Summing Up
Predominant reactions to notions of self-management explored in this month's column could perhaps be described best by two words, "enthusiasm" and "skepticism." Many respondents felt that the concepts should be implemented by a broader range of organizations. But just as many cited obstacles to its implementation, chief among them management itself.
Many respondents were enthusiastic. For example, Leeor Geva characterized self-management as a "win-win strategy." In Jonathan Narducci's words, "Any method that gets all company employees interested in how their jobs affect the customer … in how their jobs can be improved … in getting work done more effectively is most definitely welcome." Birgi Martin said, "I think self-management is needed at all levels of staff." Lavinia Weissman characterized self-management as "a leadership decision that invites initiative and not followership." But John Inman's comments suggested a concern that was more strongly voiced by others, when he commented that "if you are a command and control manager … keep away from self-management …. However, if you can ask and not tell, engage people in learning conversations, coach, develop, and create a clear picture of the result, you probably will be thrilled with the result …."
Others, while attracted to the idea in theory, characterized these views as too inclusive and optimistic. Gaurav Goel suggested that "Self-management may work well when team sizes are small and there are limited personality conflicts." Ashutosh Tiwari, while questioning whether self-management could "prove its effectiveness in the long run," concluded that it might work "where skilled employees get together to accomplish a specific task within a certain time frame."
Self-management is perhaps an extreme case of what we have found, in our research, to be one of the features of high-performance work places that are most attractive to the people who work there: latitude to deliver results for customers, whether external or internal to the organization. However, the path to greater latitude on the job is not short. It involves, as Pradipta Saha commented, "Selecting the right entry-level employee …." We have found, for example, that high performance organizations give at least as much attention to attitude as to skills in selecting people. Next, as Debbie Lee suggests, "… there has to be a great deal of training." Again, high-performance organizations train for skills, not attitude. Nari Kannan points out two other critical components of a self-management initiative: "Proper structuring of work and responsibilities … incentives, advancement and promotions." Must all of these steps be achieved before latitude is expanded to deliver results, perhaps through self-management?
The major obstacle to self-management, as one might suspect, was thought to be people, especially managers. C. J. Cullinane identified the most important requirement for self-management success as "conviction and commitment of top management." As Peter Johnson put it, "True and genuine self-management cannot happen if there are bosses or supervisors around." Barry Frank commented, "You've got to choose carefully who wants to self-manage and who doesn't." Margie Parikh concluded, "Self-managed teams happen only if readiness is there on both sides." What do you think?
Original Article
In the early 1990s, Taco Bell's management was faced with a dilemma. It wanted to create thousands of new locations, including stores and kiosks, at which its line of Mexican-themed products could be sold. At the same time, it was experiencing a shortage of capable managers in a fast-food industry known for low-paying management jobs. One part of the solution was to create fewer, higher-paying management positions. The other was to train thousands of entry-level workers at its stores to manage themselves. This enabled Taco Bell to assign one manager to several stores and to increase the "span of control" for area managers from ten or so units to several times that many.
Under the "self-management" initiative, employees were trained and given new technology to enable them to hire, train, and supervise their new colleagues; manage the day-to-day inventory of the store; handle the resulting receipts; and deal with personnel problems themselves under the supervision of a "floating" manager responsible for several such stores. They received above-market pay, partially in the form of performance incentives. The result? More highly energized workers, better cost control, higher customer satisfaction, and new ideas for organizing work. One self-managed team, for example, developed a program called "aces in your places," in which team members assumed jobs they wanted to learn during slack business hours, then took their "battle stations" to achieve maximum capacity (up to 50 percent higher) during rush hours.
This is an extreme example of the creation of "work teams" that has provided an answer to the "assembly line" philosophy of work. Such teams are designed to provide greater variety and responsibility for frontline workers given the responsibility to assemble and deliver a complete product, sub-assembly, or service. It characterizes what James O'Toole and Edward E. Lawler III in their new book, The New American Workplace, would regard as a "high involvement" workplace in which employees are treated as assets rather than just expenses. They contrast, for example, the high wage, high benefits, and high involvement policies of Costco with those of Wal-Mart. Both organizations, of course, have been highly successful. (One might argue that Wal-Mart has achieved high involvement through less expensive methods including the creation of a strong culture.) But the authors maintain that the Costco model not only is more attractive for workers but also creates fewer social costs for such things as medical expenses.
What would seem to be a "win-win" answer to the scarcity of good managers and the predominance of low-involvement entry-level jobs nevertheless raises some questions. Are sufficient numbers of entry-level employees ready for self-management, especially if it requires the application of new technologies to help them perform jobs such as interviewing and hiring new team members or ordering supplies and managing inventories? More important, is management ready for this? After all, it flies in the face of traditional command and control management practices. And in many cases it will require the development and use of new management information systems in which many organizations may be unwilling or unable to invest. What do you think?
Process development is cross functional and good processes are competitive advantages and essential for the present customer centric/experience economy.
Some other imperatives are these:
At the level of each individual manager, the professional, or the knowledge worker, how one manages oneself marks the critical difference, though the options available at this level are more or less the same. This recognition prompts one to explore the possibility of catalyzing self-managed teams across the organization.
Most of recent corporate history has been created by entrepreneurial breakthroughs: individuals who are challenging hierarchies and traditional management systems, which highlights the role of the self and of managing oneself.
For those who do not work in organizations - a farmer, or a fisherman in the developing world, there never will be an alternative other than self-management.
Habits and culture weigh in. Some cultures are more ready to recognize the need for self-managed teams or for creating internal community. Some would place higher emphasis on individual roles and contributions.
The real challenge is how fast we can create the readiness and accelerate the process.
To me, the idea of self-managed teams is not only novel and revolutionary but also the highest form of empowerment.
However, the single largest requirement for experimenting and nurturing self-management teams would remain the conviction and commitment of top management.
With a combination of on-the-job training, online education, and the new communication tools, a lower level or entry-level employee can be fast-tracked into management duties if not management itself.
If concepts such as self-management are not utilized many companies will have to not only limit expansion but may also have to close stores. What will be interesting is if the companies will utilize more profit incentives at this level.
I would say "yes," if it means designing the work from scratch around customers and workers.
Personally I have done the same a few times and have felt the need to be closer to the team at other times. However, if phone calls were cheap/free and videoconferencing was available for cheap, we could simulate most of that interaction.
Technology is the solution, at least for the tertiary sector.
A side benefit of self-management is getting individuals out of their comfort zones. This allows for individual responsibility to grow, team cohesiveness to strengthen, and leadership qualities to emerge.
The concept works but I don't think it can be sustained over extended periods of time. At intervals, a manager needs to do reality checks to ensure continued alignment with organizational goals.
On the other hand, from working with prisoners I have found that, given the responsibility, they would do as well as some of my professional colleagues and sometimes better, when given the chance at running a program or programs.
There are some problems created if those trained and given responsibility are continually moved from one place to another: this leads to less contact with customers and the loss of knowledge of materials, personnel, or processes at a particular venue.
The issue of a shortage of managers is most likely a result of the American corporate obsession with cutting staff and exporting good jobs. I've worked with a series of "MBAs" who have no idea of what occurs in the business they are supposed to be managing, yet they somehow get promoted. I've worked under at least two that have destroyed the business they were responsible for, yet they moved on to bigger positions. I've also worked for good managers who have tried a self-directed team model before it was fasionable or even in the lexicon. The shortage of managers is our own fault. As a former corporate type, I've met the enemy, it is us ....
The issue of a shortage of good managers seems to stem from an HR concept that an MBA automatically makes a person a better manager. American workers are the most productive in the world despite the product of the MBA schools, and given the chance, combined with the proper and well-designed systems they need, most will probably excel in being part of self-managed teams. All we need is the change in corporate culture to provide those systems and a change in the attitude towards work in general.
Regardless of whether I had low-skilled or professional-level employees under my supervision, I always made efforts to afford them every opportunity to develop skills and take responsibility. In most cases, the employees required progressively less supervision and became very loyal.
My early work experience in father's business trained me to be a self-starter and to be self-managed for my whole life. I have always tried to be as nurturing as my father. After all, most people spend more time at work than with their families. So, work is like your second family. I think this shows that giving young workers the opportunity to develop a mind-set to take responsibility for their lives and work greatly affects how productive and satisfying their careers will be.
Top-level understanding cannot be easily transferred to the minds of entry-level workers. So while it is a good idea to have self-managed teams at the entry level, its benefits might be too difficult to achieve due to the human behavioural issues.
Thus, a high sense of involvement is a prerequisite to successful self-managed teams. I am not sure if it can be an "outcome" of a self-managed team. First, getting people in the corporate world to even theoretically understand and appreciate the concept might be a daunting task!
The solution lies in employers--companies in particular--developing new staff in such a way that staff are groomed as managers of their own self. It is important that we develop high character to own our mistakes and make ourselves truly accountable in our own eyes even when our actions escape the attention of those to whom we are answerable. This will mean high ethical actioning. The world needs such people who will also be result- and performance-oriented whether working individually or in a closely-knit group as proposed by James Heskett.
But for this model to succeed, the organization needs to find a pool of people who possess enough aspirational critical mass among them to be fired up.
The others need to be further trained and then reevaluated. Companies that are able to do this meticulously and efficiently are ready for self-management.
--Increasing sophistication, knowledge and ambitions of entry-level employees.
--Low attention span for routine or mundane jobs.
--Desire for increased involvement in the running of the enterprise as compared to working in the enterprise.
Management would require additional investment in information systems and procedures for control of operations. The challenges it needs to consider are levels of commitment in the entry-level positions and unreasonable growth ambitions of entry-level employees.
However, it seems that terrorists have been better at capitalizing on this distributed model of operation and management. What is making it difficult for the "war on terror" is the growth of independently managed, disciplined terrorist cells that are aligned to a broad theme of hatred.
Lessons for the business world from these terrorist cells are to motivate well-trained, self-managed teams to a strategic theme that is openly communicated and honestly executed by the organization, while ensuring discipline, consistency, and knowledge-sharing among the various self-managed groups.
This will be succcessful only if the teams are educated in the concepts governing self-directed work teams and reeducated as the team dynamics change. Additionally, management must be educated in how to "manage" self-directed work teams.
In many cases, when trying to retrofit an organization, there needs to be full buy-in from all levels of the organization. Often there is an expression of desire to move to self-managed teams, but this fails to translate to action as the necessary authority and accountability are not at the level required for efficient operations. In some cases, the individuals making up the team are unwilling to take accountability for the full scope of decisions made. In other cases, the organization is unwilling to allow decisions to be made outside a specific zone of control. While it is feasible to have a self-managed team working in a tight threshold of accountability, this does take effort on the part of the managing body to communicate and motivate effectively.
Are we ready for self-managed work teams? I believe the answer is yes, but there becomes a more intense preparation in order to change a culture to make it work. The cornerstones of self-managed teams are clarity in the principles the organization is to work with and mutual understanding of the accountabilities involved. If one is willing to make that effort.
It's another question, I think, when we talk about large-unit businesses with a lot of people and with recruitment processes very well stabilised internally. But to start thinking about that we have to began with the words self-motivation, self-compromise, and more overall return to the company. Things done well in less time, with fewer people, with fewer problems, give more satisfaction to the customers.
If self-managed teams are the best bet under the given situation, we should go for it and make it work. Self-managed teams happen only if readiness is there on both sides. The real game begins after both sides have shown willingness to go the self-managed way. The organizational and managerial processes have to be geared to support them, sustain them, and terminate them if needed.
I believe it is much better to select good managers and pay them as good managers rather than trust in good consultants, thus eliminating the difficult tasks of managers.
Vision and core values are the main responsibility of the CEO; unless that is correct, nothing else matters. Teaching is the second job, giving a basic economic understanding of how we make money, how your job affects the bottom line, and how you will be rewarded if you win.
Training on how to do the work is job number 3. Save all voicemail unless totally necessary for after-hours. Stop all employees from hiding from customers: Meet them head on. All meetings should be in a room with a raised platform and a white borad (digital recording) and no chairs for anyone. (ADA rules should be observed, of course.) The meetings will be quick and to the point. Reduce all reports to six. Choose how to measure productivity improvement.
Then let the people figure it out.
The nature of [our] culture is such that all people help each other. Now we have a close and tight enterprise. Costs will reduce every year for the next five and profits will improve.
Small is in fact beautiful if you let the people just do their work.
One who feels the trust of others has a lot to offer and is much more motivated to "self-manage." Depending on the job level and corporate culture, deployment of this approach within the organization could create much more synergy and bring higher productivity to the organization.
But certain critical factors need to be taken care off for moving towards it:
1. Showing benefits of this concept to the teams
2. Empowering these self-management teams to take decisions on their own
3. Evolve right performance evaluation factors for these teams
4. Recognition of the teams
5. Need not be said - needs to be top driven
Needless to say that employees need to be 'adequately' educated in terms of expectations. Individual behaviour is influenced by environment. So, care should be taken at 'environment' level to ensure early success. The objective must be set to have the employees get addicted to the self management style. The results in terms of multiplication of employee productivity because of sheer joy of working should be apparent.
In "Managing Oneself", an HBR article, Peter Drucker discusses the challanges and the importance of self-management for individuals.
But letting workers manage themselves is something that would be very difficult to achieve for long. That even Taco Bell appears to have discarded the practice suggests that perhaps it was an experiment that bore fruits in the short run, but could not prove its effectiveness in the long run.
I draw two conclusions here. First, self-management of/by groups works -- but only in the short run, such as where skilled employees get together to accomplish a specific task within a certain time frame. Those employees then disperse at the end of the task.
Second, when a firm is completely employee-owned, then self-management of/by groups is likely to be possible. In law firms, for instance, partners (i.e. employee-owners of the same rank) 'manage' one another to make sure that all are pulling their weight to make sure that partnership remains profitable.
It is also a statement that invites participation and learning. A self managed work environment implies that every stakeholder including the board and core group that has financial responsibility need to learn with a wider reaching social network that is involved in operations and carrying out strategy. It's a demanding organization form key to encouraging organizational learning.
As Pfeffer and others have described, it is a cultural form that invites learning, doing, and innovation. It is a cultural form that invites pay for performance.
It means you are also inviting people to "think."
If you start this way from scratch you can foster and expect it. If core leadership decides to launch it as a change initiative, you have to factor in what it takes to empower self-management and let all stakeholders learn what it means on an individual, team, and organizational scale.
I first worked with this form of culture in health care. It transformed clerks into people who took responsibility for the consumer as a way to learn, do, and innovate.
I often wonder what it would mean to the payor system that blocks most change intiatives in health care and what it means to expert environments in health care where a few professions dominate (e.g. doctors, researchers and nurses) rather than encourage input from everyone including consumers.
If you think about this write me. I would love to hear your experiences and observations.
The key to sustainable success will be in establishing clear goals, objectives, metrics and qualitative criteria that form the set of self-reinforcing interests, which in turn bind the distributed self-managed workforce and align them towards the larger entity, the corporation. In doing so, one can provide a platform for self-selected leadership.
The recognition and reward given to a self managed leadership level can in turn be a motivating driver for the "working masses." The aspiration factor that innately drives the industry of human endeavor can now be channelized more tactically towards a specific actionable end-state: a self-managed leadership role.
The existence of policy, protocol, or process criteria (or strictures) should be seen as a set of guiding principles and a safety net, not as management interference. After all, aren't we all accountable to some sort of higher authority, one way or the other?
Are sufficient numbers of entry-level employees ready for self-management? That's something we should be able to better address after insitutionalizing a training and development plan to help identify and highlight the pool ready for the next step.
Generally speaking I prefer to think about managing/coaching with a long leash rather than micromanaging, meaning empowering people to take actions and to be accountable for them.
Creating a self management culture within a business organization has to do more with leadership than management, because leaders have a vision of where, when, and how the organization is heading. They are able to share this dream and the direction that other people want to follow. True leadership vision goes beyond a written organizational mission statement or vision statement. The vision of a leader is found throughout the workplace and is manifested in the actions, beliefs, values, and goals of the organization's staff.
A leader inspires his followers by appealing to their common sense rather than resting on his formal authority.
A leader fosters hope rather than fear.
A leader says "we" rather than "I".
A leader do not need to ask for respect; followers willingly respect him.
A particularly helpful way to support new-entry employees in their quest to become future leaders is through mentoring. A close relationship with a senior executive of proven leadership skills is likely to keep a young manager open and willing for growth. Mentoring should be paired with a portion of warm, friendly, positive, and proactive support, which means that the mentor should free up important time on his agenda to perform this task.
a. Proper Hiring: Only a subset of applicants for any self managed positions are suitable to be self managed. It requires an individual who wants to do a good job at what they are doing, not a junkie that wants a day job.
b. Proper Structuring of work and responsibilities: Self management has its limits also. An entry level person may make decisions up to a certain limit and thereafter it may fall upon supervisors and so on. This is not a reflection on the entry level employee but that you just need more experience and judgment born out of experience doing the lower level jobs first.
c. Proper structuring of incentives, advancement and promotions: Merit based incentives, advancement and promotions need to reinforce the value the company places on better self management.
Taco Bell may have failed in one or more of these areas in places where it failed.
Human beings do not need bosses to tell them what to do every minute of their time. That's early 20th century management thinking.
21st century thinking is more practiced by Japanese manufacturing as in Toyota and the Toyota Production System. Harvard and Stanford may be a little outdated in this area!
It is not easy to have people who can lead in the absence of authority. However, we can aim at creating such skills using education.
Enabling employees to manage the show independently with minimum supervision can be highly harmful for the health of an organization if it consists of demoralized employees.
So before applying and implementing self management tools, top management has to understand the value of its employees and take initiatives to motivate them and make them feel they are part of the organization.
Are sufficient numbers of entry-level employees ready for self-management, especially if it requires the application of new technologies to help them perform jobs such as interviewing and hiring new team members or ordering supplies and managing inventories? Training is the key to this question. Other than handling the extreme complex situations which needs tools and means of support, a normal human brain is capable to handle any situation. And when such complex tasks arise, there should be support teams or specialists available to support such issues.
More important, is management ready for this? No. No matter how hard we say otherwise, it is a fact. Very few organizations are willing to apply and practice it. In such cases you will also note that either an external influence or the management knows that their control is unquestionable and unshakable. It is mostly happens in organizations where management consist of top-of-the-class professionals in their field of expertise.
Again, regarding investing for management information systems depends on the visions of the visionaries behind such an organization. If you look at the future with a limited span of few years, it may not make sense to invest a huge sum on new tools and systems. But if you look at the future witha wide angle view then you will realize and understand the importance of this act.
So, we can conclude that though it is a win-win situation for both employees as well as an organization, in the long term the organization will attain major/greater benefit from this "self-management" initiative. It is better now than later to embrace the proved methods for the success for your organization as well the success of your employees.
Non-trivial sustainable self-managing firms decompose decision making labor not through a command-and-control hierarchy reporting to a single board but through a network of boards with oversight over various functions that become self-managing by being regulated by their stakeholders. The nested networks of stakeholder controlled firms with network governance located around the town of Mondragón, Spain provide an outstanding exemplar. Their architecture and operations are described in Chapter six of my PhD thesis http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=858244 with descriptions of US and UK self-managed firms in Chapter 5.
The reason why the decomposition of decision making labor into almost self-managing subcomponents can be much more effective than hierarchies for managing complexity was demonstrated by Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon in his famous 1962 lecture on "The Architecture of Complexity". Another reason is that it also reduces the need for educated managers and complex information systems as illustrated by Mondragón firms.
If an organisation feels that it should do something for its employees, it should adopt the theme of self managment in its structure. In many organisations people at the entry level do not know the mission of the organisation for which they work. They are very much involved in their routines and sometimes stop thinking beyond themselves. But introduction of self management techniques will definitely uplift the employees and help them extend their vision, which will definitely give them a sense of satisfaction and belonging towards the organisation. It will help them grow, feel that they are always marketable, and avoid becoming redundant.
If the organisation is not comfortable with bringing in self management at the entry level, it can introduce the same at lower-middle-level management or middle-level management where the employees will have more than three to four years of experience.
This and other emerging examples show us the damage that conventional "command and control" management causes.
When, instead of telling people what to do, the manager starts to listen to the workforce and get them involved in their own management, the results are staggering.
We are more than ready for self management. The day will come quite soon when it will not be possible to manage a business in the old directive style because the dispirited and demotivated workforce that this style of management produces will not be able to compete in the same marketplace as the the workforce that has been allowed to manage itself.
Peter A Hunter
You've got to choose carefully who wants to self-manage and who doesn't.
I have taught leadership and management for many years and I have always told students that you must treat all employees like volunteers. If you really want to learn leadership, volunteer for an organization and learn how to accomplish projects by working with people. With no dollars to dangle in front of people's faces or promises of a raise or promotion, I have seen promising leaders fail. They failed the real test: they could not motivate and provide an environment where others can be successful.
This will start with the recruitment team to analyze entry-level candidates for their maturity levels. The candidate should not break under stress--inventory management and handling of staff conflicts are highly stressful.
The company should be willing to invest on technology and infrastructure. This model will be good for customer-facing modules like pizza outlets and telecom outlets. This might not be the right model for the retail or manufacturing units.
What amuses me is that the self-management concept is restricted to business and not often proposed as the salvation for other public arenas such as education or sports. Perhaps this is because it is commonly accepted that professional sports teams and publiclly funded classrooms need to have a coach. Or perhaps its because coaches are marketed by films like "Miracle", while managers play their most dramatic role in "Dilbert", much beloved by just about anyone in high tech.
Behind the most successful self-managed work teams is a manager ensuring that the team knows the target, the boundaries, and have the resources to do the job. Ultimately, the concept of self-managed workers or work teams translates into the activities of crafting jobs with a wider span-of-control and putting the right people into them. And that takes great managers. Enjoy!
On the other hand, some would argue that self-directed work teams can always work, and the more the teams control directly, the more effective they will be when you are looking at a small scale. In other words, no way could you build a 7E7, but you might be able to build solar cars.
There is also talk about treating entry-level employees as different. I believe if you are thinking of empowered employees, then start very early. Self-managed employees will find the shortest paths to end goals as compared to employees who wait for you to tell them which road to take at every crossroad.
Imagine the problems of virtual team management in medium to large outsourcing and off-shore business relationships being self-managed.
The inability to benefit from the different skills and business interactions on outsourcing situations has arisen because each party to the contract has self-managed, often without much communication between the parties.
Costs, quality, schedules, and loss of effectiveness are common in these situations.
We do not need more structure; instead we need to more completely understand what each party brings to the success of the contract, then determine how the different parts of the work need to be structured and above all managed by a small management team that understands the business processes involved and how each contributes to the total success of the endeavor.
This is hard work, and cannot be done if the lead manager is managing several different sites, each one part time. To hope for success is not related to the effort to gain and manage success except in the most linear organizations.
By all means, maximixe the self-management efforts in clearly defined functions. But never forget that in truly complex business relationships, failure is a guaranteed outcome.
It is too bad that we still hope for a simplistic model that fits most business situations. That is a mirage.
Whereas traditional organizations require management systems that control people's behaviours, the organization that will stand the test of time in a volatile business environment will be one that acknowledges the quality of employees and empowers them to take ownership and be held accountable for their functions. They will be organizations that are differentiated as market leaders with strong leadership cultures that acknowledge and encourage employees to think for themselves and learn from their mistakes. They will be organizations that invest in improving the quality of learning and thinking and are capable of developing the capacity for reflection and introspection amongst and within teams, encourage team learning, and include the capacity to mobilize their teams around shared visions and values in the understanding of complex business issues.
One of the pleasant consequences and great savings for knowledge-based enterprises will be that the bulk of its massive workforce will be able to work from home rather than occupy expensive buildings.
Workforce productivity in developed countries is rising at a single-percentage speed a year, while technological advances call for substantially higher productivity growth. The now-fashionable team-building training will not correct the discrepancy because before long the employee realizes there is nothing for him in this team. The transition of enterprises to self-management of the production processes, self-management based on self-interest, which is the essence of the next-after-employment entrepreneurial mode of labour utilization, will fill the void in productivity growth, turn the pioneering enterprises into fierce competitors, and raise the general level of wealth to a new level.
People are looking for the transition to the new mode. Some are there and some are close.
What might work for a fast food business with low wages and low educational requirements for employment may not work for a high technology firm with highly educated, highly trained workers. Hence, every business must abide by certain management resources (physical, human and organisational) for success.
Cost: Cost of implementing these management resources may be lower for a fast food company than for a biotech or information technology company.
Conclusion: The idea of self-management is good and a
wonderful tool for motivating employees and increasing productivity, but it not one model that fits all.
The intensity of knowledge in today's world is so crucial to business, that people should form knowledge networks yet actively manage themselves rather than be restricted to managed circles with controlled wisdom.
Enterprise-class software development organizations are making a paradigm shift by embracing lean software development principles and methodologies like Scrum. Focus is now more on building a culture and discipline in the organization, providing tools, and upgrading people's skills. It is with the belief that knowledge workers know best how to innovate, solve problems, and handle issues. It is now a prerequisite that managers step out of their command-and-control shoes and start to wear the cap of facilitation and delagation. The recipe is to enable the conditions for empowerment.
Life finds its way!
I would appreciate it if studies could be commenced on its practicability in Nigeria, bearing in mind the prevailing environmental and political factors.
This addresses one of the core issues of Enterprise Performance Management: "living the strategy." What it also creates is a "Mind Space" within each employee to think and act on the initiatives that he/she can take at the respective level/context for their operations, in order to align with the mission, vision, and strategy of the organization. The success of a self-management practice greatly depends on communication and training, critical to bring people to the same page of understanding.
If organizations need to realize their strategy and win in the marketplace, they need to let go of command and control rule. A realization that self management practice doesn't mean "management-not-in" is required: a thorough change in organizational behavior and culture.
Under this system of management, employees have to be multi-skilled with multi-task responsibilities; therefore, business manuals will have to be well prepared and responsibilities well documented so that they can be effectively implemented. An enhanced communication link must exist. Many of the Japanese electronic and automobile companies already understand this concept and that is why they are very successful in achieving high cost control, productivity, and quality of their products and services. Another industry in which self-management features already exist is the software development industry.
Self-management systems would require a very professional way to recruit entry-level employees. In such a system, the HR functions may also have to be modified to accept new challenges.
Most of the managers strongly believe in a "control culture" within several medium and large organizations. They do not skip this practice so easily; therefore, a change from the traditional system of management control to self-management may not be an easy task. After all, human beings with different attitudes and management styles are involved in it. Self-management should be introduced gradually on a pilot project basis, and then having gained experience, may be applied across the organizational units.
Trust your workers within limits. If they all understand why they are doing something, results will be good.
Though self-management is a novel, path-breaking concept, and people go gung-ho about it, I agree with it. But what can be lacking is what has been mentioned before: an organization's ability to create a platform that can help deliver and sustain the self-management concept.
In the case of Taco Bell, the company created associate manager roles (informal leaders). Even though you mentioned entry-level managers, these roles were senior-level roles within that particular entity. By de-centralizing some tasks, senior managers saved time/effort and could focus on strategy/revenue.
When it comes to self-management, concepts of self vary from notions related to individuality and one's nature or character to personal interests and selfishness. Success or failure might be time-bound (till time-smart management is set in place). Also, this can have an impact(both good and bad) on customer and vendor relationships, and sometimes managing operational expenses become challenging.
Self-management with good processes for audit/control/development might be a solution.
I would say "balance" based on your market and industry.
The key issue is lack of leadership, not the workers' lack of desire to do a good job. In addition, industry and government are listening to consultants and/or academicians who have never managed anything.
Making such a group self-managed becomes more difficult as there are no catch-factors that will drive the entry-level workers. Thus people will have to rely instead on well-trained managers to control the retention rate and performance of the team.
Self-management is an excellent method when a single employee can wear different hats and learn new skills. But the same cannot be applied when the entry-level positions are geared towards a single objective. Thus it cannot be played as a substitute for good managers.
The issue of incentives is also very crucial for this to work. The team needs to benefit in some way for their effort.