High Performance Management - Chapter One - Introduction

1.1 Globalisation
Globalisation as defined by The Levin Institute (2008) “is a process of interaction and integration among the people, companies, and governments of different nations, a process driven by international trade and investment” aided by information technology. It goes on to say that the process has effects on the environment, culture, political systems and economical development around the world. Globalisation therefore is not new but a trend which has taken place for as long as trading has been happening. However, this has been accelerated by technological developments and cross-border trade policies, making it easier for nations to trade goods and services faster and cheaper (ibid).

1.2 Statement of the Problem
More than ever, individuals are choosing to educate themselves in an information and global age in order to keep abreast with technological changes. For example, Management Today (2007, p.9) in their December issue wrote that “By 2020, 40% of UK jobs will need to be Level 4 (degree-equivalent) and above” and although this appears high, Management Today point out that countries such as Australia already has a graduation rate of 59 percent. This is in contrast to the lifestyle of their parents and grand parents where the majority of the work was labour intensive. This is especially true in western countries such as the United Kingdom, United States and Australia etcetera; where jobs like manufacturing have been outsourced outside to countries such as China. The net effect is that more and more jobs now require academic qualifications. In addition, social legislations have improved working conditions, whereby individuals are empowered. It can be said that loyalty and job security are no longer the driving force behind employee retention. Therefore organisations are required to come up with new and innovative ways of attracting, motivating and retaining their staff. As reported by the CIPD (2007) in a survey they conducted, 84 percent of the organisations surveyed found it difficult to fill vacancies due to lack of skill or higher salary demands. The survey also showed that 78 percent of organisations found it difficult to retain their staff; a nine percent increase from the 2006 figures (p.4). With this trend in mind, it is critical that organisations employ managers and executives that are able to carry out these duties on behalf of these organisations.

Therefore as globalisation intensifies, employee diversification increases where the skill sets required to manage this workforce expands. A number of management theories and approaches have been suggested to combat this new era. Of recent times, these schools of thought have been categorised into two opposing points of view; managing by coercing (managers) and managing by leading (leaders). However, more recently an additional view suggests that a combination of the two aforementioned (leader-manager) approaches will yield the best results in terms of motivation and inspiration; ultimately producing better financial results.

In the various references that the researcher has come across, a large number of authors have attempted to create a distinction between a manager and a leader. A number of these authors which are listed in the references section of this document conclude that there is indeed a difference between manager’s and leader’s traits in that they “differ in motivation, in personal history, and in how they think and act” (Zaleznik 2004, p.75). Sweeny (2001, p.64) states; that there is “an enormous gulf, separating managers and leaders”. Furthermore, Patty Miller as quoted by Sweeny states that “managers keep things moving” on a day to day basis but they lack the vision that leaders have in thinking strategically rather than tactically. Ozeroff et al (2003) also share this view and go further to suggest that for one to become a leader they must make the transition from manager to leader. The difference being that a leader is more creative and visionary. Zaleznik’s (2004, p.75) views in 1977 may have influenced the aforementioned views when he wrote that managers give emphasis to “rationality and control” whereas leaders accept disarray and lack of structure in order to fully understand issues and come up with creative ideas. Zaleznik however suggested that there may be issues in training managers or leaders in the presence of the other due to their differences. Recent views by Knight (2005) and Blade (2006) suggest that we are now working in a very different world where the old traditional confrontational approach by managers is evolving to a more facilitative approach encouraging participation. Organisations will need to ensure that they have the right management team on board to take care of both today’s business and tomorrow’s opportunities for the organisation. Which then brings us to the more recent question posed by Turk (2007, p.21); which approach will motivate staff to add value to an organisations objectives, manager, leader or a combination of the two in one individual (leader-manager)? Turk’s view is “that a good leader and good manager can, and should be one and the same”.

A search on the popular online bookstore Amazon.com returned 405,179 books on a search for the word leader whereas a search for manager on the same site returned 303,971. A similar search that was carried out by Bolden (2004, p.4) on Amazon.com in the spring of 2003, returned 11,686 for the word leadership, suggesting a rapid increase in interest. Hence when analysing the various views expressed, it appears to one that the majority have concluded that leaders are more effective within organisations because they provide vision for the horizon. However, on the other hand they insist that managers are also needed within the organisation to ensure that stability and controls are exercised keeping the balance between today’s business and tomorrow’s opportunities.

As aforementioned the more recent view by Turk (2007) suggests that the concept of a leader-manager can be achieved because leadership traits can be learnt by existing managers. This new concept is fascinating but unfortunately Turk does not provide any evidence to support his views. With this in mind, one proposes to compare and contrast the approaches of the senior management team at Kin Media Ltd to determine which management concept they favour (leader, manager or leader-manager) and which yields the better results in terms of satisfaction and inspirational level within the organisation. This may in turn provide evidence to either support or refute Turk’s concept.

1.3 Aim of the Research
The intention of this dissertation is to determine whether an individual can be a leader-manager or whether they are predominantly a manager or a leader. Specifically, the dissertation intends to answer the following questions;

(1)What is the management approach of each senior manager at Kin Media Ltd?
(2)What is the leader/manager balance for the whole company?
(3)How satisfied are the employees of Kin Media Ltd with the management approach of their superior?
(4)How satisfied are the employees of Kin Media Ltd with the management approach of the company?
(5)Which approach would inspire a greater level of performance from an employee?

By answering the above questions, the dissertation hopes to extend current theories and provide some practical application. It will also provide the organisation with valuable information in determining what type of high performance managers they currently have and whether they will need additional approaches within their ranks to address the globalisation conundrum where the ever increasing presence of alternative products produced in countries such as China and Korea are now increasingly appearing in the west competing against Kin Media Ltd’s core product range.

1.4 Reason for Study
There are a number of reasons for carrying out this research;

(1)  To contribute positively to a progressive and evolving organisation in order that one can provide a detailed analysis of which management approach (L, M or L+M) produces more satisfied and inspired employees within Kin Media Ltd.

(2) To provide an application to determine which concept returns the best outcomes, providing some actual data to support or refute Turk’s alternative view of a leader-manager concept; hence contributing to the subject of management development.

(3) To fulfill the academic requirements of the University of Liverpool toward the attainment of the MBA.

(4) And lastly, one’s passion lies within understanding what motivates people while at the same time delivering an overall objective which benefits all stakeholders.

1.5 Limitations & Assumptions
Time is always a factor when conducting a research project hence the data collected, analysed and reported has been limited to Kin Media Ltd. However; it is assumed that it will provide support for or against Turk’s (2007) views that an individual can be both a manager and leader. One’s role as a research subject as well as the researcher may also present some limitations to the findings; however all efforts will be made to ensure that an objective stance is taken. In addition, one has daily contact with many of the company’s employees hence this may have an influence on their responses. One other possible limitation is that not all the senior managers subjected to this research are directly responsible for budgets or profit and loss (P&L) statements etcetera for the organisation, hence it will not always be possible to measure their performance based on quantitative financial results. However, one has assumed that the quantitative results collected will provide enough evidence to identify which approach each senior manager subscribes to; L, M or L+M. In addition, those who will be subjected to the surveys and questionnaires may not fully understand the difference between a manager, a leader and leader-manager; therefore the results may not be conclusive.