How to "manage" in a flat world

A few days ago my friend, colleague, and fellow-blogger Michael Roberto [see http://michael-roberto.blogspot.com] posted comments entitled "Theo Epstein and J.D Drew" regarding an interesting on-air radio conversation broadcast on WEEI's Dennis & Callahan Show with Theo Epstein, the general manager of the Red Sox baseball team, questioning the wisdom of first signing and then the subsequent management of the franchise's highly compensated outfielder, J.D. Drew.  Mike raised some questions as to whether the best arguments were raised by the participants in that discussion. 

However, his post also triggered an idea that had not occurred to me before and which I thought was worth sharing with you who are managers [or, if you are a student of business, likely manager-to-be]; and that idea goes like this:  Managers today face an entirely new landscape in terms of appearing and then posturing as managers and, in truth, actually being managers.  This is because so much of the information managers use and act on is public information—that is to say, it is known or knowable to a wide audience of people.  In this regard, Tom Friedman's "world-flat" principle operates here, I think, and points to two significant effects on how managers need to “manage” and how managers "play" their public roles as managers!  Here's what I mean, one point at a time.

First, managers should not solely be score-keepers.  Instead, they are called upon to make informed but nuanced judgments--based perhaps, in part, on numerical data--but also using other-than-obvious measures.  Failing to do this really calls into question the merit of granting managers position, authority, and, frequently, generous compensation.  This applies to a lot if not most in business:  certainly to general managers of baseball franchises, to HR managers, marketing sales directors, finance officers, account executives--hell, even professors!  If one depends only on "counts" of this or that quantitative measure, then a sharp desk-worker might otherwise be assigned the job to "keep score," i.e., pay careful attention to tallying or monitoring this or that number and simply let it be known who's the winner of such a contest.  Failing to have, justify, and point to as worthy criteria other, more subtle or sophisticated indicators of management concern than simple numbers might not otherwise show, managers then become professionals without portfolio.  I think Mr. Epstein would agree with this POV.

Second, managers must become better spokespersons of the decision making process.  Since so much information is so widely available to everybody who's interested and wants to find it, it seems that unless present-day managers are careful, it becomes easy for anybody to appoint him- or herself as a side-walk authority on a matter, on topics that used to be the exclusive domain of managers of yesterday.  It was clear from the radio interview that the guys Dennis and Callahan--and, by extension their fans--felt that they, armed with the same statistics they knew Mr. Epstein had access to [and they assumed he used to make contract decisions with] were just as knowledgeable as he and--given the apparent performance of Mr. Drew--thus, actually sharper, smarter than Mr. Epstein himself!  

Gee whiz...What's the world of management come to if this the way it works, i.e., for anybody to think, were they so inclined, that they could know as much as the paid decision maker?  Such special giftedness of the man-on-the-street is rarely, if ever, the case.  Which leads to the key point:  Part of the contemporary manager's job is to cause would-be, arm-chair managers to appreciate the reality that the decision-making and management process is more complex than the typical person might think.  Mr. Epstein in my opinion tried, but--at least in that one broadcast conversation, fell short of helping the audience to understand that there were other, equally important considerations on which to base judgments [and, if he could share them, what specifically they might be!], more than simply based on obvious statistically indices like on-base averages [which, of course, presumes that there are such nuanced factors!].

In a "flat" information world...a world where everyone presumes they know as much as the highly paid, privileged manager, how well do you do fulfilling your role as business leader when “on the air”?  First, are you an individual who has developed--or is developing--a set of non-obvious-but-worthy factors that increase decision making success, i.e., that are more complicated and useful than just obvious, readily avaiable data.  Second, how good are you--or are you becoming--at communicating the nature of the choices and resulting decision process?  If you're not good--or going to be good--at both of these...well, you not going to be perceived as a very good manager in the end.  Ask Theo Epstein about that after his interview last week.

To make sure you get a "tweet" with every new blog, follow "keithmurrayblog" on Twitter!  Think others might like to read this?  Re-TWEET it to your followers with the SHARE ARTICLE tab below!