In mandate management individuals are given full authority and trust to execute. This has somehow an inbuild mechanism to incentive and encourage people to take care of the entirety instead of just their "land". You simply are inspired to contirubute to things outside your own responsibility ... very little tend to be left accidentally uncovered because everybody are interested in the total picture and things are developing fast due to this same inspiration and cross-functional interest.
In command management (in which nobody intentionally aims to go I think but more like organisations end up there for various reasons ?) everybody are lead/guided to care about their own "land" and the current commands associated to it (and eventually only that). In a worst case if you show interest and are active in other areas this will be interpreted as sign of having too little to do on your own "territory" which eventually leads to behaviour where you just keep your mouth shut so that you will not be loaded with additional "commands" on your own area (typically no new mandates but more micro management). As a side effect, command model finally petrifies organisation's view of each individual into competence boxes which has mutual negative consequences in a long term both for individuals and organisation. This means that people's contributions in other areas are not asked nor accepted - competent people are heavily under utilised and areas in organisation suffer innovational impoverishment. Very little new fresh ideas are bred.
Suitable amount of commands work extremely effectively in mandate managed organisations.
Mandates do not work at all in command managed organisation.
So mandates with it is .... but this is again the same old trust and self-esteem issue - I'm obviuosly coming again and again to same conclusion from different angles.
No comments:
Post a Comment