. The much maligned bureaucratic system was always supported by a sincere and faithful labour force, which enjoyed the reciprocal advantages of clear career ladders, explicit succession plans, and enabling training and development programmes. All these cultural criteria encouraged and fostered some sort of a psychological contract, which reinforced employee cooperation and commitment. People possessed a clear sense of belonging and loyalty to their companies, which is seldom seen in the new dispensation.

(The author is a Chennai-based freelance writer.)

More Stories on : Corporate | Restructuring

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Those NBFCs again

Tricks and techniques

On Ferrari, Prodi, Ravioli and Berlusconi

Purposeless gallivanting?

Banking on the unattainable

IMF – in search of a role

Inflation