Effect of the Duality

As explained, the tension-generating duality in management is about whether to work in a systematic, comprehensive and organised way or in a sensitive, responsive and intuitive way. This systematic v responsiveduality now needs to be applied to accountable roles at all Levels in the hierarchy.

Reminder: The issue here is not whether something is known or kept in mind—of course it is, but rather whether or not two opposite mindsets are actually fused in the work of producing the output, or whether each mindset demands independent work with different outcomes.

Fusion of the Tension

At WL7, WL4, WL2 and WL1, the duality needs to be fused or synthesized.

WL7: In controlling identity, a mission must be comprehensively developed and coherently sustained. However, at the same time, any particular value or standard might require urgent attention (e.g. due to a media story or a new legal ruling). It would not be wise to institute a new parameter (e.g. new rule, new service) without simultaneously having the total picture in mind. Nor is it possible to consider the total picture without being aware of current pressures and the need to engage and respond.

So this Centre is balanced: Identity Control-WL7_B.

WL4: In management control, it is necessary to look comprehensively at all the relevant factors and build these into programs that balance a multiplicity of services and introduce new developments. At the same time, if progress is to be made, then emergent issues must be promptly responded to—prior to, during and after budgets are set or programs are devised. These can be simultaneously incorporated within the program, even if higher approval is sometimes required.

So this Centre is balanced: Management Control-WL4_B.

WL2: In situation control, a manager strives to consider all relevant aspects in order to make a response that is appropriate and sufficient in the light of urgent pressures. The combined perspective is usually obvious. However, even where systematic handling seems to dominate, these responses are often provided over an extended time during which situations evolve and adapting is essential.

So this Centre is balanced: Situation Control-WL2_B.

WL1: In output control, getting something only 95% correct means the output is faulty, so a systematic approach is needed. However, at the same time, things invariably crop up that interfere with the work-flow or plan or a particular choice, and these have to be responded to immediately without jeopardizing the overall result.

So this Centre is balanced: Output Control-WL1_B.

Polarization of Management

At WL6, WL5 and WL3, the duality leads to polar opposite choices.

WL6: In policy control, it is quite possible to make an immediate assertion of some priority or identify a new desirable outcome regardless of other guidance. Similarly, policy can be developed systematically, perhaps via a study taking 18-24 months, quite independently of crises and simply ignoring other initiatives.

So there are two polar-opposite Centres labeled:  
Policy Response-WL6_R and Systematic Policy-WL6_S.
Which is dominant?

New values and outcomes are exceedingly difficult to integrate within operations unless they are sustained and systematic. So organizations cannot cope with being thrown hither and thither by constant shifts in policy. Efficient allocation of resources in particular depends on sustained policy. So systematic policy must dominate policy responses.
Example: Havoc and extraordinary waste from inappropriate dominance is often visible in government agencies. Politicians in charge constantly change and reverse or redirect policy details to accord with the crisis of the moment and shifting public opinion. Consistency in overall government policy, while necessary in principle, seems currently hard to sustain in practice.

WL5: In strategy control, it is essential to have a coherent overall strategy that moves the operations towards a particular outcome given by HQ. However, reactions to events and to pressures from within or without may also be required. This can lead to sudden new plans or emergency budget allocations (or cuts) that disregard prior carefully considered strategies. There is no integration or fusion. A common precipitant of an ad hoc strategy is an HQ policy response.

So there are two polar-opposite Centres labeled:  
Ad Hoc Strategy-WL5_R and Coherent Strategy-WL5_S.
Which is dominant?

As with policy, coherent strategies must dominate ad hoc strategies or managers at lower levels will become uncertain as to what changes they should be pursuing. Inconstant and poorly affirmed strategy leads to a culture of crises and confusion that debilitates managers and predisposes to failure.

WL3: In operations control, it is natural to methodically and rationally organise schedules, rotas, procedures, work-flows and other systems that use people, facilities, space, time &c. However, the unexpected is almost the norm—equipment failure, sudden demand increases, personality irruptions. These call for new arrangements, possibly temporary but often enduring. Their introduction ignores and may even cut across existing rational systems.

So there are two polar-opposite Centres labeled:  
Emergency Arrangement-WL3_R and Rational System-WL3_S.
Which is dominant?

Rational systems may take weeks or even many months to devise and institute and are of great importance. However, emergency arrangements must dominate because, when something goes awry in operations, everything may grind to a halt or serious dangers may arise. Existing systems then take second place while the situation is brought under control by creating some special arrangement. Later the principal system may be revised or adjusted to incorporate the new arrangement.

---

• Now Centres of authoritative decision and accountability have been identified, it is possible to consider interactions, starting with those at the same level.

Originally posted: 22-Feb-2014