|
Page 1 of 2
Also See:
Langer Report: The Mature Technology CIO
Langer Report: The Balanced Scorecard
By Dr. Arthur Langer
My research has shown that the role that line managers have for the success of integrating the IT department is critical. Furthermore, I have found that many CIOs place too much dependence on executive-driven programs to establish and sustain IT project success. Rather it is the line management-or middle managers who fundamentally run the business-who are best positioned to make the difference.
My hypothesis here is that both top-down and bottom-up approaches to IT projects are riddled with problems, especially in their ability to sustaining outcomes. We cannot be naïve-even our senior executives must drive results in order to maintain their positions. As such, middle managers, as the key business drivers, must operate in an event- and results-driven world-let's not underestimate the value of producing measurable outcomes as part of the ongoing growth of the organizational learning practicum as it relates to successful technology adaptation.
To explore the role of middle managers further I draw on the interesting research done by Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995). These researchers examined how Japanese companies manage knowledge creation by using an approach, which they call "middle-up-down." Nonaka & Takeuchi found that middle managers "best communicate the continuous iterative process by which knowledge is created". These middle managers are often seen as leaders of a team or task in which a "spiral conversion process" operates, and which requires both executive and operations management personnel.
Peters and Waterman (1982) and others often have attacked middle managers as representing a layer of management that creates communication problems and inefficiencies in business processes that resulted in leaving American workers trailing behind their international competitors during the automobile crisis in the 1970's. They advocated a "flattening" of the never-ending levels of bureaucracy responsible for inefficient operations.
However, executives often are not aware of details within their operating departments and may not have the ability or time to do so. Operating personnel, on the other hand, do not possess the vision and business aptitudes necessary to establish the kind of knowledge creation that fosters strategic learning. Middle managers, or what I prefer to identify as line managers, possess an effective combination of skills that can provide positive strategic learning infrastructures.
Line managers understand the core issues of productivity in relation to competitive operations and return on investment, and they are much closer to the day-to-day activities that bring forth the realities of how and when new strategic processes can be effectively implemented. While many researchers, such as Peters, found them to be synonymous with backwardness, stagnation, and resistance to change, middle managers are the core group that can provide the basis for continuous innovation through strategic learning.
It is my perspective that the difference of opinion regarding the positive or negative significance middle managers have in relation to IT organizational learning has to do with the wide-ranging and variety of employees who fall into the category of "middle." It strikes me that Peters is somewhat on target with respect to a certain population of middle managers, though I would not characterize as line managers.
To justify this position it is important to clearly establish the differences. Line managers should be defined as pre-executive employees that have reached a position of managing a business unit that contains some degree of return on investment for the business. In effect, I am suggesting that focusing on "middle" managers as an identifiable group is too broad. Thus, there is a need to further delineate the different levels of what comprises middle managers and their roles in the organization.
Next: Understanding Different Levels of Managers
|
