A cubicle eye view of the corporate company is not a solitary perspective. Cubicles are inhabited by beings differing in objectives, insights and sometimes even species. This is the reason why Dilbert style analysis is not an everyday affair.
Most of the cubicle community consists of wannabe leaders who figure out that the fastest way to leadership is falling in line. And more often than not, a dash of hard work combined with myopic vision helps. If all your thoughts are focused on the next step, on the next rung of the ladder, there is little chance that you’d miss it. The idea is: If you stay in the line long enough, people would join behind you. And lo! You are a leader. But then, even the line ahead of you is long. So you are just stuck there... ranting about those leading you and making life difficult for those who follow you.
On the other hand, people who make it to the top of the ladder have figured out a way to bypass the line. Hence, by corollary, there are few leaders who actually have had an objective look at the company from their cubicle window. They shot up too fast. Hence, there is a clear dissociation between the "management" and “associates” of a company.
This is never a good thing. The value chain of any company flows right through these ground level cubicle dwellers and this value chain is guided and strengthened by the management. The ultimate result is that the guys on the top apply a complex set of management principles and concepts formulated by pinheads like Peter Drucker, dwelling on assumptions based on their limited visibility and understanding of their cubicle days.
Now there are some facts we know to be facts out of the sheer extent of their acceptance. For example: The biggest advantage big companies have over smaller and lesser experienced companies in terms of quality of work is that the former have well defined and robust accumulating their years of experience. These processes are designed and perfected by the upper and top management. Sometimes, the middle management may be asked to give “inputs”. But that is the lowest it can reach.
Since we understand from the previous discussion that managers have a limited visibility of the actual processes at the ground level, we can draw that these processes have a huge scope of improvement. And this can be brought about only by a right mix of skill, expertise and experience. Too much of any of them would be like too much of salt, sugar or spice. It might be interesting, and it might come out good by accident. But it'll never replace the recipe.
Most of the cubicle community consists of wannabe leaders who figure out that the fastest way to leadership is falling in line. And more often than not, a dash of hard work combined with myopic vision helps. If all your thoughts are focused on the next step, on the next rung of the ladder, there is little chance that you’d miss it. The idea is: If you stay in the line long enough, people would join behind you. And lo! You are a leader. But then, even the line ahead of you is long. So you are just stuck there... ranting about those leading you and making life difficult for those who follow you.
On the other hand, people who make it to the top of the ladder have figured out a way to bypass the line. Hence, by corollary, there are few leaders who actually have had an objective look at the company from their cubicle window. They shot up too fast. Hence, there is a clear dissociation between the "management" and “associates” of a company.
This is never a good thing. The value chain of any company flows right through these ground level cubicle dwellers and this value chain is guided and strengthened by the management. The ultimate result is that the guys on the top apply a complex set of management principles and concepts formulated by pinheads like Peter Drucker, dwelling on assumptions based on their limited visibility and understanding of their cubicle days.
Now there are some facts we know to be facts out of the sheer extent of their acceptance. For example: The biggest advantage big companies have over smaller and lesser experienced companies in terms of quality of work is that the former have well defined and robust accumulating their years of experience. These processes are designed and perfected by the upper and top management. Sometimes, the middle management may be asked to give “inputs”. But that is the lowest it can reach.
Since we understand from the previous discussion that managers have a limited visibility of the actual processes at the ground level, we can draw that these processes have a huge scope of improvement. And this can be brought about only by a right mix of skill, expertise and experience. Too much of any of them would be like too much of salt, sugar or spice. It might be interesting, and it might come out good by accident. But it'll never replace the recipe.
1 comment:
I was missing something to follow up, Nice one man.
I got a smell of Mass customization from " It might be interesting, and it might come out good by accident. But it'll never replace the recipe."
keep moving Management guru :D
Post a Comment