Even though the idea of synergy has been commonly espoused through the business environment and surely does end up in several good benefits, it’s rarely the solution to issues, since the synergistic strategy is meant to supplement various other management philosophies & methods, not completely supplant them.
The fundamental idea of synergy
That cooperative interaction creates an outcome greater compared to the amount of specific work – has manifested itself in different ways, a lot of that are based upon the entire Quality Management wedge. But there’s a classic saying which states “When everybody is accountable, no one is responsible.” And also the rigid adherents to the synergistic approach sadly (or conveniently) forget about that adage. Those proponents/adherents love to think that team dynamics is the sole method to problem-solve. But whatever they forget about is the fact that somebody still must recognize final responsibility for trouble resolution – a person needs to be the “Keeper of the Problem.”
Companies can’t operate properly when things are accomplished by the committee activity (which is ordinarily the outward expression of the synergistic approach) – there are merely way too a number of different disciplines active in the running of a profitable enterprise for everybody being greatly interested in all. Indeed, examining problems by a range of disparate points of view creates brand new perspectives and uncovers extra likely solutions and tactics. But what goes on once the identification of deficiencies as well as the resolutions of theirs is the thing that distinguishes the standard management philosophy from an entirely synergistic approach.
In the synergistic design, all stakeholders in the issue as well as resolution identification system think they all share responsibility for resolution implementation. This’s often a logistically unworkable situation. Though the standard design recognizes the importance of exterior feedback while nonetheless putting duty for resolution implementation squarely exactly where it should be, with the individual or maybe department with specific and direct expertise, responsibility and power for the problem at hand – the “Keeper of the Problem.”
Even during businesses which state they entirely accept the synergistic strategy
There generally are a few vestiges of the standard management model: Departments are often delineated by widespread function; people typically have employment descriptions/titles connoting their certain functions; and several hierarchical framework generally exists. Therefore there’s a little recognition of function and also ranking delineation, dependent on subject matter expertise, that in itself concedes that everybody can’t know everything about every thing; and that also concedes that order as well as productivity necessitates a little job as well as hierarchical ranking delineation. Put simply, every company must determine subject matter expertise & assign commensurate authority as well as responsibility – towards the “Keeper of the Problem.”
To keep everybody aware and also advised of everybody else’s problems as well as problems it’s essentially a great idea
It provides a broader perspective and also allows every person realize the “big picture.” But what generally occurs is individuals start thinking they understand all about anything, which they are able to therefore fix everything. Thus everyone becomes interested in everything ELSE, often to the exclusion of the own job of theirs.
In days of yore, when dinosaurs roamed as well as ruled the world
Everybody had a compartmentalized and neat task. Everybody knew precisely what the job of his was, and also it had been expected – nay demanded – the jobs be carried out to an excessive level of excellence. When everybody had a task and knew just how to get it done and actually did it, all got done good, as well as the planet was pleased. Simply because there was “Keepers of the Problem” – individuals with duty and commensurate authority and accountability.
This’s not a new idea – it’s tried-and-true
We did not escape from this particular idea since it did not work; we got away from it since the management gurus (ala Tom Peters) discovered that providing different means of doing things with the expectation that things may improve would sell the applications of theirs. But the things they forgot to place in their movies and books as well as exercise programs was that change doesn’t constantly bring results that are good; change may also bring results that are negative. Change isn’t always better, it’s just different. And… something that’s been said for far more than any of us were around is nonetheless oh-so-true today:
A lot of cooks spoil the broth.