The Inverted Management

The task of managing large organization is not simple. It requires complex, multi-tiered management structures – with well defined roles and responsibilities for each arm. Conventional wisdom as well as common sense dictates that the top management should focus on long-term strategic issues concerning the organization, while dealing with day-to-day tactical issues should be left to the lower (field) management.

However, as usual, this common sense is uncommon – and it is not rare to find organizations where these roles are just reversed. The top managers not only manage (or try to manage) the micro-issues on daily basis, but also feel proud for doing so. And the long-term planning on which the future of the organization depends is delegated to the hapless field manager, partly because the top managers are left with no time for it.

The reasons for this inversion demand a deep analysis of the psyche of the organization. A typical example will have the following characteristics:

• There is only single entry level for managers – which means that there is no lateral hiring of managers at senior levels
• The top positions in the organization are awarded not on the basis of competencies or capabilities, but solely on the basis of time spent in the organization
• The performance review mechanism is such that non-performance (and shirking) is seldom punished, though there may be heavy penalty for making errors

Under these circumstances, the managers get divided in two categories at the time of entry itself – the first category of those who can potentially reach the top positions, and the second category of those who cannot. Now, the first category of managers has no incentive for taking risks – as a single judgmental error can mar their future career prospects, while avoiding risks will guarantee a bright future. Simultaneously, the second category of managers has nothing to gain as well as nothing to lose. It can be well imagined that systemically there is no motivation for them to work hard.

Consequently, the majority of managers who do attain top positions in the organization are those who have not taken any real risk in their career – which directly means that they have not taken any worthwhile decision for the organization. Once at the top, they are utterly incapable of taking strategic decisions for obvious reasons. As a result, they divert all their energies to tactical issues which should have remained with the field managers. (The general perception on this issue is that top managers fail to tackle strategic issue because all their energies are diverted to tactical issues. However, as per my understanding, they turn towards tactical issues to hide their incompetence to handle strategic issues.)

But strategic decisions have to be taken, even if the top management is incapable to take them. So, this responsibility is delegated to the field managers – to complete the inversion of management. For every decision, the top management waits for a proper proposal, or report, or feedback from the field – conveniently oblivious of the fact that no field manager can have a long-term, organization wide vision; not for the want of capability, but for the want of information and exposure. A field manager observes only a miniscule part of the organization, and that too for a limited time horizon. The decision taken by such a manger, even when taken with best of the intentions and efforts, seldom fits perfectly with the similar decisions being taken by innumerable other field managers. In the long turn, this friction between field-level strategic decisions totally destroys the strategic perspective of the organization and renders it dysfunctional.