Too big to manage? Not so

The comment was made recently by an elected official that perhaps “too big to fail” isn’t the point, but “too big to manage” is.

It’s neither. For a poor manager, a three-person department is too big to manage. Haven’t we all seen that? The size of an organization isn’t the determining factor, the capability of its management is.

(Actually, the thought that first came to mind when we read the above comment was: Congress is telling us that a business is too big to manage?)

All of us know people—personally or by reputation—who are born managers. These folks can bring order to everything from an overflowing attic to a bloated government bureaucracy. An office manager is by definition such a person. Managers often set and oversee the rules and controls that the rest of us think are ridiculous or petty, but deep down know are needed.

All organizations need people like this. In the “C suite” this person often is the COO or the president, less often the CEO. Managing and leading are not entirely distinct, but a good leader doesn’t need to be a good manager. He or she just needs to have one close by, and back them up when they’re challenged.

At the very top, Presidents have a chief of staff, as do most generals. Think of the incredible scope and complexity involved in being Supreme Allied Commander of European forces in WW II, and how well Gen. Dwight Eisenhower managed that job. Or what his boss, Gen. George C. Marshall, accomplished as Chief of Staff during the war.

Clearly there have also been many very large, well-managed business organizations. General Motors is fighting for its life right now, but for decades—a very long time in the business world—it was well led and well managed—an icon of American business prowess. IBM was in the same category for almost as long, then nearly succumbed to the rapidly changing technology environment and its own hubris and mismanagement, but recovered strongly under new leadership. General Electric has lost some luster, but for a large, diverse, far-flung operation, it did quite well for many years.

In recent history, some large banks have fit into this elite category, as well: John Medlin’s Wachovia and John McGillicuddy’s Manufacturers Hanover are two that certainly would qualify.

A large complex organization in most cases is more challenging to manage than a small unit, but the success of any enterprise rests on certain fundamental qualities of its managers, which govern their ability to get people working together. As observers (not necessarily practitioners), it seems to us that these qualities would include the following:
• Discipline of action, and especially of the mind (organized; focused);

• Discernment—knowing which principles must be inflexible and which can be bent [credit here to A. Lincoln];

• Calmness at all times, leading to steadiness under pressure;

• Patience—not given to rash decisions;

• Early—no good manager is routinely late;

• Fortitude—a manager is always a target; managing takes mental toughness;

• Responsibility—never ducking;

• Humility—success, modest or great, is never one person’s doing.

With such qualities, one would be able to manage oneself (step one), a department of three, or the world’s largest financial institution.
  1. By William W. Streeter
  2. Editor-in-Chief
  3. This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Trackback(0)
Comments (1)add comment

Jim Meyer said:

Dear Mr. Streeter:
I read with interest and a little incredulousness your column in the May 2009 ABA Banking Journal and your somewhat inane conclusion that running a large organization that has branches in over 25?40 states and offices around the world and has over a trillion dollars in assets is the same as running the Normandy invasion in WWII. First of all, I can see you have no idea of what the military is like. I was in the military for 7 years. General Eisenhower had generals for each Corp, generals for each division, full bird colonels for each brigade, lt. colonels for each battalion, captains for each company, lieutenants for each platoon, lieutenants for each squad along with sergeants and corporals. In other words the span of control for each person was fairly limited with one overall objective, take ground, kill the enemy if they got in your way, and continue taking ground and killing the enemy until their wasn?t any opposition as prescribed in the overall plan of battle. Of course, as in all things done of a large nature there were screw ups that cost the lives of thousands of men, you know like landing on the wrong beach, taking a position that was thought to be critical but wasn?t, and of course death by friendly fire let alone the enemy fire. One of the things I like about banking is the fact that I can fix a customer or borrower mistake. In the Army once you?ve maimed or killed someone they stay maimed or killed.

However, I believe your lame point was it?s all about an idea that there are leaders and managers. I guess it?s kind of like Plato?s idea of citizens, a philosopher king, and guardians. Having been in the Army we didn?t have managers, managers take care of things like computers or supplies or something. Leaders lead and motivate people to accomplish a certain mission or objective. I am a leader, my AVP?s are leaders, and then we have followers, those glorious tellers, lenders, and operations folks in the trenches that make it all happen. I know their names!

What about a mortgage team that sells subprime mortgages that they know are awful loans to other banks, countries, and other institutions such as insurance companies and pension plans. How would leadership play there?

The question isn?t about leadership, it isn?t about managers, it?s about information, it?s about ethics, it?s about understanding what your people are capable of and what they?ll do in the pursuit of wealth. No leader of a trillion dollar institution can answer those questions at any one time. That?s why these institutions like Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, and JP Morgan Chase need to be down sized. Because they no longer know their people, they probably don?t really understand the institutions? culture any longer, or the kind of people they even employ.

I?ll wage that if any member of the Board of Directors for any of the banks I mentioned showed up at one of their branches, more than half the staff wouldn?t know them from Adam and more likely the whole staff wouldn?t know who this guy is.

Too big to manage/lead? Absolutely.

Jim Meyer
President and CEO
The Farmers State Bank
Holton, KS

P.S. I agree with your traits of a good leader/manager at the end of your article. However, I have always followed 4 cardinal rules: 1. Never ask anyone to do something that you would not do yourself. 2. It is always the mission first and the people second. 3. Try never to make a snap decision; ask your people what they think should be done and then ?Do something.? It is far better to do something, even if it?s wrong, then to do nothing and create an atmosphere of indecision that saps the will of your officers and employees. 4. Always lead by example.
 
report abuse
vote down
vote up
June 02, 2009
Votes: +1

Write comment

busy