Ideal leader (I. Adizes)

Abstract

According to Dr. Adizes, the management of any organization must perform four functions: production of results, administration, entrepreneurship and integration. In order to carry them out simultaneously, the leader must possess numerous, sometimes mutually exclusive, qualities. Adizes concludes that management is too complex a process to be handled by one person. The ideal manager simply does not exist.

How to be? For a company to be effective in the short and long term, it must be led by a management team of people with complementary management styles. What is the principle of selecting employees for such a team? How can they properly build communication so that even inevitable conflicts can be used to make quality decisions?

These and many other questions are answered by management guru Yitzhak Calderon Adizes.

The book is addressed to managers, employees of recruitment agencies and anyone who is interested in the issues of managing an organization.

About the Developer

Dr. Yitzhak Calderon Adizes is one of the world’s leading experts in improving the efficiency of companies and government structures through fundamental changes that do not create confusion and destructive conflicts that impede change. For the past 35 years, Dr. Yitzhak Calderon Adizes has worked with the world’s largest commercial organizations and advised many heads of state. The methodology that bears his name has helped organizations around the world achieve worthy results and win leadership positions in industries ranging from banking to the food service industry and in a variety of structures from churches to governments. He is the founder and CEO of the Adizes Institute. His work has been published in Inc. Magazine, Fortune, The New York Times, The London Financial Times, Investor Relations Daily, Nation’s Business and World Digest.

Dr. Adizes is an outstanding lecturer and author. Speaking four languages, he lectured in more than 40 countries. For thirty years he has been a tenured faculty member at the Andersen School of Management at the University of California, Los Angeles, and has served as a visiting faculty member at Stanford and Columbia Universities, as well as at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv University. Dr. Adizes has written seven books that have been translated into 22 languages. His book Corporate Lifecycles: How Organizations Grow and Die and What to Do about It, first published in 1988, has become a recognized classic of management theory and has been recognized by the Library Journal as one of the top ten business books. A revised and expanded edition of this work was published in 1999 as Managing Corporate Lifecycles. A complete list of his works is given at the end of the book.

[email protected]

Science editor’s preface

The book you are holding in your hands was written by one of the most influential management experts of our time. But Yitzhak Adizes is also a very interesting person. His views on management and people engaged in managerial activities have evolved over decades, rich in diverse and sometimes tragic events.

Adizes was born in Skopje, the capital of Macedonia, in 1937. As he writes in an autobiographical essay, his family are descendants of Jews expelled from Spain at the end of the 1943th century for refusing to accept Christianity. In March 12, the Jews living in Macedonia were deported to concentration camps, where most of them were exterminated. Only 1963 families were saved, among which was the Adizes family (however, only his parents and closest relatives survived). The reason for the amazing rescue was the fact that as early as the beginning of the 1967th century, the Spanish consul in Yugoslavia discovered that Macedonian Jews — immigrants from Spain — still speak the Spanish-Jewish language Ladino. He persuaded his country’s government to grant Spanish citizenship to willing members of the Jewish community. So the father of Adizes received a Spanish passport. Therefore, his family members, as citizens of Spain — an ally of Germany — received the right to leave the concentration camp. They went to Albania, where they hid under the guise of Muslims — immigrants from Bosnia. The Muslim family that sheltered the Adizes, as it turned out many decades later, knew that the Adizes were Jews, but did not betray them. After the war, Yitzhak moved to Israel, where he served in the army and received a university education. In 1982 he moved to the United States, received his PhD from Columbia University, and taught at UCLA from 1982 to XNUMX. In XNUMX, Adizes created an institute (Adizes Institute), which conducts research and training, implements consulting projects and is engaged in publishing activities. Adizes is truly a «citizen of the world»: his books have been translated into many languages, and his consulting practice extends to almost all continents. He repeatedly worked in Russia.

The book «The Ideal Leader» is one of the author’s many works. His first widely acclaimed work was the monograph Corporate Lifecycles, published in 1988. The company life cycle model proposed by Adizes is based on the analogy between the development of an organization and a living organism. Its main advantages are universality (lack of industry specifics) and the possibility of application to organizations pursuing different strategies. At the same time, the Adizes model describes the development of the organization as a whole, and not just its management. Since the mid-1990s, the Adizes organization life cycle model has been used in consulting practice in Russia.

In the history of the development of various fields of knowledge, it often happens that, having proposed a successful idea, model or method, the authors devote their entire subsequent creative life to their interpretation and “detailing”, in fact, locking themselves into a circle of favorite ideas. Few researchers continue to generate more and more new ideas throughout their lives. It was this ability to generate new knowledge that distinguished, for example, the great Peter Drucker. This quality is fully characteristic of Yitzhak Adizes. The book «The Ideal Leader», the Russian translation of which is presented to the reader, is a vivid proof of this.

The basic idea of ​​Adizes at first glance may seem trivial. He argues that the ideal leader, who is able to cope equally well with all kinds of diverse managerial activities, is a myth, and a harmful myth, because it prevents the manifestation of real managerial talents that managers possess. Indeed, there are no people without flaws, and it would hardly be worth devoting a whole book to this problem, if it were not for the most interesting proposals of Adizes on what follows from this and what should be done by practical managers in connection with this. Adizes distinguishes four main functions of a manager: (P) roducing results — the production of results for which the organization exists and which determine its effectiveness, (A) dministering — administration that ensures efficiency, (E) ntrepreneuring — entrepreneurship that provides change management, and ( I) integrating — integration, that is, the unification of elements of the organization to ensure its viability in the long term. On this basis, he formulates recommendations on how a leader should work on himself, striving to increase his personal effectiveness. Adizes believes that a real manager can perform at a high level no more than two of the four listed functions, while owning the other two at an acceptable level. However, for the successful functioning of the organization, it is necessary that all four functions are represented at a high level in it. This means that «one man is not a warrior» and that the success of an organization is associated with the ability of its leader or leaders to form a so-called complementary team (complimentary team), whose members together are able to brilliantly perform all four functions. Being a practice-oriented person, Adizes explains what skills the members of a complementary team need to have in order for it to function successfully.

I do not want to describe the contents of the book in more detail, so as not to spoil the reader’s pleasure from reading. One has only to explain why getting pleasure from reading it is almost guaranteed. Adizes presents his ideas in a simple, accessible language, often looking for examples not only in the practice of corporations, but also … in family life. The wonderful humor inherent in the author also adorns the book. Knowledge of several languages ​​allows Adizes to resort to non-obvious analogies or contrasts. I also note that the adequate transfer of these features of the author’s style is a considerable merit of the translator of the book.

For all the originality of Adizes’ ideas, it cannot be said that his book does not fit into the logic of the development of modern managerial thought. An important feature of this logic is the shift in emphasis from the analysis of the technical components of management, such as structure and strategy, to the consideration of its human aspects. In fact, the emergence of the concept of emotional intelligence by Daniel Goleman and the ideas of Itzhak Adizes on the optimization of managerial competencies are phenomena of the same order. People are becoming the main source of competitive advantage in business, and understanding their capabilities and associated limitations is one of the conditions for the success of any organization.

Although in this book Adizes refers to the work of a relatively small number of authors, specialists who know management well may see in his ideas connections with other theories that have been “working” for several decades. The most obvious example of this kind is probably Hersey-Blanchard’s situational leadership theory, which this author has used in lectures for many years to discuss the relationship between leadership styles and organizational life cycle stages. Here Adizes gives his interpretation of this relationship.

Another important example of this kind is the development of team building theory. In fact, the idea of ​​the need to build a team with the correct distribution of roles between its members does not belong to Adizes: it is enough to mention the numerous studies of Raymond Meredith Belbin, a well-known specialist in this field. However, Adizes gives us a new role model of the team, adding to it, by considering the life cycle of the organization, also the time aspect. If Belbin, in essence, formulated the conditions for the formation of an effective project team, then Adizes did the same with regard to the top management team. I note that before the appearance of the works of Adizes, the use of the word «team» in relation to top management was often perceived as an overly broad interpretation of this term.

In general, the work of Adizes illustrates the general pattern of theory development in almost any field of modern knowledge, which consists in the fact that new theories do not deny the old ones, but only demonstrate their limitations. The progress of science consists in overcoming these limitations.

It must be said that, while noting the shortcomings of some theories and practices of teaching management, the author sometimes, in our opinion, does it too harshly. So, for example, he speaks very derogatoryly about the programs of modern business schools, arguing that they are trying to train universal and «ideal» managers. This is not entirely true: business schools strive to ensure that future leaders are trained in such a way that they can cope with all functions at an acceptable level, and this is, as mentioned above, a prerequisite (necessary but not sufficient) for effective management. It is possible to bring the implementation of individual functions to the highest level only after graduating from MBA programs, mastering the practice of management. Therefore, Adizes is most likely right when he expresses doubts about the advisability of placing yesterday’s MBA graduates in positions of top managers. However, it is hardly advisable to completely deny the benefits that business schools bring to modern business.

Who can benefit from reading Yitzhak Adizes’ book «The Ideal Leader»? The answer is simple: everyone who is somehow related to management. After reading the book, practical managers will get an impetus to self-improvement, business school teachers will be armed with new tools for analyzing organizational behavior, business coaches will certainly want to put Adizes ideas into the basis of their training programs. Finally, young people studying management and preparing themselves for work as managers will be able to plan a long-term management program.

I wish all future readers of the «Ideal Leader» success in the implementation of these projects.

S. R. Filonovich

D. f.-m. PhD, Prof., Dean of the Graduate School of Management State University-Higher School of Economics

Moscow, September 2006

Foreword by the author

What is this book for?

Nothing stays the same. It has been so since the dawn of time and it will always be so. The world is changing from a material, social and economic point of view. There is no escape from this.

Change breeds problems, and the greater the speed and scale of change, the larger and more complex the problems.

Why does change cause problems? Because everything in the world is a system, be it a person or the solar system. Any system, by definition, consists of subsystems. When changes occur, they change out of sync: some transform faster, others slower. This leads to the disintegration of the system, and problems are its manifestation. An analysis of any of your problems — a car breakdown, family discord, trouble at work — will show that a failure has occurred, and it is caused precisely by the fact that something has changed.

Problems that are manifestations of disintegration as a result of change need to be addressed. However, any decisions that leaders of organizations make to overcome these problems give rise to new changes, which means new disagreements, leading to new problems. The purpose of any form of organizational leadership—management, leadership, parenting, or government—is to solve today’s problems and prepare for tomorrow’s. And that means change management.

What do you need?

In one of my first books, How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis (first published by Dow Jones Irwin in 1979 and later republished several times by the Adizes Institute), I proposed my own theory of management — the concept of managing change and solving the problems caused by it. This work, representing a new approach to management, has been translated into twenty-two languages ​​and has become a bestseller in several countries. It is used in almost all departments of social sciences at universities in Israel, Denmark, Sweden, Yugoslavia and other countries. The next edition of the book will soon be released in the United States — despite the fact that it was first published twenty-five years ago.

Collaboration with hundreds of companies from 48 countries has greatly enriched my experience and my knowledge of the subject. I collected a lot of additional material and rewrote each chapter into a separate book. The chapter on company development life cycles became the book Corporate Lifecycles: How Organizations Grow and Die and What to Do about It (Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1989) «). The third, expanded and expanded edition of this work was released in 2004 by the Adizes Institute in the form of a three-volume set: Corporate Lifecycles: Volume 1: HOW Organizations Grow, Age and Die; Volume 2: WHY Organizations Grow, Age and Die; Volume 3: HOW to Manage Balanced Growth and Rejuvenate Organizations: Volume 1: HOW an organization ages and dies; Volume 2: WHY an organization ages and dies; Volume 3: HOW to Manage Balanced Growth and rejuvenate her).

The chapter on how to thrive in an organization became The Pursuit of Prime, Santa Monica: Knowledge Exchange, 1996, republished by the Adizes Institute, and the chapter on how to manage change became a book called Mastering Change, Santa Barbara: Adizes Institute, 1992.

Those parts that have not been expanded and supplemented before will be revised and published as a series of three books. The one you hold in your hands (The Ideal Executive: Why You Cannot Be One and What to Do About It / A New Paradigm for Management — The Ideal Executive: Why You Can’t Become One and What It Follows / A New Look at Management), — the first of them. It examines why management education leads us down the wrong path and why it is impossible to become the ideal leader that the current educational system is trying to produce.

Successful and unsuccessful management styles (we are not talking about a set of abstract virtues that no one person in the world has, but about the existing approaches used by ordinary people) are covered in the second book — Management and Mismanagement Styles («Styles of right and wrong management») . The third book in this series looks at how each style of management, both successful and ineffective, deals with how to communicate, make collaborative decisions, rewards, manage change, and so on.

You don’t have to read all of them to understand the principles in these books—each of them is a stand-alone, complete work. However, I needed to reproduce a number of concepts, briefly highlighting them in each book, so as not to violate the logical integrity of the presentation of the material: I could not go to point B if the reader was not familiar with point A. In addition, science has come a long way in 30 years, so much of the information published in my earlier books has subsequently been supplemented, corrected or clarified. So, in all the works I consider the functions of management and aspects of their incompatibility. But even if you are already familiar with the material on offer, I advise you to refresh your ideas by referring to the chapters on this topic.

main idea

The task of successful management is to make the organization effective and efficient in the short and long term.

I believe that in order to ensure an appropriate level of management, an organization must perform four functions: (P) producing results — the production of results for which the organization exists and which determine its effectiveness, (A) dministering — administration that ensures productivity, (E) ntrepreneuring — entrepreneurship, through which change is managed, and (I)ntegrating, integration, that is, the unification of the elements of the organization to ensure its viability in the long term.

These four functions are something like «vitamins». All of them are necessary for the health of the organization, and this amount is enough to successfully manage it. If at least one of them is missing, the company is threatened with a disease — poor management. Its symptoms are a decrease in market share, a decrease in profits, a slow response to market changes, staff turnover, etc.

If one, two or three functions are performed successfully, and the rest are barely up to an acceptable level, there is a manifestation of a certain management style. When, among other things, the manager successfully performs function I (“integration”), a leadership style emerges. (It will become clear later why this is the case.)

If one function performs satisfactorily, and the other three do not meet even the minimum requirements necessary to complete the task, there is a certain style of mismanagement, the kind of which depends on which functions remain unimplemented.

I was convinced that people who could perform all four functions at the same time do not exist in nature. A normal person can handle one or two. Occasionally there are those who are able to perform three functions. A manager can successfully handle each of the four functions individually for specific tasks, but no one can perform all four at the same time in every situation.

The main idea of ​​this book is that the ideal leader, manager or leader — that is, capable of single-handedly performing all the functions necessary for the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization in the short and long term — simply does not and cannot be. Talking about what a leader should do (based on the needs of the organization), modern management literature does not take into account that those who are able to implement these recommendations do not exist in nature. All the books and textbooks that try to make us perfect managers, leaders, or leaders are based on the erroneous notion that the ideal is achievable. This book explains why they are wrong. We are all going down the wrong path and wasting millions of dollars in training and leadership training based on misconceptions.

The classics of management theory, including Harold Kunz, William H. Newman, and even Peter Drucker, as well as the current management gurus Stephen Covey and Tom Peters, describe managers as if they all use the same leadership style that can be easily taught. everyone. This overlooks the fact that different people have different approaches to organization, planning and control. Successful management is seen as a model, a pattern. All works are dedicated to what should happen. However, in reality, there are many different styles of management — both successful and incorrect. The number of combinations of strengths and weaknesses of a leader is endless.

If you do not wishful thinking, you will inevitably find that each person has a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. In this book, I propose an alternative approach to management. It is realistic and defines what people can give each other and what they are capable of, despite their inherent shortcomings.

I would like to point out another feature of this book. In recent years, there have been more and more theories regarding leadership styles. A lot of books have been written on this topic, but most authors focus on behavioral models, considering them from a psychological aspect. I am not a psychologist. I am a management specialist. I’m interested in how different people make decisions, share information, recruit and incentivize staff, and look for ways to help them do their job more effectively for the benefit of the organization. My book is not based on psychological theories, interviews and controlled experiments. The presented material is the result of my more than 30 years of work in the field of consulting. During this time, I have visited 48 countries and dealt with a variety of companies — from tiny, where only a dozen people worked, to very impressive ones, with up to 100 employees.

Book structure

The book has 14 chapters. Each of them begins with the formulation of the problem and the formulation of the question that this chapter is intended to answer. Each answer logically leads to a new question or problem, which is discussed in the next chapter.

I deliberately chose this way of organizing the material, using the Socratic method, because it illustrates and reflects the course of life — including the life of the organization. Change creates problems, problems require solutions, and implemented solutions create new problems. Such a course of events is similar to human life, except that, unlike it, the process described can last indefinitely. The proposed approach allows the organization to continue to evolve and adapt to change indefinitely.

Chapter 1 discusses the interpretations of the terms «governance» and «management» that exist in the literature. The management process is defined as culturally conditioned and carrying a value load, and therefore not universal.

Chapter 2 provides a functional definition of management that is universal, non-cultural, and non-value-added. This definition identifies and characterizes the four main functions of management. Chapter 3 explains why they are incompatible with each other and why there is not and cannot be a perfect leader. Chapter 4 uses these features to characterize the five styles of mismanagement at their most extreme.

Since there is no perfect leader, does this mean that all organizations are doomed to mismanagement? In Chapter 5, I introduce you to a new paradigm for successful management. We will talk about complementary teams in which different management styles are represented. Chapter 6 deals with the inevitable misunderstandings and conflicts between team members due to differences in priorities, interests, pace and methods of work. In Chapter 7, I discuss the need to create a culture of mutual trust and respect (MT&R) within an organization to prevent the destructive effects of such conflicts and create an enabling environment for learning valuable lessons from conflicts.

How to create such a culture? Chapter 8 discusses how to develop an organizational structure that will help build mutual trust and respect, guided by the principle of “a good neighbor when a fence is good.” Chapter 9 provides insight into how to align individual management style and task within a well-thought-out organizational structure.

But even if each person in an adequately structured organization works in his place, this does not guarantee that an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect has been created in it. In chapters 10 and 11, I look at how people of different styles interact effectively, with chapter 10 on one-on-one communication and chapter 11 on meeting interaction. The problem of communication between adherents of different styles is serious enough to write a separate book about it; the two chapters mentioned are only an introduction to the topic.

In Chapter 12, I return to the roles of leaders, which are needed to create the necessary structure, establish proper process, and so on. Ideally, applying a new paradigm involving participation in a complementary team will allow the best leaders to show their leadership potential.

Finally, chapters 13 and 14 deal with the preparation and development of managers, leaders, and leaders (both within the organization and in management schools) who need to redefine their mission to make the transition to a new paradigm a reality. Chapter 13 reflects the evolution of management schools and approaches to leadership training. Assessing the current trends, I come to the conclusion that, based on the wrong paradigm and on the basis of false premises in the formation of the curriculum, our management schools have failed in their main exam. Chapter 14 addresses a number of issues that are important to those who plan and deliver managerial training: what is the true purpose of managerial training; what skills organizations lack; Can they be taught or are they acquired only with practical experience?

Style of presentation

When presenting the material, I mainly use the masculine gender so as not to overload the text with endless switching from “him” to “her”. At the same time, I believe that it would be wrong to associate a specific management style with the gender of the leader. All my findings apply equally to female managers. If sometimes I use the feminine in relation to any style of management, then in this case my remarks concern representatives of both sexes.

Since my theories apply not only to business of any level, but also to government, marriage, and parenting—in short, to any relationship that is subject to change—perhaps readers will find the proposed typology useful for better understanding their relationships outside the professional sphere. And yet, since this book is addressed primarily to managers, I tried to use specific examples and episodes of a domestic nature as little as possible.

However, I have included a few anecdotes and cartoons in the book to show that the problems in question are constantly present in our daily lives.

Methodology and sources of information

The book summarizes the insights and conclusions that are the result of my 30 years of activity in the field of corporate transformation («consulting»). As an organizational change worker – that is, I work as a consultant, “healer” or, as I like to call myself, organizational symbergist (organizational symbergist®) and also a teacher – I traveled a lot around the world and had the opportunity to exchange impressions and share my observations with managers from different countries.

Over the years, I have worked in 48 countries with companies with sales ranging from $15 million to $120 billion, assets value up to $XNUMX billion, and employees ranging from fifteen people to hundreds of thousands. These companies use a wide variety of technologies and represent industries including aviation, insurance, banking, performing arts and museums, and government. Among them are entrepreneurial and non-profit organizations. In addition, experience and knowledge in the field of leadership style has allowed me to advise several heads of state. I have found that despite the significant cultural differences in the countries I have visited—China, Japan, Sweden, Mexico, Greece, Israel, and the United States among them—my theory of management styles finds support in any of them. Management styles are not culturally dependent—although I have noticed that preferences in this area are influenced by social norms.

Applicability of the proposed concept

My approach to management is free from value judgments and is applicable to all cultures, industries and companies, whether for profit or not for profit. It can be used in structures of any scale — small closed groups (family), medium-sized organizations (various types of business) and macro systems (state). With my participation, three cabinets of ministers were formed. In other words, the proposed theory equips you with tools that can be used equally well to identify good and bad management, analyze leadership styles, or predict behavioral responses. In addition, this theory allows you to make recommendations regarding the development of the organization, training and selection of personnel, communication and rewards. All this allows organizations to achieve their goals with the least expenditure of effort and money.

Request to readers

I learned from everyone who shared their thoughts with me. If any of the readers have a desire to express their agreement or disagreement with my theses, to share an experience, a curious case or a cartoon that illustrates the content of this or any other of my books, I will be very grateful. Write to: Adizes Institute, 2815 East Valley Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93108, or better yet, use email: [email protected]

Chapter 1

• PROBLEM: Despite the proliferation of management schools, the growth of financial incentives, the avalanche of books on management, and the multitude of consultants, finding or training the «perfect manager» is still as unrealistic as meeting a unicorn.

The tale of the ideal manager (an outdated paradigm)

According to classic textbooks and popular management manuals, the ideal manager should be knowledgeable, purposeful, meticulous, methodical, and quick. He is organized, rational and reasonable. He is a charismatic visionary who is willing to take risks and welcome change. He is responsive and sensitive to the needs of others.

An ideal manager is able to unite all the necessary specialists, mobilizing them to achieve their goals. He creates a team capable of performing their functions independently, without his control. He evaluates his own activities based on the results of the work of his team, determining how successfully his subordinates together and individually solve the tasks assigned to them and how effectively he himself helps them in this.

He knows how to listen and hears not only what they say, but also what they are silent about. He is aware of the need for change, but he implements it carefully and selectively. He shrewdly identifies the leadership potential of his subordinates and is not afraid to hire and promote gifted, ambitious people. He is confident enough to respect those whose work style differs from his own.

He doesn’t grumble when something goes wrong; his criticism is always constructive. His subordinates are not afraid to admit their mistakes: they know that he will be fair and give them the support they need. It encourages creativity and seeks consensus in decision making. This is a bright, extraordinary personality, able to inspire people to labor achievements in order to achieve the goals of the organization. He knows how to delegate authority and regularly improves the skills of his subordinates. He diplomatically resolves conflicts, respects the interests of other people, spares their pride and appeals to a sense of social responsibility. He generously shares information, and does not withhold it in order to strengthen personal power.

He adheres to strict ethical principles. He has an analytical mindset, he is a man of action, sensitive and at the same time restrained. He is focused on the result, but not at the expense of the process. He methodically deals with the formation of the market, improves production capacity, develops the financial and human potential of his company.

His organization is a coherent, well-oiled system with clearly defined goals. Relations between its employees are full of mutual friendliness and willingness to cooperate. There is no destructive behavior at all.

There is only one problem: where to find such a miracle Yudo?

It is clear that such managers (of course, not counting ourselves) are found only in fairy tales.

«Who is wise? One who learns from everyone and everyone. Who is strong? One who curbed his passions. Who is rich? One who is content with fate. To whom is it given? Nobody.»

Benjamin Franklin

Seriously speaking, the ideal manager is impossible to find simply because he represents the height of perfection, and the perfect manager is as mythical as a unicorn. I call such an abstract leader a «book manager» because he can only be found on the pages of textbooks.

To count on perfection is characteristic of youth, and one who has reached maturity should say goodbye to illusions. I am frankly amazed by textbooks and schools that are trying hard to create something that cannot be created. Not surprisingly, many managers are dissatisfied with their subordinate managers who have an MBA degree. Nor is it surprising that people have less and less confidence in management consultants, and that management training specialists are paid low salaries.

What is «management»?

The New York Times once ran an article that called me a «professional charmer»: I walk into a company and begin to urge managers to say goodbye to delusions and not try to achieve the impossible.

What is this about?

It is impossible to find and even train the ideal manager, manager or leader.

Before answering this question, let’s define some terminology. What do the words «manage», «manager», «management», «bad management», «leader» mean?

I remember one day a salesman came to my house and offered to buy the latest edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. «What is your profession, sir?» he asked me. “I teach management,” I replied. “Well,” he said. “Let’s see what the encyclopedia has to say on this subject.”

What were his bewilderment and my surprise when we discovered that there was no article «management» in the Britannica! There was an article about the science of management (meaning the construction of mathematical models that formalize the decision-making process). We also found an article on organizational behavior concerning the sociology of organizations. But the very concept of «management» — management, which millions of people around the world do every day, — was not there.

So what is «management» today in theory and practice?

1. Management assumes a hierarchy. When we use the word «management» we usually mean a certain group of people involved in management. One who belongs to this group is called a «manager». «Managers» refers to a certain category of managers; in the US, it is usually about the middle level of management of the organization — a level higher than lower-level managers, and a level lower than top management.

2. Management is unidirectional. After looking through several dictionaries, including Funk & Wagnalls, Oxford Illustrated, Random House and Webster’s Third New International, I found the following synonyms for the word «manage»: «administer», «keep an eye on», «take responsibility», «inspire» , «rule», «influence», «inspire», «lead», «influence», «implement», «educate», «perform», «give permission», «discipline», «achieve obedience», » succeed», «dominate», «achieve», «care», «manage», «conquer», «change by manipulation», «possess», «initiate», «inspect», «integrate», «use», «control», «coordinate», «supervise», «manipulate», «motivate», «observe», «supervise», «direct», «process», «train», «operate», «organize ”, “implement”, “treat with attention”, “monitor”, “evaluate”, “plan”, “subordinate”, “rule”, “overcome”, “call forobedience”, “order”, “decision”, “coerce”, “check”, “develop”, “react”, “implement”, “regulate”, “lead”, “restrain”, “listen”, “commit ”, “collaborate”, “facilitate”, “cope”, “addict”, “stimulate by persuasion”, “steering”, “judge”, “train”, “shape”.

Do all these synonyms have something in common? Undoubtedly. All of the above actions are unidirectional. The managing entity tells the managed entity what to do. The word «motivate» in this context means: the person who creates the motivation knows in advance what needs to be done; the essence of motivation is to get another to do it voluntarily.

“Leadership is the art of making others want to do what you want.”

Dwight David Eisenhower

Some time ago, a cartoon was published in the New Yorker magazine that perfectly illustrates this idea. The mother, a psychologist by profession, persuades her son to take out the trash. The boy replies with displeasure: “Okay! I’ll take out your trash. Just, I beg you, don’t motivate me.” Even a child understands that motivation is a form of manipulation.

When it comes to motivation, the emphasis is not on what and why, but on how. The manager is the head of the department, and his subordinate (literally «lower in rank») is, at best, his faithful assistant, right hand. What is she supposed to do? Unless you’re left-handed, your right hand does exactly what your head tells it to do.

3. Management is for the elite. In Hebrew, a subordinate is called a kafur. Its literal meaning is «bowed at the waist», that is, one who bows to you out of respect or fear.

At the same time, the manager feels superior. This principle of «domination — subordination» is clearly visible in the example of military insignia. The emblem of the first lieutenant shows one branch, the lieutenant already has two, and the captain has three. Rising higher and higher in accordance with the military hierarchy, we seem to be climbing a tree. On the major’s emblem is an image of an oak leaf, which symbolizes the top of a tree. And the general with the most power climbed higher than the tallest tree — a star flaunts on his emblem.

Thus, we see that the management process in the form in which it is taught and described in the literature is not without a value component. It is not only science and art, but also the expression of socio-political values.

4. Management is individualistic. Try this experiment. Invite senior management to the boardroom and ask each person to come up with a list of the five most pressing issues facing your organization. In doing so, they must observe the following rules: first, not to mention any names; secondly, do not use the union «because» — we do not need an explanation of the problems.

Have them just take a piece of paper and list the five biggest, most pressing problems, adverse outcomes, or unwanted processes in their company. They may not show this list to anyone.

It is necessary that it mentions only those problems that are within the competence of those present. You can not blame others — you can only talk about what they themselves have lost sight of. For example, instead of complaining about “increasing competition”, you should write: “We are not coping with increasing competition.”

Now ask: How many of these problems did the company face last year? Don’t look at their records. Just ask, “How many of the issues you listed were relevant last year?” The usual answer is: one and all.

And the year before last?

Almost everything, right?

And three years ago?

And again — almost everything!

If so, tell me: how many of these problems will you face in three years?

Most!

How to explain it?

Take another look at your list of problems. How many of them could someone present solve alone? None! Right? If there were such problems, they would have been dealt with long ago.

Now ask, «How many of these problems would go away if I gave you a magic pill that would allow you to come up with a unanimous decision, provided you all work as a team?»

One and all, right? If you followed the instructions and included in the list only those problems that are within the competence of those present, then by definition it becomes clear that these problems can be solved only if those who sit in the hall agree among themselves.

So what’s the problem?

The thing is that usually each manager solves a dozen problems at once, although it would be much better if ten managers simultaneously dealt with the same problem.

“What is listed on your lists is not the problems themselves, but their external manifestations. The problem is YOU!!! I say. You don’t know how to work in a team. That’s the main problem!»

In other words, the business world is in the thrall of erroneous ideas about the individualistic nature of management. It is believed that a single manager should personify the entire management process, possessing unsurpassed skills in planning, organizing, creating motivation, communication and building effective teams that can independently cope with the tasks set.

However, in reality, such a manager simply does not exist. I wrote this book precisely to explain why it does not exist in nature and how to act, recognizing this fact. Management is too complex a process to be handled by one person.

A similar misconception is characteristic of economic theory: here the business processes and dynamics of the development of any organization are reduced to the word «firm». The «firm» will do this, the «firm» will do that — it all depends on market conditions. However, this approach overlooks one important aspect: how the decision-making process takes place in this “firm”. As a result, economic theory based on these assumptions tells us only how the decision-making process should be built, and not how it actually works. (We will discuss this topic in more detail below.)

In addition, as far as I know, no attention was paid to the question of who is in charge and how these people make joint decisions. Usually it is only about how to make joint decisions. Management theory, like economic theory, considers the process as if the bearer of all management functions is one person. This error leads to delusions that prevent us from successfully leading.

So when I use the words «manager» or «management» I don’t mean a person, but a process that naturally involves people who are not always in leadership positions.

5. Management is focused primarily on industry. The classic management textbooks say that managers plan, make decisions, lead, organize, control, and motivate. However, there are organizations where managers are not required to perform some of these functions. A few years ago, while studying cultural management—management of opera and ballet companies, theaters, and orchestras—I became convinced that people in the creative professions cannot be managed in the same way as factory workers. Heading such an organization, the director-administrator cannot do without an artistic director. They manage the organization jointly, jointly making any decisions. “We are like two wings of an eagle on the coat of arms of the Austro-Hungarian Empire,” was how the director-administrator of the New York City Opera described his relationship with the artistic director of the troupe in the 1970s. “Opera needs both of us to take off.”

A similar phenomenon is taking place in health and education systems. Here, administrators also do not perform all managerial functions. Thus, the rules in health care institutions are established mainly by doctors, and in educational institutions — by the teaching staff. Running a high-tech company requires an engineer who is well versed in the technology or has contributed to its development. However, such a specialist, as a rule, is not sophisticated in financial matters and does not differ in business acumen. Therefore, in order to successfully manage the organization, he needs someone who will help make business decisions.

Why does our definition of management leave out so many important organizational models? The fact is that the theory of management developed mainly on the basis of the experience of industrial management. Fayol was a mining engineer, Urwick an officer. Kunz drew his ideas from the aviation industry. Taylor was a production engineer. Drucker developed ideas in the field of management, drawing on his own experience in the automotive industry and publishing. Even today’s management gurus, Tom Peters and Stephen Covey, cite examples in their books from the practice of commercial organizations and industrial enterprises.

6. Management bears the imprint of the socio-political structure. The understanding of management that is common today in the West cannot be called generally accepted. There are countries where it is simply forbidden by law to carry out the management process in the form in which it is presented in Western textbooks. For example, when the principles of self-government were in force at the enterprises of socialist Yugoslavia, managers (according to the constitution!) were forbidden to make decisions in the way that is customary in our country, that is, to decide something for the entire organization. The role of the leader was to offer some kind of solution and try to convince the employees of its expediency. The final authority in determining production rates, the level of wages, the volume of capital investments, etc., was the work collective.

Such a system of self-government was based on the democratic principles on which relations are built at the interstate level, but in this case they were applied to industrial enterprises. This system was called “manufacturing democracy,” and under it managers belonged to the executive branch of government: their role was to make recommendations and implement decisions taken by the legislature, that is, the council of workers.

There are other countries in which management is not approved by society. For example, in Israel, during the heyday of agricultural communes, kibbutzim, there was a rule according to which a change of leaders occurred every two or three years, which means that no one could become, as they say in the USA, a professional manager — that is, a person whose main occupation is Decide for other people what they should do.

7. Management is culturally driven. The English word «to manage» has no equivalent in a number of languages, notably Swedish, French, Serbian and Croatian. Instead, the verbs «direct», «lead», «administer» are used. When speakers of these languages ​​want to express the concept of «manage», corresponding to the word «manage», they use the English word.

In Spanish, «manage» is translated as «manejar», which means «to manage» in relation to a horse or car. When a Spaniard needs to express the concept of «manage», equivalent to the verb «manage», he uses the verbs «direct» or «administer».

It seems to me that the confusion in this area is due to the fact that we find it difficult to define this process and its results, and this manifests itself in our vocabulary or lack of the right words.

Management is not a group of people occupying a certain place in the organizational hierarchy, and not a position. It is the process of defining, adjusting and finally achieving corporate goals. Whoever participates in this process and whatever his place in the organizational structure — be it a senior manager, administrator, consultant, leader, manager or worker — he is involved in the management process and in this sense performs the function of a manager. (I will emphasize the word “worker” in the last sentence: usually such employees are not classified as management, however, if the company expects to be effective in the short and long term, workers can, and often should, perform managerial functions in the company.)

As a rule, we believe that the job of a manager is, first of all, managing PEOPLE. If you have no subordinates, you cannot be called a manager. (Feeling elitist and hierarchical?) As the previous paragraph makes clear, I define management as the process of setting and achieving goals, and I believe that whoever participates in it becomes a member of the management team, even if he has no subordinates. Even if these people do not have SUBORDINATES, they still have to interact with other employees, since otherwise it is impossible to complete a common task. They do not have to order, but they have to prove the value of their ideas and views on the work they do. Instead of keeping track of what (what if!) subordinates allow themselves, they need to justify their actions and exchange information. Thus, you become a manager not because you have subordinates, but because you interact with other people in order to accomplish a common task. This is what engages the individual in the management process, thanks to which he becomes part of the management team.

false premise

Until now, there is no consensus on what management is based on. But we know perfectly well what mismanagement is, which has become a topic for books, articles and idle conversations at parties.

So what have we achieved? Despite thousands of books written and millions, if not billions, of dollars spent on leadership training and consulting fees, we still lack a coherent, viable management theory and a single stable, universal, reproducible management practice. In order to eradicate mismanagement, we must first accurately characterize this process.

However, we are not only unable to give it a satisfactory definition, but we cannot even name it, and this once again confirms the failure of the current approach. We keep inventing new words for new processes that we hope will achieve the desired result.

Initially, the word «administration» was used to describe this process. That is why many business schools used to be called — and some are still called — schools of business administration, and graduates in management are called «master of business administration» (MBA). The first professional management journal was Administrative Science Quarterly. However, the administrators failed to achieve the desired results, and today the word «administrator» is used mainly as a synonym for the word «bureaucrat».

Then a new concept came into circulation — «management». Educational institutions have evolved from schools of business administration to schools of management. However, since the desired results were not achieved, the word «management» began to refer exclusively to the middle level of the managerial hierarchy, and there was a need for another new term.

They became the phrase «supreme leader» (executive). Then expressions appeared: “training of leading personnel”, “act of executive power”, “chief executive director”. When that didn’t work, it was decided to replace «leadership» with «leadership.» This is the situation today (2004).

Despite the many books that explain how leadership differs from administration, administration from an act of executive power, and an act of executive power from management, I think that there will still be no sense in this game of words. It won’t surprise me if in a few years someone comes up with another name for this process, and the word “leadership” will be given a new definition and it will denote a separate element of the organizational hierarchy or a component of the managerial process, as has already happened with the concepts of “administration” and “ management».

The fundamental problem is that the management paradigm has remained unchanged. As they say, the same rake, only in profile. The essence of this paradigm is that the whole complex of managerial functions is implemented by a single individual, be it an administrator, manager, leader, leader, king or sultan. This is a manifestation of the American culture of individualism.

The paradigm of a «lone leader» — wise and all-powerful — has never worked in practice. Today, as the world changes at an accelerating pace – which increases the level of uncertainty to be reckoned with – and business transcends national borders and becomes global in scope, a paradigm shift is more urgent than ever.

What paradigm do we need?

How can we define “management” if in some countries management is prohibited by law, in others it is condemned by society, and in the language of others there is simply no such concept? What if some organizations are managed by people who no one considers managers?

The new paradigm is required, firstly, to take into account the real state of affairs, and secondly, to allow it to be dealt with. We need an adequate definition of the management process, free from value judgments, universal, applicable to any industry — that is, to non-profit structures as well as commercial ones — and working in market conditions. In other words, we need a paradigm that will help shape the right behaviors and achieve the desired results.

In my teaching experience at UCLA, Stanford, Columbia, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv, I have found that most management theorists only talk about how things should be. At the same time, disciplines such as organizational development and organizational behavior, and people themselves, pay attention primarily to the real state of things — that is, the dynamics of the system. Such a discipline as organizational development is more descriptive-analytical, while management theory and strategic management are more of a normative-analytical nature. Organizational behavior takes a phenomenological approach, while management theorists (which have all but disappeared from the curricula of most MBA universities over the years) are structuralists. There is no agreement between these two schools. In fact, good management requires both approaches. The only question is how to integrate the behaviorist approach and normative-structuralist thinking.

A convincing, workable management system should reflect the real state of affairs and combine descriptive-analytical and normative approaches. That is what I am trying to achieve in a series of three books, the first of which is in front of you.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is of an introductory nature: it contains an analysis of common mistakes and outlines directions for reforms. The second and third books are about how to prepare good managers, based on a new paradigm.

In principle, all three books can be considered as a kind of introduction. Our Institute (Adizes Institute) has developed a variety of tutorials, courses, seminars and exercises that allow you to enrich your knowledge and master the theory and practice of effective management, applying a new paradigm of working in complementary teams that collectively manage an organization.

Chapter 2. The Functionalist Perspective

• PROBLEM: how to give a universal, value-free definition of management as a process?

Management tasks

Let’s try to define the role of management based on its function: what is it for? This function should be free from value load and socio-political and cultural preferences. Whether it’s running a business, raising children, or running a government—whether we’re in charge of our own lives, families, businesses, nonprofits, or communities—it’s basically the same process. The only difference is the size and nature of the control object.

Let’s start with a basic hypothesis: the ultimate goal of the management process is to make the organization efficient and effective in the short and long term — nothing more and nothing less. If we ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the short and long term, this is enough for the well-being and success of any organizational structure, whether it be a marriage union, a government, a multinational corporation, or a candy store.

How an organization evaluates its success is a secondary question. When it comes to a commercial structure, its effectiveness is measured by profit. For the ruling party, the criterion for success may be the selection or re-election of its candidates. The achievements of a research institution can be judged by the awards and prizes of scientists working in it.

Origin of the theory

What makes an organization efficient and effective in the short and long term?

About 40 years ago, I discovered that there were four functions that needed to be performed in order for an organization to be effective and efficient in the short and long term. Each of them is necessary, and together they are sufficient for good management. The word «necessary» implies that if at least one of the functions is not performed, there is a certain pattern of mismanagement.

I made this discovery while working on my PhD thesis on the system of self-government in Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav system was alien to Western experience and ideas. The capital belonged to no one. Owning capital was like owning air; he belonged to the whole society. The Yugoslavs called it «public property».

Capital was the inherited property of the society. It could not be possessed, and it could not be exhausted. Therefore, the organization’s profit before depreciation should have at least covered depreciation. Instead of a salary, people received an allowance under a system somewhat reminiscent of the distribution of a share of profits among the partners of a law firm. Employees elected their representatives to the workers’ council, and this council interviewed candidates for the position of managing director. Each of the candidates presented their own business plan, just as political party candidates present their platform in democratic countries. The managing director was appointed for four years, but could lose his position if he violated the law, for example, did something without the permission of the workers’ council.

The Yugoslavs applied the principles of political democracy to both industrial and non-industrial organizations; such a system was called industrial democracy or a system of self-government. Workers’ councils acted as the legislature, making all sorts of decisions, from wages to budgets and investments. At the head of the executive power — management — was the managing director. The executive branch made recommendations to the workers’ councils and carried out the plan chosen by the workers.

Such a system had a huge drawback: it did not encourage — and sometimes destroyed — the spirit of entrepreneurship. Moreover, entrepreneurship for any practical purpose was considered illegal. The goal was to create a “new man”, whose motivation, according to Karl Marx, is fundamentally different from the purely materialistic motivation of the “man of the old formation”. Such a system required collective enterprise, which was tantamount to ruin. This is indeed the end of the matter. Since entrepreneurs are individualistic by nature, few people wanted to become a managing director in an environment that limited freedom, did not allow them to take risks and make independent decisions.

Observing organizational behavior in Yugoslavia, I found some connections, like Dr. James Lind, a British naval physician, who in 1747 found himself on board a ship where the crew did not get enough vitamin C in the diet, and established a connection between its deficiency and scurvy, a very common disease. among sailors. I have found that if a management function, such as entrepreneurship, is suppressed, the organization develops a certain, predictable management «disease.» For more than 30 years I have studied the relationship between individual functions and types of organizational behavior. I have analyzed combinations of roles and their respective management styles to find out how the lack of individual functions gives rise to a predictable style of mismanagement. This analysis naturally led to the development of a diagnostic and healing methodology that I have been able to successfully test in hundreds of companies around the world.

Code (PAEI)

What are these functions and how to achieve their simultaneous execution? These are production of results — (P)roducing, administration — (A)dministrating, entrepreneurship — (E)ntrepreneuring and integration — (I)ntegrating, or PAEI. First, I will give a brief definition of these concepts.

The first function that management must perform in any organization is (P), or the production of results, which ensures the effectiveness of the organization in the short term. Why do people turn to your company? What do they need you for? What services do they require? The business of the producer (P) is to satisfy their needs. You can evaluate this feature by measuring the number of people who return to purchase your competitive products or services.

The second function, (A), or administration, is to keep order in the organizational processes: the company must do the right things in the right sequence with the right intensity. The task of the administrator (A) is to ensure efficiency in the short term.

Next, we need a seer. It defines the direction the organization should take. Such a person is naturally capable of proactive action in an environment of constant change, which guarantees the company’s performance in the long term. This is the function of an entrepreneur (E) who combines creativity with a willingness to take risks. If an organization is successful in this function, its services and/or products will be in demand by future customers.

Finally, management must ensure integration (I), that is, create an atmosphere and value system that will encourage people to work together and prevent anyone from becoming irreplaceable, which will ensure the viability and effectiveness of the organization in the long term.

A healthy organization is characterized by efficiency and effectiveness in the short and long term.

When solving problems, each function is aimed at solving its own problems.

(P): What needs to be done?

(A): How should it be done?

(E): When/why should this be done?

(I): Who should do it?

If the answers to all these questions are not given before the final decision is made, it will be «half-baked».

If you produce the results you want and administer successfully, (P) and (A) will provide efficiency and effectiveness in the short term, but the company will only be profitable in the short term. (We’ll discuss why that is later.) If you’re all about entrepreneurship and integration, (E) and (I) will achieve long-term efficiency and effectiveness at the expense of short-term results. Successful performance of all four functions is required for a company to be profitable in the short and long term. In the case of a non-profit organization, such as a government agency, the skillful performance of these four functions will ensure the proper level of service, political viability, or any other task.

These functions have to be performed even by parents, since the family is an organization, and therefore a system that requires the performance of all these functions. In a traditional family, the husband performs the functions (E) and (P), making a career and financially providing for his loved ones. The wife is responsible for (A) and (I), furnishing the home and bringing the group of children and adults together into a family.

How are things in a modern family, where two people make a career? What happens if you do not pay due attention to the distribution of functions? If (P) and (E) are occupied by two, the family cannot do without servants who do housework (A) and a family psychoanalyst who is entrusted with function (I).

Any organization, regardless of technology, culture and size, needs to perform these four functions, which together are sufficient for successful management. As soon as one or more functions fail, we are faced with a predictable, reproducible pattern of mismanagement — the same in every corner of the globe, regardless of the culture, technology and size of the organization or its objectives.

Successful and Bad Management Styles

With the help of the four named functions, many phenomena can be briefly described. With regard to management styles, we will get abbreviations that allow us to define «style» through a combination of successfully implemented functions. If this combination is known, the style is predictable.

Most managers are satisfied with the successful performance of one or two functions on which they rely, building their line of conduct. Although no one can achieve perfection in all four functions, a good manager must have at least the most basic skills in each of them.

Describing the basic management style, I note the prevailing and missing features. For example, a manager excels in production (P) and is reasonably competent in other functions. I will refer to this style of management as «code» (Paei) — the capital «P» indicates that the function is performing brilliantly, and the lowercase «a», «e», «i» indicate that these functions are performing satisfactorily.

Another manager can be an excellent organizer — (pAei), a third (paEi) feels promising trends, and a fourth (paeI) knows how to create motivation. This suggests that an individual manager in most cases manifests himself either as a producer (P), or as an administrator (A), or as an entrepreneur (E), or as an integrator (I).

Any combination of functions (PAEI) based on the effectiveness of their performance — which ranges from 1 to 100 — represents a separate management style, and there are no fewer such combinations than there are people on earth. (PA-) is an overseer, (paEI) is a statesman, etc. (See the second book in this series: Management and Mismanagement Styles).

A «leader» is one who excels at two or more functions, one of which must be (I), while the other functions must also perform satisfactorily. There are many leadership styles too, such as Little League coach (PaeI), etc. The appropriate leadership style depends on the task being performed.

If one or more functions (PAEI) are not performed (indicated by a dash in the code), there is a corresponding mismanagement style: (P-) — the manager, whom I call the Lone Hero, (-A-) — Bureaucrat, (-E -) — Pyro, (-I) — Ardent supporter. You will find a description of these styles in the 4th chapter of the book. These are discussed in more detail in the second book in this series, Management and Mismanagement Styles.

The code (PAEI) can be used for more than just categorizing behavior or style. Functions (PAEI) come and go in a predictable sequence throughout the life cycle of any organization. Not all functions are presented and fully developed during the period of its formation; over time, some of them become more pronounced, while others fade. This gives rise to problems that can be foreseen and prevented, since they obey certain patterns.

By imagining what functions are missing or not being performed effectively at a given point in time, it is possible to predict what problems a given organization will face and what it should do to accelerate its development or slow down its decline. It is possible to determine which features will become relevant at the next stage of its life cycle, which means which leadership styles will be most effective. That is why certain leadership styles are preferred at one stage of the organization’s life cycle and unacceptable at another.

In other words, having caught this pattern, you become the owner of a real magic crystal. Current issues show where your organization is in the life cycle, and based on this information, you can predict what issues might arise in the next stage. You have a tool that allows you to determine what is normal and what deviates from it, at any stage of the [organization’s] life cycle. The same thing happens in human life: we know that a baby cries and soils diapers, but if an adult of 45 years old behaves like this, it becomes clear to us that he has problems — of course, if we are not talking about a venture capitalist. (I once asked a venture capitalist who invested in internet companies, “How do you sleep at night?” – “Like a baby,” he replied, and seeing my bewilderment, explained: “I’ll take a nap for a couple of hours, and then cry all night !»). You can read about how functions (PAEI) develop and change throughout the life cycle of an organization, how to predict the problems that it will face in the future, and what to do about it, you can read in the three-volume Corporate Lifecycles: Volume 1: How Organizations Grow , Age and Die; Volume 2: Why Organizations Grow, Age and Die; Volume 3: How to Manage Balanced Growth and Rejuvenate Organizations (Volume 1: How an organization ages and dies; Volume 2: Why an organization ages and dies; Volume 3: How to Manage Balanced Growth of an Organization and rejuvenate it,” Adizes Institute, 2004. This is the third, expanded and expanded edition of Corporate Lifecycles, a work that was first published by Prentice Hall in 1999.

Over the years, I have developed tools that allow me to develop these four functions. I have helped an organization navigate a period of rapid, rapid change while avoiding the detrimental dysfunctional management «disorders» that usually accompany such a period. For example, if an organization loses market share, this indicates a lack of performance in the short term or failure to perform (P) — functions. If you know how to enforce it, then you can handle this problem.

For 30 years, I have been advising companies around the world, along with my colleagues who have mastered this methodology, using the tools (PAEI) along with other methods described in my other books. This toolkit allows us to solve the problems of companies in different parts of the world. A proven methodology for analyzing and solving problems and predicting behavior allows you to ensure a sustainable accelerated pace of recovery of the organization and avoid destructive conflicts. One company I consulted went from $12 million to $150 billion in sales, and another went from $4 million to $XNUMX billion—without diluting ownership.

Let’s talk in detail about the four functions and their four basic management styles.

The essence and meaning

The first and most important function that management must perform in any organization is (P), or the production of results for which the company or structure exists.

What does it mean? The existence of any organization has its own meaning, its creation is not an end in itself. A number of sociologists argue that the purpose of an organization is to survive. Such a phenomenon seems to me pathological, something like cancer. The organization should have a higher mission than survival.

So what is the purpose of the existence of a single organization? I’ll give you an analogy.

Five friends get together on a Friday night. Over a glass of beer, one of them suggests going on a hike to a nearby lake in the morning. The rest happily agree.

The next day, five friends walk along a mountain path that leads to a lake. It’s a very narrow path and they have to walk in single file. They walk for hours, singing, whistling, joking and laughing.

This group can be considered an organization. Its members are united by common goals, it is constantly changing and developing. At first, the group set a goal to meet on Friday evening. Then drink beer. And finally — go to the lake. A sociologist or psychologist might do a little field research on this seed group: the interactions of its members, their style, leadership abilities, and communication patterns. But in this group there is no management — until a big stone blocks the way for friends, which none of them can move alone.

Organizational management arises where there is a task that cannot be solved by one person. As soon as this task becomes clear, it begins to determine the behavior of the group — the interaction and mutual dependence of its members. To lift the stone, they will have to deal with planning, organizing, controlling and delegating authority, that is, decision making. They may decide to move the rock, set up camp on the spot instead of going to the lake, or come home and have a barbecue.

Can an organization do without management? While working as a consultant, I had to meet such organizations. A very tense atmosphere reigns in them, as people are constantly arguing about the purpose for which they have come together and what their common goal is. In this case, mutual dependence also takes place, but it arises spontaneously and remains uncontrollable. There are also people here who are paid to work as managers, but they do not manage an organization that flies like a plane without a pilot, surrendering to the will of the elements and winds.

Management is impossible where there is no task that requires mutual dependence, whether it is about what needs to be done immediately or in the near future (in this case we mean “immediate goal”), about long-term tasks (“strategic goal”) or about the enduring purpose of the company in the spiritual aspect («mission»). But whatever word you use, you somehow mean telos (the Greek word for «goal»), a task that cannot be done alone.

For me, this is the first significant difference between sociologists and management practitioners. We need to move the «stone». It is not enough to talk about interaction and communication. What is the purpose of this organization? Why do we share information? What is this being done for? Sometimes, reading books on social psychology, you begin to wonder: What are all these interactions for? What stone are they going to move?

I have seen organizations where the managers are like a group of tourists who sit next to a rock and complain that they can’t get to the lake. At the same time, none of them struck a finger on a finger to move the stone.

What «stone» does the entrepreneurial structure deal with? Why does it exist? What results are expected from her?

Economics students and those who don’t trust big business usually answer, «Profit!!!»

But guess what, this is the wrong answer.

Surely everyone knows very profitable organizations, which, nevertheless, go bankrupt — not in spite of, but because of. In other words, constantly thinking about profit, and not about what the client needs, is as pointless as saying: “The purpose of my life is to be happy.” If every morning, when you wake up, you ask yourself the question: “Am I happy?” — you will soon become the most miserable person in the world.

Another analogy is playing tennis. In an effort to win, you will not look at the scoreboard every now and then, but you will look at the ball. If you beat him effectively, efficiently and consistently, you will win. In other words, I know that you want to get into the lake (make a profit), but at the moment you need to think about how to move the stone.

What is a «stone»? Instead of profit, you should focus on something else: who needs your organization? Who will mourn if she is gone? Who needs you? For what? It is not about those who have a stake in your business — they should be taken into account, staying away from them, that is, treating them fairly and meeting their needs in order to be able to achieve the purpose of your company’s existence, which is to meet customer needs. If you don’t produce what your customers want, you are inefficient, and the lack of efficiency and effectiveness will prevent you from achieving profitability. I believe that profit is the result of good management, not its goal. If you perform all four functions, profit in the short and long term is guaranteed to you.

In a competitive market, profit is determined by how an organization creates added value.

Let me explain what has been said. When people buy a product or service in a competitive market, they are telling you how much they value in dollars and cents to satisfy a particular need.

However, in order to produce the desired service or product — that is, to perform (P) — the function — the company must spend money. When the company’s cost to satisfy a need is lower than the price a customer is willing to pay, with the ability to choose where to spend their money, there is a profit. It can be seen as value added because the cost to a company to produce a service or product is lower than the value perceived by the customer.

Thus, if a company efficiently and effectively performs the (P) and (A) functions, it will be profitable, creating added value for society, in the short term. (Note that I constantly emphasize that all this is only true in a competitive environment, where customers have a choice.)

So what is the purpose of your organization’s existence? What should she produce?

Answer: Your goal is customer satisfaction. This is the task (P) — the functions of any organization. Task (A) — functions — to ensure its cost-effectiveness.

Please note that I do not use the expression «customer satisfaction». Consumers are handled by the sales department; it is an external phenomenon. Any manager has clients, and they can be both external and internal. The accounting client can be the operations department or the marketing department. If the accounting department does not meet the needs of its client for information, a problem arises. Customers are all those people whose needs the organization is designed to meet.

How to measure satisfaction? Through repeat sales! Are your clients returning? Will they come to you again if they have a choice?

Marketers conduct research to find out what customers want, how, when, and at what price they want it. The same applies to any manager who is involved in production, accounting or security. First find out who your customers are, then determine what they need, and then go ahead and do what needs to be done and do the job effectively.

The same is true for family life. Who is the client of each spouse? If your partner comes home late every day or doesn’t show up at all, there must be a reason. If children — clients of the structure called «family» — leave the parental home and try to return to it as little as possible, they must certainly have reasons for this.

An organization is effective in the short term if it satisfies the current needs for which it exists. This can be confirmed by the fact that your customers are returning, even if they may receive the same or similar services elsewhere.

Management Styles: Producer (Paei)

Let’s take a look at what constitutes a managerial style that successfully fulfills the (P) function, ensuring the creation of the product necessary to satisfy customer needs, that is, the production of the desired result, and satisfactorily copes with administration, entrepreneurship and integration. I call such a manager, denoted by the code (Paei), a producer, or a manager (P) — a type.

To become a manager (P) — type, you need to have two qualities. First, you need to know what your customers need and why they come to you. What are the characteristics of your market segment? Secondly, and very importantly, you must have an understanding of the technology, or how to create what your customers are looking for.

Therefore, to say: “To manage is to manage, manage and manage; a professional manager can manage anything” is incorrect. This is a simplistic approach that is dangerous if you do not insert three words into this phrase: some time later. What will you spend this time on? To understand the specifics of the organization you manage. There are no two identical «stones» in the world.

Even if you just move from one branch to another — within the same bank! — you will have to deal with another «stone». Customers at another branch have different needs — perhaps they need parking or car maintenance, which was not available at your previous place of work. Even if you just move to another part of the organization, the «stone» will be different. So what does a good manager do before he takes on a new business? He studies the «stone». He finds out what specific clients come to him for. All organizations are different, just like people. You can’t treat everyone with the same brush. In order to produce results, or to satisfy perceived needs, you must study the specifics of what you are going to manage.

But that is not all. Some people, with great awareness, don’t produce results. They can write a brilliant report, they are tech-savvy, their assessments are correct—but they lack what psychologists call «achievement motivation»—the desire to achieve and do. Don’t just talk, but succeed! This desire to see the task completed can be compared to the fact that a good sales representative will not rest until the buyer signs the check. (P) must not back down until the customer’s need is met and the task is complete.

Therefore, I am convinced that a manager (P) — type should be knowledgeable and purposeful.

Managing the railroad

Is it enough to produce results? No. What happens if the manager is an excellent producer, knowledgeable and driven?

He is so good, diligent and reliable, he works so fruitfully that we reward him with a promotion.

He is no longer just a manufacturer, now he has to work with five or six other people. He must coordinate, delegate authority, control and supervise. Instead of doing the work himself (P), he needs to make the system work, which performs (P) — functions. And this is a completely different task, and its solution requires a different function — administration, or (A).

Good management is not complete without an administrator. It is he who pays attention to detail, organizes the production process, (P) not to reinvent the wheel every time it is needed, and makes sure that the staff follows the established methods and procedures. The administration makes sure that the organization does what it should do, and does it effectively. It takes the organization to the top of the learning curve to capitalize on accumulated knowledge and experience. She analyzes achievements and plans them in order to achieve success again and again.

If you achieve results, your organization will be effective. If you are also in administration, your organization will be efficient. If you provide (P) and (A), your organization will be efficient and effective in the short term. And since it is effective and efficient in the short term, it will be profitable in the short term if you consider profit as a measure of your success.

If a person is successful in (P) but inexperienced in (A), he is extremely disorganized. He works hard—harder than necessary—but he does it unwisely. He spends a lot of time inventing the wheel.

The same is true for the organization. There are companies that cater to customer needs but lack organized administration. They lack a system. Supply chain management is badly done. Wage management resembles a patchwork quilt assembled from individual labor agreements. Recruitment processes and principles are ill-conceived. Such a company is effective, but inefficient. Its sales may rise, but the volume of profits will fall.

In America, management is compared to the work of the railroad. How to ensure its operation? First of all, we need a driver to achieve the result — to carry out transportation. The driver drives the train from point A to point B. Next, we need someone who will lead the drivers, making sure that they drive the trains from point A to point B correctly and on schedule. In the railway company, this function is called dispatching. This (P) is a function of the railway company, which must be managed by a pronounced carrier of (P) — style.

If the driver or dispatcher does not cope with his work, the organization is not managed correctly, and it becomes ineffective. Trains do not run, transportation needs are not met.

For a railroad company to be profitable, we need money and logistics, collection of fares, and dissemination of information about train schedules. Then at the appointed time it will be possible to take the right train and arrive at the right city. It is necessary to adhere to the budget, control costs, develop systems and monitor their implementation. All of these are administration tasks that a manager (A) – type should be doing.

Management Styles: Administrator (pAei)

Such a person has a natural tendency to notice details, especially those related to implementation. He is methodical and likes to keep the work environment thoughtful and well organized. He has a linear way of thinking.

When you have a business idea — especially if it’s a crazy idea or if you’re afraid it’s going to be crazy — you go to a manager like this to cool your enthusiasm. He will be able to appreciate the essence of the matter. He will ask you questions that never crossed your mind. He will see all the pitfalls that you have not considered. Let him read a business plan and he will tear it to shreds. And you will be grateful to him! By anticipating problems, you can solve them before they escalate into a crisis, or you can abandon a failed plan and thus reduce costs and losses in the long run.

A good administrator, or manager (A) — like, foresees the problems inherent in the idea. People told me about such leaders: “He can find a hair inside an egg without breaking the shell” or “He can smell something wrong from a mile away.” A psychologist would say that (A) — the function is best performed by a person with a need to control the situation, while (P) — the function requires a person aimed at success.

If you trust your administrator and your idea has withstood his criticism, you have no doubt that you will be able to implement it, and you know that you should do it. If it did not pass the test, but you still decided to put it into practice, then you can imagine in advance what you are risking.

A good administrator always knows what is happening, otherwise he will not be able to sleep peacefully. He has a keen eye for detail. He is a very organized person who cares about getting the job done and getting it done. His memory is excellent (or backed by a system that saves him from having to rely on his own memory alone), and he makes sure the system functions as it should while he works.

The administrator worries every now and then, but his worries are always appropriate. He is concerned about the accuracy and reliability of the information. He worries that the organization may lose storage media, databases, or intellectual property.

Good (A) — an administrator is indispensable in a growing organization. Usually a young company develops too quickly and in many directions at once, so it can easily make a false step and fail (that is, go bankrupt), for some time not realizing that it is bankrupt.

Good (A) — the administrator covers your rear. He makes sure that the gates of the castle are closed and the enemy — chaos — does not get inside.

However, it does not produce what the organization exists for.

Administration is like maintenance. The administration serves those who achieve results, that is, satisfy the needs of clients. Administration is done for someone or something. By administering organizations that provide public services, the government serves the public, and those who work in such organizations are called civil servants or public administrators. They satisfy the need for (A), thereby fulfilling their (P) — function; to ensure the effectiveness of this work, they must also take care of the implementation of the (A) — function.

Consulting Attorney (pAei) — type — this is who you need if you need to draw up a contract. But don’t ask him to represent you in court. He will lose the case. He will write a contract brilliantly, but if you intend to sue, it will be much better if you find an ingenious (paEi) lawyer who can convince others that night is day and turn your liabilities into assets.

The same is true for accounting professionals. I need two accountants: one to advise on taxes — (paEi) — type — and the other to fill out tax returns — (pAei) — type. If (E) does the filing, I might get in trouble for creative accounting. If (A) plans my taxes, I will most likely pay more than I should.

Now let’s talk about (E) — function, or entrepreneurship.

see through the fog

Is it possible to limit ourselves to production and administration? No. Any manager must be an administrator. But is the opposite true? Can any administrator be called a manager? No. In addition to administration, the organization must be able to plan what work to do next, and decide in which direction to move, taking into account changes. This is the task of the entrepreneur, or (E) is the function.

Objective (E) is to analyze environmental changes that affect the organization. While (A) — the function involves systematization and implementation of plans that have already been adopted, the task of (E) is to develop a plan for future actions that determines today’s undertakings of the organization, since planning cannot be postponed until tomorrow. It’s about what you need to do today to achieve what you want tomorrow.

In my opinion, the appropriate metaphor for (E)-function is «the ability to see through fog». An entrepreneur is a creative person, he peers into the fog and distinguishes fragments of information that are shown and then disappear, and suddenly it dawns on him. He sees a huge ear, then a trunk, then a leg and concludes: “Aha! It’s clear, it’s an elephant.»

The uncreative person waits until the fog clears, the sun rises, and everything becomes visible. Then he will come closer, touch the elephant and smell it. And yet he is still not completely sure: «Hm, it is possible that this is an elephant!» Such a person does not add any information to what he sees and does not create anything, while a creative person fills in the voids in the information fog with the help of imagination.

Returning to the railroad analogy, task (E) is to decide which stations to close and where to open new ones; by how much to increase or reduce the fleet of cars on individual lines; how often trains should stop at certain stations. In other words, it is (E) who leads the organization when it has to deal with changing realities.

Entrepreneurship is not limited to the business world. In addition to type (E) people in business who try to take advantage of the financial opportunities of the market, there are entrepreneurs in the social sphere who initiate cultural and political transformations, and entrepreneurs in the arts and education who satisfy existing aesthetic needs and create new ones. All of them are extremely valuable to society.

Because change is inevitable and constant, (E)-function is also essential to good management. It makes the organization effective in the long run. If the organization does not have someone who performs (E) — function, it will sooner or later lag behind its more creative and agile competitors.

Idea Generator — (paEi)

In the book How to Solve the Mismanagement Crisis, in which the (PAEI) model was first introduced, I defined the one who performs the (E)-function and has the code (paEi) as an «entrepreneur». This book was written almost 30 years ago. During this time, having studied these codes more deeply, I changed my mind.

The manager (paEi) is — like — not exactly an entrepreneur. To become an entrepreneur who creates organizations and ensures their development, you need to simultaneously have developed (P) — skills. Focusing only on (E) is not enough.

Someone who is mostly focused on (E) and satisfactorily, but not brilliantly, on the (P) function, I now call the Idea Generator. This manager has a lot of proposals — some successful, others not so much. He gives them out in abundance, sometimes it’s a real stream of ideas. He is like a schoolboy who raises his hand without listening to the teacher’s question. He is the one who speaks the most in meetings. Whatever solution is proposed, he has another option.

Such a manager brings the meetings to life tremendously. He not only closely follows the course of the discussion, but also its purpose. He is not devoid of the ability to listen to someone else’s opinion and knows how to notice the details. However, by not being aimed at (P), he is not the type of person to say, «Let me take the lead and get it done.»

Not paying due attention (P), he will constantly rush from one idea to another, not bringing anything to the end. He is incapable of creating an organization.

Entrepreneur — (paEi)

To be an entrepreneur, a manager needs to have two basic qualities. Above all, he must be creative, capable of charting new directions and inventing strategies that enable the organization to adapt to ever-changing environments. To determine the strategy for responding to change, he must feel the strengths and weaknesses of his organization and have imagination and courage.

Still, being creative is not enough. There are extremely creative people who cannot be called entrepreneurs.

Often this can be said about business school teachers. Why? Because they are just creative people. However, they can be very prolific in their work, as evidenced by the number of articles they published. Moreover, entrepreneurship, that is, ways to make money, can be the focus of their creativity. However, if they don’t have the second quality that I think is essential for an entrepreneur — the willingness to take action, to go ahead through the fog, and to take risks to follow the dream — they won’t be (E). They won’t be able to make money even if they write a book about it.

Following a dream while wading through the fog is risky. Dangerous traps may lie in wait for you, and when you eventually reach your destination, it may turn out that you have not reached the goal of your journey. Therefore, the entrepreneur does not just represent the desired goal, he is able and willing to risk what he has in order to get what he wants.

Both qualities, creativity and willingness to take risks, are essential to entrepreneurship. If a manager is willing to take risks, but lacks creativity, he will feel much more comfortable in the casinos of Las Vegas than in the business world. If he’s creative but not risk-averse, he’d be better off as an employee, consultant, or business professor—someone who can come up with a plan of action but can’t execute it.

An entrepreneur knows what he wants and why he wants it. He is creative — but always has a goal in mind. He has an idea, a plan, and he is able to transform this idea into achievable results. His creativity is aimed at making this result a reality. He is a business man, creative and purposeful. He is annoyed by ideas without results, and results that are not generated by great ideas are a waste of time.

(E) — the function is focused on further actions. What are the emerging needs that represent the next generation of customers that the organization will need to serve? Thus, the performance of the (E)-function makes the organization effective in the long run.

adopt a religion

In the example of friends who went to the lake, their friendship and sense of belonging is expressed in the need for joint action. The first time the buddies met that need was by drinking beer together, then by going to the lake, and later by trying together to move a rock or come up with a new plan.

The process of finding a new way to achieve the ultimate goal of going hiking instead of drinking beer is entrepreneurship, (E) a function. The organization of the trip — where and at what time to meet, who will take with them supplies of provisions — this is administration, (A) is a function. Immediate action — drink beer, go to the lake, remove a stone from the road — everything that friends did to satisfy the need for communication at the current moment is the production of the result, the implementation (P) is the function.

What do all these activities have in common? Why are these people drinking beer together, going camping and trying to move a rock?

Psychological research shows that people feel the need to communicate with their own kind. What is the most severe punishment in prison? Single camera. After all, the prison itself is a partial isolation, which means punishment. The function of developing and encouraging the need for association makes the organization viable, and therefore effective, in the long term.

What happens if your organization is led by a leader who is considered unbeatable (P), (A) and (E)? He is a knowledgeable, purposeful, agile and business-like producer, and at the same time an excellent administrator who knows how to bypass pitfalls, for whom everything is systematized and organized, done correctly and on time. In other words, the organization operates efficiently and effectively.

In addition, he is a brilliant entrepreneur who constantly improves the organization and corrects its course, ensuring movement forward and adapting to changing conditions.

What happens to the organization when such a leader dies?

She will die with him.

Why? Because functions (P), (A) and (E) are necessary but not sufficient if an organization is to remain effective and efficient in the long term.

The organization must be managed so that it remains viable for thousands of years. Take, for example, the Catholic Church. It has existed for two thousand years and will easily last as long. Why? Because it has formed a system of values ​​with which everyone who belongs to this organization stands in solidarity.

To achieve this, you need an integration, or (I) a feature.

Integration means bringing people together in order to reach agreement and provide collective support for ideas and their implementation. If (I) — the function is performed successfully, people will learn to work in a team, and not alone, and will be able to complete any task, compensating for the missing or underdeveloped skills of each other.

Integration creates an atmosphere, a system of moral and behavioral norms that encourage teamwork, thereby ensuring the interchangeability of people. To integrate means to ensure that the organization does not perceive itself mechanically, but is aware of its organic integrity.

What does it mean? Mechanistic consciousness assumes that everyone thinks only about their own interests — you about yours, I about mine. Take a look at the chair. If one of the legs breaks, will the rest of the legs be bothered? No, it will remain the problem of the one that broke.

If all four legs are internally interconnected—that is, in an organic unity—and one of them breaks, then the remaining three can regroup into a tripod to keep the chair functional. But there is no interdependence or organic relationship between the parts of the chair. Therefore, when its functionality is broken, outside intervention is necessary, that is, repair.

Something similar happens in organizations with a mechanistic orientation. Let’s say there’s a sales problem. The company is going bankrupt. The production department — (P) — function — says, «That’s not my problem. Let the sales department handle it.» In fact, it is likely that manufacturing people can save the company by making changes to their work.

For comparison, take a look at your own hand. If you break your finger, your whole body will feel it. This is empathy. Moreover, if one finger is broken, four healthy fingers on the same hand will try to make up for the loss. This is the consciousness of organic unity. This is interdependence and cooperation, this is synergy instead of individualism, independence, and often confrontation.

“Yes, but one head controls all the fingers on the hand,” someone will object. Not always. What if the broken finger belongs to your four-year-old son? It’s not your finger. Then why are you suffering and unable to concentrate? Because the finger belongs to someone you love and whose pain you feel as if it were your own.

Thus, integration does not have to be physical. It can be emotional or spiritual. Its driving force is a sense of belonging and a need for unity.

When your kids fight, you don’t always step in to fix their problems. Why? Because you are trying to stimulate a sense of mutual dependency and a need for togetherness. You say, “Look, you are one family; you must help each other. I won’t be around forever. You have to solve your own problems.»

Imagine that you and your family are packing things in the car, going for a country walk, and you see that your son is sitting in the car and waiting. «Why don’t you help?» you ask him.

“I already packed my things,” he replies.

“Get out of the car this very second and march to help others!!! — in all likelihood, you will scream. “You are not alone here. Your work will be done when the whole family has packed their things.» I guessed?

A family is not just a group of people, and a hand is not just five fingers. Among other variables, there is a sense of mutual dependence, which is fueled by common values ​​and unity of views. Integration is the creation and careful preservation of a culture of mutual trust and respect, that is, cooperation. In addition, integration implies that the leader tries to be invisible, which means that the group continues to function if something happens to him or any other member of the group.

Imagine a sports team. Make it up of stars who come from different teams and have never played or trained together, and invite them to play with a team that is slightly above average, but long and well played. Who will win the first game? Most likely, it will be a team whose class of play is slightly above average. Why? Because the team of stars has not yet formed a sense of comradeship; its members cannot yet foresee the actions of their comrades: «If he does this, I will cover him by doing that.» This desire to work together to achieve a common goal is what we mean by teamwork.

Integration turns individual entrepreneurship into a group one. If the manager does not integrate, does not encourage group entrepreneurship, then in his absence, in an extreme situation, the group will be unable to take the initiative, will not be able to take action or determine goals. Therefore, integration is a necessary component of effective management. A company that relies on an individual to ensure the continued success of its operations will face an inevitable crisis if such an individual quits or dies. Even an organization managed by (PAE-)—a dash in the code means (I)—a function is missing or poorly performed—is in danger if such a manager leaves before the team has a sense of corporate solidarity that determines effective course of action.

Because an organization typically lives longer than an individual, effective long-term succession depends on building a team of people that is built on mutual trust, respect, and understanding. The members of such a team complement each other. Integration makes this possible.

In the absence of (I) — function, there is no one who is focused on the global interests of the company in the long term. Instead, everyone takes care of themselves, often to the detriment of the company. Shareholders are trying to «milk» it. Management wants maximum rewards, including stock options, golden parachutes9 and endless fringe benefits. Workers are launching protest campaigns demanding higher wages and guaranteed employment. In this situation, it is possible to reach a consensus in which the interests of each of the parties will be satisfied, but in this case the company will go bankrupt. That’s why they say about some developing countries: «Rich people, poor country.»

When faced with a similar situation at a company I consult, I often try to make the problem more visible. To do this, I move an empty chair to the table. Pinning a piece of paper with the name of the company to its back, I ask: “If a person were sitting in this chair, what would he say? What does this company want? Giving those present the opportunity to participate in such a performance, I hear the voices of those who have been silent until now. In offering this exercise, I am playing the role of an integrator.

Although it would seem that the ultimate goal of our existence is (P), that is, customer satisfaction, in fact, this is only an ongoing task of a short-term nature. What is our perpetual, enduring purpose? Satisfy your need for interaction.

I repeat: the ultimate goal of our existence is interaction. Man is a social being. We need each other, that’s all. Even dogs and cats we start with the sole purpose of being needed, to satisfy the need for communication. In the US, dogs are trained to visit patients in hospitals. A number of studies have shown that a dog’s attention and love can speed up the healing process.

Everything in this world exists in order to benefit something else through functional interaction. If the object is useful only to itself, it is a cancer that is in the service of death.

The pen I write with is useless if it doesn’t leave marks on the paper. There is no point in breathing if it does not saturate my body with oxygen. Nothing can be functional in itself, any entity is functional only in relation to other entities. The fundamental meaning of the existence of any system is integration, (I) — function. Managers who are able to perform this function have the potential to become not just good managers, but leaders.

Management styles: integrator (paeI)

Integration is of two types — passive and active and has three directions — up, horizontally and down. The passive integrator is itself included in the group. An active integrator brings a group of people together without being a member. Since management involves active integration, we will only talk about it below.

Upward integration, or upward integration, is the ability to unite people with higher status, authority, positions, etc. Horizontal integration is the ability to create a cohesive group of equals. Top-down integration, or downward integration, allows you to become a leader by rallying subordinates.

A successful horizontal integrator may struggle with top-down integration, having a tendency to be too haughty with subordinates. In fact, rarely is anyone an unsurpassed integrator in all three areas.

Let’s talk about the qualities that a good integrator brings to an organization.

Oddly enough, he is the most creative of all managers, as he has to make decisions based on a more diffuse and less structured database. Integration is even less programmable than entrepreneurship — an entrepreneur does not always deal with people, while integration involves the unification of individuals with different interests and advantages necessary for a collective decision.

The integration of entrepreneurs is complicated by the fact that it is necessary to direct the individual creativity of each and every one into a single channel, forming a group of people who are able to take risks, ready for risk, and ensuring the fusion of individual responsibility with the group one.

The integrator clears up misunderstandings by looking for deep, rather than superficial, convergence of views and reconciling conflicting value orientations, attitudes, and expectations.

At the same time, a skilled integrator takes care not to become indispensable. His subordinates must be trained to replace him. Ideally, in a cohesive group, almost every member should be ready for the role of leader. So, for example, in the army: if any soldier is able to become the head of a unit in the event of the death of a commander, then the commander is a good integrator. If, on the other hand, the unit falls apart, having lost its commander, then the integration was unsatisfactory, although, perhaps, in other respects the commander proved to be a skilled manager.

An integrator subtly feels other people, empathizes with them and is capable of deductive thinking — he understands how what is said differs from what a person wants to say. He himself has a number of personal problems, which allows him to respond to the aspirations, problems and needs of other people, putting them above his own interests.

Such a leader was the late Juscelino Kubitschek, former president of Brazil and founder of its current capital, Brasília. When asked how he felt about a certain political program, Kubitschek replied: “I am neither for nor against. I am above».

(I) — function and leadership

The Integrator is unique in that it not only creates continuity relationships in the organization for the future, but also ensures its smooth functioning in the present. His role is very important for success in both the short and long term. Ultimately, for a manager to become a leader, this function is indispensable.

You can become a good manager without (I). The manager is able to successfully perform two and even three functions — (PAei), (paEi), (pAEi), (PAEi) — however, if there is no integration among them, he will not be a leader. For a manager to become a leader, his strengths must be reinforced by (I) — function. (Leadership is covered in more detail in Chapter 11.)

The Functionalist View: Summing Up

Before moving on, let me recap what I have said.

«Management» is defined as the process that enables an organization to become and remain effective and efficient now and in the future. I believe that these are the goals of any organization, regardless of technology, size, culture and criteria for measuring its success.

An organization achieves these goals if four functions are successfully performed: production in the name of meeting the expected needs of customers, administration, entrepreneurship and integration — or (PAEI). In other words, the organization must be results-oriented (P), be flexible and adapt well to change (E), and such flexibility must be controlled and produce predictable results (A). And finally, the system must be self-adjusting (I) and not require corrective actions from outside.

Therefore, the task of management is to perform these four functions, since they are not realized by themselves. To «govern» means to perform all these functions or any of them, regardless of the individual’s position or place in the hierarchy — and even regardless of whether he is on the staff.

Perhaps now that we have defined what “management” is and know what we are looking for, we will be able to find the ideal manager?

It wasn’t there. But now it will be easier for us to understand why ideal managers do not exist and cannot exist.

Chapter 3

• PROBLEM: Will we be able to find the ideal manager now that we have defined management?

The myth of the perfect manager

We have established that management has four functions. Each of them is necessary, and together they are sufficient for successful management. If you produce results (P) — that is, satisfy the needs of your customers, for whom your organization exists — and administer (A), you will ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization in the short term. If you are entrepreneurial (E) and care about integration (I), your organization will be efficient and effective in the long run. Provided that all four functions are implemented, the organization will be profitable — if you consider profit as a measure of its success — in the short and long term. As a nonprofit, in the short and long term, you will achieve whatever results you aspire to, be it service delivery, political vitality, or anything else.

It seems that everything is fine.

Should upset you.

Everything is not so simple.

One manager is great at planning — (E for P), another is an excellent organizer — (A for P), another is good at inspiring people — (I for E or P), etc. But you will never find someone who is brilliant performs all four functions — that is, an impeccable (PAEI) manager. These don’t happen. Why? This question reminds me of a joke.

The priest during the sermon says: “Ideal people do not exist. And I can prove it. If someone knows the ideal person, let him get up.”

None of those present get up. Then a middle-aged woman rises timidly in the last row.

“Do you really know the perfect person?” the priest asks in surprise.

“Personally, I don’t,” the parishioner replies, “but I have heard a lot about such a person. This is my husband’s late first wife.»

If someone is «perfect», most likely they are no longer alive. The deceased was not perfect either. We just forgot about her shortcomings.

In one of his books, Guru Osho writes that, apparently, people believe that he is no longer alive.

«Why?» they asked him.

“Because they only say good things about me!”

pipe dream

In other words, an impeccable (PAEI) manager who can do everything does not exist, and there is a good reason for that — everything that is subject to change, that is, continues to live, cannot be perfect. Nothing is perfect because nothing remains static. Everything has a life cycle. Parents treat their forty-year-old son differently than they treat a newborn baby. To treat a newborn baby as an adult is to put his life at risk; coddling a forty-year-old like a newborn baby means destroying his psyche. The behavior of parents should change as their children change, life does not allow us to stand still. We change, for better or worse. And these changes are not always ideally suited to the needs that we have to satisfy.

There is no perfect parent, no perfect leader and, for that matter, not even a perfect flower. Perfection is possible, but fleeting, or, to paraphrase Andy Warhol,10 in life each of us has a chance to be perfect for a quarter of an hour. However, conditions change, and the functional synchronization of what we do cannot remain perfect all the time. To say that anyone can be a good leader and no one at the same time may seem contradictory, but it makes sense in the following context: anyone can be a good leader in a certain situation, but no one can be a good leader all the time.

«A person is closest to perfection when he writes a job application.»

Stanley J. Randall

Peter Drucker was aware of the complexity of managerial work.

“The peculiarity of top management is that it requires a variety of abilities and, most importantly, different characters,” he writes. I have italicized my own interpretation of the functions that Drucker highlights.

“It requires the ability to analyze, think, weigh alternatives (A) and reconcile opposing points of view (I). In addition, it requires the ability to act quickly and decisively (P), enterprise and intuitive courage (E). It requires the ability to easily handle abstract ideas and concepts (E), numbers and calculations (A). In addition, it requires understanding of people, sensitivity, empathy, deep interest and respect for people (I). Some tasks require the person to work…alone (P). To perform other tasks, such as ceremonial and representative nature, you need to love the crowd and know the rules of etiquette (such is the task of the politician) (EI).”

“It takes at least four types of people to meet the challenges of top management,” Drucker continues. Drucker defines them as «man of thought» (A), «man of action» (P), «man of the people» (I), and «man of the cutting edge» (E). Without a doubt, these types correspond to the styles of the model (PAEI).

Although Drucker only talks about top management, I am convinced that any leadership position in an organization requires all four functions, although the balance between them varies depending on your position in the organizational structure. So, top management in America has to pay a lot of attention to (E) — functions. At the same time (I) — the function in American companies is often transferred to the HR department, which does not pay due attention to it, since HR managers are up to their throats with the implementation of (A) — tasks and paperwork, which not only prevents them from integrating (I) but also undermines their credibility as integrators.

Meanwhile (P) — the function is at the mercy of the workers or those who are directly involved in the creation of the product, «laborers». No one is interested in their opinion — no function (E) is allowed, and if they seek integration by trying to unionize, this is perceived as a threat to the power of management.

And yet, managers at any level must perform all four functions simultaneously and do it equally well. This creates a need for a book manager — a pipe dream — at all levels of management. A master, for example, must be knowledgeable (P), have administrative ability (A), be flexible, adaptive, innovative (E) and get along well with people (I). But how many masters actually possess all these qualities? According to Drucker, «People who combine these four styles are almost non-existent.»

The eternal conflict of the four functions

But why not? Because — and this is the second reason that makes the existence of an ideal manager impossible — these managerial functions, coinciding in time, reduce the effectiveness of each other.

Having concluded that more than one style is required to manage any organization, Drucker did not go further and analyze the interaction of different styles. This is the gap I will try to fill here.

Let’s look at feature incompatibilities in more detail.

We all know managers who brilliantly develop conceptual plans and ideas, but are not able to keep track of the details of their implementation. Others are talented integrators; they are sensitive, able to put themselves in the place of another, but are not able to make difficult decisions.

This is explained very simply: the four functions are not mutually exclusive, but they are incompatible in the short term, that is, one interferes with the execution of the other. In other words, the ability to successfully perform one of the (PAEI) — functions is likely to reduce the ability to perform the other.

“All people are ignorant, but everyone is in something of his own.”

Will Rogers

For example, production and entrepreneurship are incompatible. (P) and (E) are in conflict because (P) wants quick returns, while (E) wants to provide them in the long run.

How many times have you said: «I work so hard that I don’t have time to think.» In other words, when you move a stone, or meet current needs, you are so absorbed in this activity that you do not have time to think about the prospects. However, while you’re sweating a rock out of the way, someone else may have already built a freeway nearby. Thus, (P) threatens (E) — if you work hard day and night, thinking only about short-term results, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for you to keep abreast of the changes that are taking place. Your mind is like a camera. You can focus either on nearby objects or those that are far away.

I have met many entrepreneurs (E) who were lucky enough to be fired from their previous jobs (P). If they had not been moved from their place, they would never have taken up a new business.

The reverse is also true — (E) threatens (P). Entrepreneurship involves change, and this jeopardizes the performance of the (P) — function. The one in production always grumbles at the design department: «If you don’t stop making changes, we’ll never finish it!» There comes a time when you need to stop making plans in order to start implementing them.

Incompatibility (P) and (A)

The four functions are incompatible in any combination, this does not only apply to (P) and (E). Consider another combination: (P) and (A).

If you’re playing doubles tennis and the ball is flying fast to the center of the court, will you consider where it will land before deciding who will take the hit? Of course, no. Maybe you could draw a line down the middle of the court so you and your partner know exactly who is in charge of which area? Unlikely. You will divide the court by eye. And if the ball flies into the “transition zone” in the middle of the court, you will both rush to it. This approach is effective because one of you will hit the ball, but is not very efficient.

An effective approach is to keep neither of you moving until the ball hits the ground, even though it will be too late to hit the ball by then. Therefore, this approach is ineffective.

Efficiency (P) and efficiency (A) are incompatible objectives.

If you want to achieve high performance, then you can hardly count on efficiency. That is why young companies that endlessly “put out fires” and face unforeseen problems are disorganized and inefficient. They have to put up with the fact that organization and order have to be postponed until later.

The reverse is also true: by being highly efficient, you will eventually lose out on performance. In other words, by overzealous in (A), you will reduce (P). This is exactly what happens in bureaucratic systems where every little detail is planned and every variable is tightly controlled.

Paradoxically, the more you control, the more you lose control. By tightening it, you break up the system into small parts, and at the same time, more and more deviations are revealed that need to be controlled. What happens in the end? As control becomes more granular, the system becomes less flexible—and thus less responsive to the changing needs of its customers.

Let’s draw another parallel with tennis: imagine that a player stands still, exercising his arm and body, until he brings every movement to perfection, and then invites his opponent to send the ball to the point of the court where he practiced, that is, to where he operates most efficiently. In fact, such a player can only hit the ball, which flies directly to the racket. Moreover, he beats him purely mechanically, hoping that when he swings the racket, the ball will be in a convenient place for him.

I would call such an approach not approximately correct, but exemplarily incorrect. This is how the bureaucracy works. Everything is planned and controlled down to the smallest detail. No variable is left unattended. The fact that the ball — the changing needs of the client — does not fly where it was supposed to, does not bother anyone. Everyone mechanically performs their work as planned to ensure maximum efficiency and control. Everyone is extremely effective at achieving extreme inflexibility, and ultimately ultimate ineffectiveness.

In order to have a roughly correct approach and be effective, you must throw where the ball is flying, even if your body is not moving in the most efficient way.

Such a discrepancy between form and function, effectiveness and efficiency could be observed when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the communist system began to give up its positions. The transition to a market economy was incredibly difficult for this system, because in order to equal the market and obey it — in other words, to become more efficient, it had to learn to become less efficient, less regulated, to reduce state planning and state supervision. However, when I was lecturing at the Academy of Sciences in Russia and trying to get the idea across, I felt like I was selling pork to the Hasidim. The entire communist system relied on (A); to switch to (P), it is not enough to master new accounting principles, a radical transformation of culture is needed here.

In essence, (P) / (A) — incompatibility is a struggle between form and function, and there are many examples of this in life. For example, I’ve always wondered why women buy themselves so many shoes. My wife explained to me what was the matter. “A woman wants to buy shoes that make her sexy,” she said. A lady buys beautiful shoes, but they turn out to be uncomfortable — who likes to walk in high heels? Therefore, next time she buys comfortable shoes, but — that’s the trouble! — they don’t make her sexy. Closets full of shoes are the result of an endless futile search for the perfect shoe, the perfect balance of form and function, non-existent shoes that are comfortable yet sexy.

You may have noticed that this is the case with teapots: of those that are good-looking, tea will certainly spill on the table. In this case, form was given more attention than function.

When it is possible to achieve the perfect combination of form and function, effectiveness and efficiency, such an object has a place in a museum. That’s great rarity.

Administration and integration incompatibilities

Like (A), (I) prioritizes form. Both administration and integration imply a set of rules that encourage certain behavior and limit it to a set framework.

(I) personifies the organic form, while (A) the embodiment of the mechanistic form. By mechanistic form, I mean that (A) is control from the outside. (A) defines the parameters, and you must accept them as given, whether you agree with them or not. If you break the rules or deviate from them, you understand that you will be punished.

(I) also sets parameters, however (I) parameters are controlled by internal signals. Due to this, (I) can impose stricter restrictions than (A). Why? Because it is impossible to dodge by following the rules that you yourself have established. You cannot break the rules even in total darkness, when no one sees you, because you yourself are watching yourself. And you can’t run from yourself.

Here is an example. A man says to a married woman, «Why don’t we make love?»

“I can’t,” she replies.

«Why? he asks. “Your husband won’t know anything.”

“Yes,” she says, “but I will know about it.”

This is (I). «Why?» “Because I will know about it. No one but me will know that I have done something that should not be done. This comes from within, unlike (A), which comes from outside: “If I break these rules, I can be caught red-handed and punished. I will be stoned to death or exiled to Siberia.”

If you accept a set of external rules by making them your own—in other words, you internalize them—there is (AI). If you are a convinced communist, believe in communism and are ready to give your life for it, then you have learned the external rules of communism. This crushing combination makes you extremely inflexible. No wonder so many people in Russia committed suicide when Stalin was debunked and condemned as a criminal. The internal belief system of these people was destroyed.

Does this feature similarity mean that (A) and (I) are compatible?

Not at all.

(A) is detrimental to (I) because it forces the organization to rely on external hard and fast mechanical rules to control people’s interdependence and relationships. Such an organization will be less oriented towards internal and cultural values. Why does (A) substitute for (I) so easily? Because it is easier to issue laws than to form value orientations. It takes a few months to create a law. It takes a lifetime to form a new moral code. Moreover, sometimes (A) — rules can contradict (I) — values. Thus, (A) always seeks to strengthen the regulatory mechanism, and that, in turn, reduces the need for (I), suppressing the corresponding incentives. The more attention you give to (A), the weaker (I) becomes. Mechanistic rules and procedures (A) frustrate any attempt to maintain an organic relationship.

For example, during the formation of a new religion, the group of believers who founded it is not carried away (A). All they have is faith in God and a shared value system that allows them to decide together what needs to be done. Their relationship is dominated by (I).

After some time, the religion gains popularity and begins to spread, and the group of believers loses its initial cohesion. (I) is weakening, and by necessity the believers are becoming more and more rule-bound. Over time, the tail begins to wag the dog: the dominant role is already played by (A) — the rules. Now, instead of (I), which cemented this community through unity of belief, the organization focuses on rituals and rules, that is, (A), and religion becomes more and more rigid. It turns into an organized religion, and its adherents are absorbed in observing the rules of conduct, forgetting about the inner spirit of their faith. (A) destroys (I).

Here is another example of how (A) undermines (I). Which country has the most lawyers per capita? IN THE USA. Level (A) is extremely high and continues to rise. Our judicial system is overwhelmed. We are constantly looking for those who, intervening in our internal affairs, will solve the problems of our relations. (A) penetrates deeper and deeper into our social structure, dictating to us how to raise our children, how to behave with a marriage partner, where and how we may or may not smoke, eat, talk …

In the largest and fastest growing section of your local bookstore, you’ll find «self-help» books where you can find the «rules» for everything: how to find a life partner, throw a party, resolve disputes, and make friends. There are many rules for all occasions. Open edge (A). And what about (I)? She is also thriving. Countless courses teach love, intimacy, relationship building, communication, self-development, self-actualization. Look at the bumper stickers on American cars. Most often, the words “LOVE” or “LOVE” are found on them. “I love New York”, “I love my dog”, “Jesus loves you”, etc. Why such a craving for love? Love, the highest manifestation of integration, is in high demand because it is afraid of change. The more changes, the more alienation, the destructive consequences of modern life. At the same time, the larger the city, the weaker (I) and the more lonely its inhabitants feel.

Thus, changes exacerbate the need for both (A) and (I). But the more you rely on (A) — the rules for solving problems in any relationship, the less you trust your spirit guide, your inner voice. Resorting to (A) is easier. (A) is mechanistic in nature. (I) it is more difficult, and it is only natural that when one has to choose between simple and complex, preference is given to simple.

Now let’s approach the question from the other side: what (I) interferes with (A)?

To tell the truth, the word «interferes» is not the best in this context; it is more correct to say that (I) restrains the development of (A). The more attention you give to (I), the less your need for (A). With a tribal organization of society, the tribe relied on internal values ​​to make decisions and settle conflicts. To solve the problem, he did not need outside intervention, like the police or the courts. People had a stable value system that determined what was right and wrong, and they didn’t need someone to tell them what to do. Thus, the more expressed (I), the less the need for (A).

I would like to emphasize that (I)/(A) — incompatibility is different from other combinations of functions. Incompatibility is positive and negative. When (A) supplants (I), the incompatibility of the two functions is destructive. However, when (I) inhibits the growth of (A), we are talking about positive incompatibility.

This is not in any other pair combination. As we already know, if (E) undermines (P) or (P) undermines (E), this is undesirable. When (P) hinders (A) or (A) hinders (P), it is undesirable. We have to learn that if (I) interferes with (P) or (P) interferes with (I), this is also undesirable. Etc. But if (I) restrains (A), it is desirable. Why this is so, I do not know.

As I went about my work, I noticed that when my theories were in agreement, they were as graceful and harmonious as mathematics. As soon as something upsets this balance, I know that there is an error in my reasoning. Sometimes it takes me years to figure out what the error is and how to fix it. One of them is marked above.

Deviation (I)/(A) from the general rule violates the harmony of the theory, which means that there is some kind of omission, some kind of inaccuracy. However, this problem has not yet been resolved. That’s all I can do today. I prefer to admit this to readers rather than ignore the problem or try to gloss over the case. Perhaps one of the readers will help solve it. So far, I know one thing: for (I) to stop developing, (A) must reach a certain limit. But for (A) there is no such limit value (I).

What is happening and why? Don’t know. Try to figure it out yourself.