Short-lived – Are management methods just a fad?

Management methods and organizational models are sometimes perceived as fads. And sometimes it just feels like old wine in new bottles that is revealed here. There is some evidence that this is indeed the case. But there are also some models that help us understand why this is a good thing.

Signs of management fashions

Fashions do not only exist in the fashion sector. Various social scientists and economists have studied management fashions in recent decades. For example, methods or forms of organization are described that are spread by a few pioneers, become increasingly popular and eventually fade away and fall into oblivion. One lecture that comes to mind on this topic is “The Pitfalls of Agile Organization”. In this article, sociologist and organizational consultant Stefan Kühl looks at management trends. He is primarily concerned with fashions in organizational form. However, the key messages can also be applied to tools and methods in management. The presentation begins with the definition of a management mode. This goes through the following phases:

1. One concept is touted by some pioneers as a current trend that is absolutely necessary (e.g. due to market situations that require a new way of working)
2. The concept spreads, is transferred and/or scaled to other organizations
3. There are doubts about its effectiveness and initial reports of the concept’s failure
4. Proponents of the method attribute the failure to incorrect implementation or misinterpretation of the concepts
5. Despite possible rescue attempts, the concept is being replaced (even in the pioneering organizations)

Essentially, it is comparable to the ideas of the German economist and professor Alfried Kieser from the 1990s and, somewhat later, Eric Abrahamson, a US professor of management at Columbia Business School. As a further indication of the end of a management fashion, Stefan Kühl points out in his article that book publishers are publishing fewer publications on the trend. In his article, he warns against empty concepts that are essentially tautologies.

The problem of successful concepts

Let’s think about the ideas, models, principles and methods in management that we have read about in recent decades. This would result in an endlessly long list of keywords. Some topics were trend-setting, while others initially gave the impression that they were merely using buzzwords and hardly added any value. And I agree that some terms are unfortunately overused, especially when it comes to naming “new approaches”. With topics such as “Agile …”, “… Coaching”, “Smart …” etc., it often develops in such a way that concepts with sensible approaches that have led to success in certain situations are watered down. Although it is obvious to try to adapt and apply tried and tested methods to a different context, if the associated buzzwords are applied to all possible approaches in an inflationary manner, misunderstandings can quickly arise. If such a term is used in the hope of increasing seriousness or innovation, and the concept behind it is not well thought out or is unsuitable, this can lead to confusion and frustration. Do you remember the ever-popular “Bullshit Bingo” in the office? The mere use of the term does not necessarily indicate added value. But the reverse conclusion: “Management concepts that use such a buzzword are just empty words and marketing tactics” would be just as wrong. Not all management trends or concepts are necessarily empty just because they use certain buzzwords. Many of these approaches actually use deep principles and methods that, when applied correctly, can bring about valuable changes in organizations.

So is it all just a marketing gimmick?

If we take these assumptions as a basis, we could assume that these are always just fashions that are constantly being slightly modified and renamed by consulting firms and specialist publishers. This could lead to people not engaging with new approaches. But I am convinced that this is definitely worthwhile for various reasons:

1. Suppose a new concept refers to an underlying way of thinking and acting that was previously unknown to us, so we learn something new
2. We may recognize parallels and similarities to approaches that we are already familiar with, but receive new impulses
3. There may actually be something groundbreaking new that is tailored precisely to us.

And even if an approach does not fit the current situation of the organization, we must not forget that organizations are constantly evolving. It is in the nature of entrepreneurial growth that challenges change or that special events or crises bring about change. The requirements change over time. A tool or method that was not suitable for overcoming challenges in the past could be in the future. To a certain extent, management is in a constant process of adapting to circumstances and stability is, if at all, short-lived. Depending on the situation, a different form of organization or the use of different tools is required. In my view, this is also one of the reasons why companies that were pioneers in a particular method eventually replace it. This does not necessarily mean that the tool is “bad”. It may just as well be that it no longer fits into the system or the stage of development of the organization.

My personal conclusion:

My perception is that many of the methods and models that are written and talked about in books, on social media etc. have similarities. They differ only slightly from one another and in some cases build on already familiar concepts. And some are just “well staged” through clever marketing. But in my opinion, this is a marginal phenomenon that is only perceived as new if the staging is right. To a certain extent, the market is therefore required to reinvent itself time and again. This has an impact on managers, authors, consultants and publishers alike. Basically, I see it as the task of consultants and managers to deal with these issues, but always to critically examine how applicable they are in their own situation. Don’t be misled – no method will be so universally applicable that it could solve all the problems of every company. The findings from systems theory in corporate development and knowledge about the complexity of systems make this clear. That’s why I think it’s wrong to simply rush into a method (best practice approach) because it’s currently in vogue and achieves good results in certain environments. As a consultant, you should know which approaches are available, what is behind them and in which environment they have proven themselves. However, it is always important to differentiate which approaches make sense for the challenge at hand, taking into account the organization’s resources and starting position. Often, several options have to be presented, evaluated and solutions developed. As a consultant, I am committed to having the broadest possible range of methods at my disposal and use my analytical skills and intensive exchange with the people involved to understand what is appropriate for the current challenge, company situation and resources of my client company. It is not only the development of the organization that requires continuous adaptation, scaling and rethinking of approaches. Widespread social views and expectations as well as the market environment also contribute to this. Ultimately, the solution can also be an eclectic approach consisting of several methods, principles and tools.

If you want to learn from successful organizations, don’t focus too much on the methods and tools, but more on the way they identify the methods that solve their growth challenges and the courage to experiment with new ideas.

Bildnachweis: song_about-summer / stock.adobe.com