Meridian 1

It is fashionable to be cynical about management fads. The recent past is littered with failed initiatives: Management by Objectives (MBO), Total Quality Management(TQM), Business Process Reengineering(BPR) etc. This doesn’t seem to stem the appetite for new approaches. They are seized on by executives hoping, against all experience, that this time they have found the right formula. Unfortunately, the chances of any new approach working better than the previous ones is slim. Why is this?

Searching for the management answer...

If you examine the research that has been conducted in these areas, a common trait emerges. For example, a study into failed TQM initiatives in the UK health sector concluded that ‘reasons for failure are to be essentially found in the insufficient support of health professionals, the lack of leadership commitment and the tendency to look at TQM in isolation rather than putting it at the core of the institution’s strategy.’
This lack of management commitment and a tendency to look at initiatives in isolation may be linked to the ‘top down’ approach to public sector reform where the main driver is centrally set targets that local managers are measured against. There is mounting evidence that this tends to push managers into actions that achieve positive results against the targets that may require compromise in the fundamental services they are charged with providing. This was admitted a few years ago by Michael Barber, head of the Prime Minister’s delivery unit, who stated that targets can be counter-productive if public bodies focus on them, “to the detriment of all other activities.”

Against this, research into successful programmes highlights what characterises success. The Clearinghouse conducted the “Organizing & Managing Benchmarking” study in 1995 with 111 participants. Among more than a dozen key findings, the study found that benchmarking generates the highest paybacks when the process is backed by senior management. Further, best practices discovered through benchmarking are utilized more frequently when implementation is strongly supported by senior management

In our experience there is value in most methods and tools. The failures are down to a lack of commitment from the leadership team to fully support the programmes with time and resources.