From know-it-all to strategizing and beyond

In 1909, Frederick Winslow Taylor published his book "The Principles of Scientific Management." In many ways, this was the start of modern management practices. Taylor argued that the key principles of good management included a scientific approach to optimizing work efficiency.

Taylor believed that managers had to direct and oversee employees’ performance. He was extremely detail-oriented. For example, he measured the amount of weight a “first-class worker” could shovel. Then he had various-sized shovels built so that employees could shovel the same amount of weight regardless of what they were shoveling.

Today, the general workforce is far more educated than during the early 1900s. It’s not uncommon for a boss to manage a team of people who are far better skilled at what they do than the manager is. Yet, management is still focused on efficiency, training, and individual performance. As a result, managers are expected to work more strategically, setting goals and visions, and then motivating people to reach their targets.

What many managers face today is the realization that simply setting a vision and encouraging people to strive for it is no longer enough if they want to beat the competitors. After all, the competitors are doing the same thing.

Yet, management is still focused on efficiency, training, and individual performance.

To be successful today, a company must create an environment that encourages cooperation and what I call collaborationship. It’s all about building synergies through communication, sharing ideas, identifying and managing risks, and developing new products and services.

Unfortunately, many people still believe that it’s up to managers to inspire and motivate people to collaborate. It is often argued that it is this “skill” that makes someone a leader. Those of you who have followed my work know that I find this a misinterpretation of what it means to be a leader. But that’s a different story. My point here is that many still cling to Taylor’s idea that managers are the ones who render a business efficient.

Nevertheless, it appears a shift is underway. Some companies are moving away from relying solely on managers to facilitate collaboration. Instead, they're focusing on building organizational structures that promote cooperation. I find this very interesting because structures tend to be far more consistent compared to individual managers. Of course, this raises an intriguing question: if structures can foster cooperation, do we still need managers?