Control is an important management function just like planning and direction. Earlier control was reactive, i.e. when errors were detected, control helped to resolve issues. Today control is pro-active; meaning it is a foreseeing function. Control has been defined by management gurus in various ways:
According to Henry Fayol,
Control of an undertaking consists of seeing that everything is being carried out in accordance with the plan which has been adopted, the orders which have been given, and the principles which have been laid down. Its object is to point out mistakes in order that they may be rectified and prevented from recurring.
According to Harold Koontz,
Controlling is the measurement and correction of performance in order to make sure that enterprise objectives and the plans devised to attain them are accomplished.
To ensure control, managements usually designate or put in-charge managers, supervisors or leaders etc to ensure that management objectives are adhered to in accordance to plans, i.e. there is control over the organization.
The issue arises when management wrongly assumes that putting a person “in Charge” will automatically ensure that there is control. In Organizations, whether commercial, political, social or any other, it is important to understand that all people who are “In Charge” or designated as leaders need not necessarily be “In Control”.
Take the last years of the Presidency of President Bush when he was considered a “Lame Duck President” as was Tony Blair a “Lame Duck Prime Minister”, or Manmohan Singh before the elections of 2009.
The term “Lame Duck” refers to a person who is not able to function properly. So while both were “In Charge” they were definitely not “In Control”.
We see that the term being “in control” carries similar meaning to be “In Charge”, but is accompanied by the fact that a person in control has the ability to influence action or result, which may not be true in the case of the person simply designated “in Charge” or the “Leader”.
This assumes significance from many perspectives. Internally in an organization when specified functions have to be carried out or plans have to be implemented the people responsible for those actions, the “Leaders/ Managers” may not be in a position to implement them.
Externally this issue is usually seen when trying to open new accounts or trying to carry out any transactions with an organization. You may be talking to the people with the right designations, but often they may not be the people to influence decisions.
Thus it is important to ensure that one does not get sidetracked by people who may be in charge but not in control. Appreciate the subtle difference between "In Charge" vs "In Control".
According to Henry Fayol,
Control of an undertaking consists of seeing that everything is being carried out in accordance with the plan which has been adopted, the orders which have been given, and the principles which have been laid down. Its object is to point out mistakes in order that they may be rectified and prevented from recurring.
According to Harold Koontz,
Controlling is the measurement and correction of performance in order to make sure that enterprise objectives and the plans devised to attain them are accomplished.
To ensure control, managements usually designate or put in-charge managers, supervisors or leaders etc to ensure that management objectives are adhered to in accordance to plans, i.e. there is control over the organization.
The issue arises when management wrongly assumes that putting a person “in Charge” will automatically ensure that there is control. In Organizations, whether commercial, political, social or any other, it is important to understand that all people who are “In Charge” or designated as leaders need not necessarily be “In Control”.
Take the last years of the Presidency of President Bush when he was considered a “Lame Duck President” as was Tony Blair a “Lame Duck Prime Minister”, or Manmohan Singh before the elections of 2009.
The term “Lame Duck” refers to a person who is not able to function properly. So while both were “In Charge” they were definitely not “In Control”.
We see that the term being “in control” carries similar meaning to be “In Charge”, but is accompanied by the fact that a person in control has the ability to influence action or result, which may not be true in the case of the person simply designated “in Charge” or the “Leader”.
This assumes significance from many perspectives. Internally in an organization when specified functions have to be carried out or plans have to be implemented the people responsible for those actions, the “Leaders/ Managers” may not be in a position to implement them.
Externally this issue is usually seen when trying to open new accounts or trying to carry out any transactions with an organization. You may be talking to the people with the right designations, but often they may not be the people to influence decisions.
Thus it is important to ensure that one does not get sidetracked by people who may be in charge but not in control. Appreciate the subtle difference between "In Charge" vs "In Control".
3 comments:
Two types of issues are likely. I will use the metaphor of a captain (he is in charge and had better be in control) and his supertanker:
- Lack of "negative" control: your crew may actually break things because they are not under control, at a very basic level; they play around with taps, forget to fasten things... they do not know what NOT to do
- Lack of "positive" control: when you order a starboard turn it will not happen. Your crew does not know how to execute your strategy.
I take inspiration from COSO, among others.
JB from Switzerland
People who can Control logically should be in charge, otherwise why are they there in the first place? But that's theory and we all know that in practice it's quite different. Without getting into debates about the name examples you have quoted, my point of view is as follows:
1. In spite of Organisational or Business Processes being the focus as managament thoughts are concerned MOST organisations pay lip service to effective process building to begin with and then start taking corrective actions and not re-engineering them somewhat akin to repairing a jacket that did not fit in first place!! This leads to too many conflict issues and we start debating about semantics like control and charge.
2. The second issue is about aligning strategy with processes that would deliver the objectives. Again due to mismatches there are issues on charge and control. In larger organisations these become more complex since managers in CHARGE start negative or cross purpose controlling leading to chaotic management.
Hi Sunil,
In what has been my professional experience so far, I have realized that the following issues are typical in organizations, when people in charge are not in control.
1. Lack of alignment between operational execution and strategic planning. In such a perspective is usual that there is a distorted vision of the strategic big picture that generates a persistent loss of efficiency and productivity.
2. Little cohesiveness among the members of a team whose weak leadership is not enough to generate a climate of reciprocal respect and commitment around an inspiring vision.
3. Difficulties of communicating effectively the themes related to the project in such a way that generates a climate of uncertainty and disengagement, that may hurt both employee´s morale and his/her commitment towards the company.
4. When the incompetency to assume effectively a managerial role becomes in an issue that hurts the overall productivity of a team is usual that power struggles may arise as a valid attempt to solve a problem that may be harmful for the cohesiveness of a workgroup from a long-term perspective.
5. The goals that have been envisioned for a manager who is in charge, but not the control of the management of a workgroup or a project are typically delayed or postponed, affecting negatively the performance of his/her team or workgroup as is evidenced for deficient and unsatisfactory KPIs (Key Performance Indicators).
Relevant to this question, I am including links to 3 questions I have posted time ago in Linkedin Answers:
1. How do you regain business focus and your strategic vision when uncertainty arises as a distraction?
2. What is your parachute to avoid failure?
3. How would you find strategic misalignment of a corporate project?
I hope that helps.
Octavio
Links:
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/organizational-development/MGM_ODV/503029-933031
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/organizational-development/MGM_ODV/394431-933031
http://www.linkedin.com/answers/management/planning/MGM_PLN/187543-933031
Post a Comment