Vernon: Why do you have managers?
Employer: To manage
Vernon: You mean, to cope
Employer: I mean, to manage
Vernon: If not "manage" as in "to cope", "manage" as in ...what?
Employer: Our managers are not just coping, they are making judgements and making decisions based on those judgements
Vernon: Do your staff, including managers, have procedures to follow?
Employer: Yes, everything that could happen has a procedure
Vernon: So, why do you need managers?
Employer: Er, to deal with exceptions
Vernon: Not covered by the procedures?
Employer: Well, for instance, if there is a split decision to be made - say a late delivery is going out and one customer has to be disadvantaged over another, the manager will decide which customer to let down and may decide how to approach the customer
Vernon: And would your company look into the failure - the late delivery - and put it right for next time? Would your company write into its procedures how to prioritise customers if such a failure occurred again?
Employer: I know what you're getting at, but not everything can be set toa procedure.

Who won the argument? The employer did of course, not that it was an argument inthe true sense - I just enjoyed posing some awkward questions. I don'tbelieve that we can ever completely do away with managers. What I dobelieve is that we can dramatically reduce the amount of managers out theremaking ad-hoc decisions that could have been covered by a more systemisedapproach and at a lower level. Staff would often be perfectly capable offollowing a pre-planned decision tree or some other systemised way of coming todecisions without the need to refer to a manager. You could call thisempowerment of the lower ranks. You could even call it downsizing if you wish.But it does make sense to have potential conflicts resolved in a consistent wayand at the lowest rate of pay by taking some of the mystery out of managementdecisions and putting them through a decision-making machine.

But not all procedures will cover every issue that arises. Even if a companywas to take up this challenge and sack all its managers they will soon be caughtout. The world changes as technology progresses, new laws are passed andcompetitors, suppliers or customers change their way of working. Managers helpcompanies keep up with the times.

My point is that many managers do not manage a few exceptions to the rule ormanage change. Many of them make routine decisions day in and day out. Take thisscenario: employee goes to the manager and tells him that the printer is brokenand no invoices can be sent out. The manager telephones the repair company andcalls them out. Here the manager is being an overpaid messenger. Anotherscenario: a salesman can only close a deal by busting his permitted discountand eating into potential margin. He must go to his manager to getauthorisation. Does the sales manager have a better calculator than thesalesman? Surely the employee with the faulty printer could have telephoned therepair company himself? Surely it is possible for a salesman to have aremuneration system that could be flexed to allow reward or punishment based onthe amount of profit margin he could achieve. Exploring this scenario further,one may argue that the sales manager can see a bigger picture than an individualsalesman and can decide whether to eat into margin based on this wider knowledgebase. Question is: why couldn't the salesman be made aware of the biggerpicture?

I think that a great manager spends his time trying to do himself out of ajob. He not only solves day to day problems but puts in place procedures andstructures to prevent such problems recurring. He anticipates future changes andhelps to smooth bumps along the way before they become obstacles. This kind ofmanager would be happy to do himself out of a job because he knows he will bepromoted or, at the least, be given a larger department to manage. Er....well,not always, though. Managers that anticipate problems are not always noticed bysenior management, especially in large organisations. This is because they don'tcause problems and therefore are not often seen solving them. The truth is, ofcourse, that good managers solve problems before they become problems. Boringisn't it? - but this style of working is worth its weight in gold and it's apity that some CEOs don't always recognise this fact. That aside, it must surelybe beneficial to have a manager that gives away his authority to his staffthrough systemising decision-making, empowering staff and making his departmentso efficient that he is no longer required - or at least only required for a fewhours each week.

Another example: a veterinary practice has a problem with fly infestation inthe height of summer. What does a good manager do about this? Well, the managerneeds look no further than Arkay Hygiene. This company sells a wide range ofInsectocutor fly killers. If the it is to be on display to the public (and thepets!) then perhaps a good looking fly killer machine, such as the InsectocutorSE44, may do the trick, especially if the room to be protected is as large as300 square metres. Just when I thought I had defined a good manager I went andfound a new definition - someone knows a good fly killer machine when they seeone!

from ArkayHygiene. Have a look at the stylish