Schiffman Blog 4

Blog 4

By Isaac Schiffman

In Response to “Good Strategy Execution Requires Balancing 4 Tensions”

I’d like to start of by addressing Tension #2: Top-Down Control versus Democratization of Change. In my 6 years serving in the military, I’ve seen a lot of top-down control, and I’ve seen where it shines, and where it stinks. Top-down control is great in scenarios with specific attributes, most particularly: a short timeframe.

Every member of an organization wants to feel like they are significant contributing. If an organization does not consider the opinions of their lower rank employees, and/or does not allow those employees to have their opinions voiced, it is very likely that such employees will lose motivation to work, which can quickly devolve into a significant lack of quality. But if your organization has a project that has a short timeframe or a sense of urgency behind it, employees are likely not going to care as much about long term input, as they are too busy focusing on the task at hand.

Focusing on democratization of change is fantastic for ensuring that employees stay interested and loyal to their employers over the long run. But listening to all those low level employees takes time, something your organization might not have in a time crunch.

My advise & experience: Companies should frame their business so that they can use a democratization of change style of management most of the time. It is acceptable, even encouraged, for companies to use Top-Down control when that company needs to get a deliverable pushed by an approaching date. But too much top down control could lead to decreases in efficiency due to lack of employee loyalty. It should also be noted that too much democratization also has its risks, as it could lead to process inefficiencies and low level workers gaining too much power.

I’ve seen this play out in two different examples, 1. The military, and 2. Certain class projects in college.

1. In the military, there is a rigid rank structure in place, and almost constant top-down control. If you are lucky, your immediate supervisor will consider your opinions. It is unheard of that any high-level manager considers the opinions of low level personnel. Doing this over a long period of time can wear down the morale of a work force, and leave workers jaded and constantly exhausted. The military answers this issue with reminding its personnel that they are not in fact workers, and they do not have unions, and therefore, do not have the rights afforded to regular workers. The “service to the country” is placed as the reason for working (or overworking), instead of normal selfish reasons like desire for income. This creates a fragile morale structure, but facilitates a working infrastructure that is particularly good at handling short timeframes and high pressure situations.

2.     In certain class team-projects throughout college, I’ve been in groups that did not want a structured management within their team. The team wanted a Socratic, democratic method of management, where everyone could pitch in their opinion for each issue. While this method is great for hearing people’s input, and finding the solutions that would please the most people within the team, it is not good at handling tight timelines or getting work done in a time crunch.

Connerty, Simon HoranMichael. Good Strategy Execution Requires Balancing 4 Tensions. Harvard Business Review, 3 Nov. 2017, hbr.org/2017/11/good-strategy-execution-requires-balancing-4-tensions.