(super) Human Factors

Lately, some brain waves have been drawn to examining what is commonly termed "management". Be it business management, or the management of any organization, I'm focused on those individuals or groups that make decisions. Management typically has other duties based on context, but that's not my focus here.

My rhetorical ramblings here are asking you, diligent reader, to accept this posit: Management really is the most critical set of resources an organization has - next to its constituents/customers of course.

Instead of explaining why, let's go the currently fashionable route and attack the theory from the critical eye.

It isn't management that makes an organization, it's the people below management - those in the "trenches", the cogs in the machine, that really bring about successful results. Rebuttal: Sure, the people below make the company, and without these resources, management couldn't make a decision, but the decision and the process of filtering information (relevant/bad/politically charged) is on Mr. or Mrs. management. The buck stops there, and therefore, a honed skill is required to make the right decision for that organization in that context.

Management only manages the talented resources that HR delivers. Rebuttal: This may be the case for some organizations, but I'd say that any organization would benefit from having both HR and current business management involved in hiring new resources. Fit to culture, managing style, work style, etc are often more critical than having a certain minor degree of specific skill. Therefore, I would say that more often than not, Management does help get the right folks on the team.

Management only repeats what those below them tell them to say, providing no extra value. Rebuttal: See rebuttal #1 again, and beyond that, I think most would agree that nearly every argument can be backed by seemingly correct data. It's up to Management to give each case presented the common sense shakedown and present themselves only that which passes muster.

To sum, it's all about people. Numbers, be they monetary or empirical, are used often to back up reasoning for a decision/course of action. However, what most people often fail to recognize that it's the common sense/wisdom quotient number that really allows an organization to succeed.

Am I a fan of the grossly large compensation packages given many executives around the world, and especially in the western countries? No. However, I do feel this group has the most direct ability to effect success or failure, which in business either means money is made or money is not. Performance based compensation fits very well with a market economy, and this should not be artificially tuned. I'm referring to tweaking done by either the socialist leaning "compensation caps" or tweaking that arrives through collusion amongst the silver spoon set, privileged without reason.

So, ok Scotsman - make a positive suggestion rather than just observations.

Here goes:
What really must be changed is the lack of governance of a company's board of directors, which leads to false management. Fix that, (adding objective governance) and compensation/corporate success, and its waterfall factors - stockholder success, employee satisfaction, corporate consciousness will follow in a positive direction.