Posts
Sometimes I feel that heads of organisations are only there to provide veto or reversing a junior management's decision. These are often made over frivolous points, and are not mostly on substantive or strategic areas. They neither reflect a rationale nor a logic to the decision. Managers must say no to something that a junior under their hierarchy has said yes. This seems like an ego trip at times! Should one discuss this or not?
This certainly looks cheap when the veto/ reversal decision in conveyed in a sly and twisted manner rather than straight away to the next-in-line in the hierarchy. Some are kept involved, and information to junior managers reach from the line staff to whim the Heads have directly conveyed a decision.
One wonders if the dissolving of the tier of management has something to do with rapid use of ICT4D, and parallely new trends of making management jobs redundanct? Since more and more people are actually dialoguing with the top-management directly on several projects (actually discussing operational issues), junior or deputies at management levels are kept (sometimes inadvertently, but mostly due to lack of pre-defined procedures/practices) to information and knowledge about changes and decisions.
This results in misunderstandings, and leads to social dynamics that cause negative feelings, lack of support, and perpetrates a sense of isolation. These happen day in and day out in many organisations that have a fast track mode of working at the management level, but a terrible practice of not having an effective communication strategy or knowledge sharing mechanism in place.
Wonder if these are adding new dimensions to organisational development and KM strategies??? Are such organisations moving strategically towards success?
-
