Command and Control, Why Not?

“Command and Control,” Why Not!

There is a school of thought that suggests that we should continue with the authoritarian, Command and Control model of leadership for no reason other than there is no alternative.

How can we control an organisations production or service if we are not allowed to specify the parameters within which it works?
After all, we have to tell people what to do or they would never do anything, would they?

We are aware of the flaws inherent in this system of management, strikes, low moral, destructive behaviour, but in the absence of any other way to manage we persevere, flogging this same old dead horse.

But there is a model for non authoritarian leadership, and although the model predates the book it is thoroughly explained in Douglas McGregors work "The Human Side of Enterprise."
Written in 1962.In this book Douglas defines the authoritarian Command and Control model as Theory X management and the non authoritarian model as Theory Y.

In the Theory X model management assume that the workforce are lazy and ignorant, the job of the Theory X manager is therefore to make it so difficult for the workforce not to work that they are forced to do what the manager wants.
The Theory Y manager on the other hand believes that his workforce is intelligent, articulate and imaginative, and above all that they want to do a good job.
The job of the Theory Y manager, instead of telling his workforce what to do, is to create the environment in which they can do their best.

The only way that this can be achieved is by knowing what the workforce actually need in order to do their best, and the only way a manager can do that is to listen to what they want.

Ooops, that is going to be a problem, how can we really listen to what our employees want when we have hundreds or possibly thousands of workers who all need to be heard.

But that is the clue, listening is not a "need" (As defined in Maslows Hierarchy of needs) for the manager.

The manager cannot see any benefit to him or herself that would come from listening to the workforce.
“They have not been to college, I have, why should I listen to them?”
So managers never make much of an effort to listen because they do not feel the need to.

Being heard however is a "need" for the workforce. Being heard gives the workforce the respect that they "need".
It allows them to become engaged and take pride in what they do.
If listening is not a "need" for managers then we have to look for another way for the workforce to be heard, something mechanistic that will not fail because management don't need to do it and therefore will not support it.
Such a system is built and is maintained by the workforce.
It is simple and repeatable; it satisfies their need to be heard without having to rely on management who don’t see why they should listen.It produces practical process improvements whose value can be measured and it makes the workforce feel good about what they do.
Over time management see the measured performance improvements that result from the workforce being heard and then even they start to support the system by asking how they can help.

That last sentence is very important.

In the Nineteen Fifties, Nye Bevan suggested that management for the fledgling National Health Service in the UK should have an “Inverted Pyramid” structure.
He suggested that instead of management being at the top, supported by the rest of the pyramid, the Pyramid should be inverted with management at the bottom supporting the rest of the workforce in their delivery of care to their patients.
This was such a powerful image that few disagreed and the “Inverted Pyramid” model of management became one of the staples of the MBA syllabus.Unfortunately few have ever been able to bring the academic model to life and our management structure remains solidly pyramidal, (Managers at the top and everyone else underneath), despite the consensus with Bevan that it should be the other way up.
Using the workforce maintained system to allow their voices to be heard initially appears to exclude management, this is deliberate and avoids the damage that can be caused by management who lack the “need” to listen and therefore do not.
When the workforce however are being heard and the consequent performance improvement is evident, managers return to the workforce operated system and ask how they can help to support it because they too want to be a part of the improvement.
From being top down driven traditional “Command and Control” managers they have become, in a very short time, Inverted Pyramid Managers who instead of telling the workforce what to do, are asking what they can do to help.

They have developed a “need” to listen to their workforce.

That is a big deal.

Peter A Hunter
Author “Breaking the Mould”
www.breakingthemould.co.uk

Book Section: Breaking The Mould by Peter A Hunter

Hello Friends

I originally wrote this review at www.bookreviewsanddiscussions.blogspot.com

This is cross posting of the original post.

This book was recently gifted to me by my friend. He has been insisting me to read it for last three years. But, I was lazy and not interested. So, now when he just gifted to me, I was caught, I had to read it. And so I read it.

The book was about the ‘Change Management’. I have myself seen, lot of consultancy projects going on in the companies I worked for. Normally, they are at the top and middle management levels. And rarely at lower management or operator level. Above all, I never saw actual results being delivered. So, according to me all these change management drives were nothing more than lip service.

With these preconceived notions, under compulsion I picked up this book. But, there was one relief, very small size of the book. So, I started reading. And found its about oil rigs. Now, oil rigs are greek to me. Still, I carried on. And after 20 pages, my interest started building up. Though I was not able to visualize the exact actions going on the rig, but I could very well correlate the attitude and feelings of human beings with the operators in the production department, where I worked.

I carried on. There was one story, then there was another. In each story, there was one technique of change management was described. It was all beautiful and vivid description.

The best part about the stories I liked was the actual results the methodology delilvered and these were the real life stories, not the cooked one’s.

At the end of the book, I was just wondering that ‘Why I didn’t read this book 3 years ago?’ I am sure, had I read it three years ago, it would have helped me and the environment around me in a substantial manner. After I read it, I just called my friend who gifted the copy to me, and apologized for not taking his advice and reading it since last 3 years.

Now, I recommend this book, to all the professionals, who want to make the working environment them to be more conducive and efficient. And if you don’t read this book now, and do read it later on, and you remember my advice, then do mail me and apologize :)