At the end of May, the forum “Change Management according to the methodology of Isaac Adizes” will be held in Minsk. On the eve of the big weekend, we selected several bright aphorisms of Dr. Adizes from his books and speeches - about changes and problems, management, leadership, trust and love. Reflect on them in a quiet environment in relation to your company and life.

1. Problems that represent disintegration as a result of change require solutions. However, any decisions that organizational leaders make to overcome these problems give rise to new changes, which means new disagreements, leading to new problems. The purpose of any form of organizational leadership—management, leadership, parenting, or government—is to solve today's problems and prepare for tomorrow's. And that means change management.

1. If you know how to successfully solve problems, they cease to be problems and become opportunities, because in reality, every problem is an opportunity... When problems become smaller, the strength of the organization declines. Sign of aging. And, of course, failure to solve problems that get bigger means you die.

1. You can't be a good parent if you're afraid of raising your children. It’s the same with a company—you won’t become a leader if you’re afraid to manage people.

It is not for nothing that Islam says: “The devil is in vanity.” Have you ever met a person who fell in love while catching a bus or working 80 hours a week? Usually people fall in love on vacation, walking along the beach at sunset, having a candlelit dinner to the accompaniment of light music. Change the pace of life to become happier.

Isaac Adizes is one of the world's leading experts in improving the efficiency of companies; developer of the popular management technique that bears his name; author of many business bestsellers (“The Ideal Leader”, “Development of Leaders”, “Management Styles - Effective and Ineffective”, etc.). “How to Overcome Management Crises” is one of the key works of Isaac Adizes, invariably included in many ratings of the best business books. With the permission of SmartReading, we are publishing a summary (“condensed” version) of this publication.

SmartReading is a project by the co-founder of one of the leading Russian publishing houses of business literature, Mann, Ivanov and Ferber, Mikhail Ivanov and his partners. SmartReading produces so-called summaries - texts that concisely present the key ideas of best-selling books in the non-fiction genre. Thus, people who for some reason cannot quickly read the full versions of books can get acquainted with their main ideas and theses. SmartReading uses a subscription business model in its work

Introduction

Isaac Adizes believes that there are no ideal managers capable of performing all managerial functions equally well. Thus, for the successful functioning and development of an organization, a complementary management team is needed, combining the functions of Producer (P), Administrator (A), Entrepreneur (E) and Integrator (I).

Using the Adizes system, you can calculate the code of each manager individually, display the total code of the entire team, determine the leadership style and establish more effective communications. Based on which of the key roles has not been fulfilled, we can draw a conclusion about management errors.

1. Management styles

Determining the relationship between the roles of Producer (P), Administrator (A), Entrepreneur (E) and Integrator (I) is important for diagnosing management effectiveness. First, such an analysis can be used in the process of searching and appointing people to leadership positions, taking into account the optimal combination of complementary management styles necessary to manage the organization. Secondly, the style model can be used as a predictive tool. Once a manager's behavior style is determined, it becomes possible to predict the behavior of a person as a whole.

Adizes identifies the following styles of incorrect management: pure Result Producer (“Lone Ranger”, P000), pure Administrator (“Bureaucrat”, 0A00), pure Entrepreneur (“Arsonist”, 00E0), pure Integrator (“Super Follower”, 000I) and 0 -manager (“Dead Stump”, 0000). A manager is ineffective if there are zeros in its code.

1.1. "The lone ranger"

This is a person who sells, develops, manages a production system, or conducts research effectively. He is determined to take effective actions, knows the technology of his field well, and is constantly busy with something., believing that it is better to do everything yourself than to explain to others. According to the Lone Ranger, time should be spent combating the organization's most pressing problems. He doesn't think about long-term planning, new directions, or what the company will be like in ten years.. He is a workaholic, and if there is no work, such a person begins to get nervous.

1.2. "Bureaucrat"

This type of leader pays significant attention to detail. It is well organized, and its task is to monitor whether the work started is completed and whether previously made decisions are being implemented. Good administration involves pattern, routine and organization. If the Producer (P) ensures effectiveness, then the Administrator (A) ensures efficiency. The bureaucrat is focused on how the work is done, not on what exactly is being done and why.

The bureaucrat and his employees come and go from work exactly on the clock. The Bureaucrat always has an organizational chart hanging on his wall, and if necessary, he can instantly find any document or description of a procedure. The bureaucrat hates uncertainty and change. He insists that all communications be in writing and that all areas of responsibility be clearly delineated. He is extremely loyal to the organization he works for and changes jobs only when absolutely necessary.

1.3. "Arsonist"

To survive in a changing environment, organizations need ideas. The entrepreneur analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of the organization and, in accordance with them, determines a course of action that will best meet the changes occurring in the external environment. For the subordinates of such a manager, Monday morning is the most difficult time. Over the weekend he comes up with new ideas, and on Monday he changes his priorities.

He gives out new tasks (forgetting about those already in progress) and expects his subordinates to immediately begin to carry them out. He loves the rush and bustle, he loves it when employees rush around the office, trying to cope with the crisis that he himself created. Very often, the Firestarter comes up with great ideas and expects others to find a way to implement them. If he is asked too many detailed questions, he becomes irritated.

1.4. "Super Follower"

An integrator is a manager who is attentive to people and strives to make the work system in the company comfortable. He is able to listen to others and integrate their ideas, developing solutions that will find support among those who will implement them.

Integration transforms individual entrepreneurship into collective entrepreneurship. If a Super Follower has free time, he spends it socializing, listening to complaints and trying to convince those who are dissatisfied that reality is not as bad as it seems. However, he is not able to cope with situations where he needs to take a clear position, because it's too soft for that.

If there is a power struggle between members of an organization, the Super Follower will try to determine which side has the best chance of winning and will act as if he has always been its leader. He will never support a controversial alternative, especially if it involves disagreement with the majority.

1.5. "Dead Stump"

The dead stump is apathetic. He's waiting for someone to tell him what to do. He does not create, does not administer, does not stimulate breakthroughs, does not interfere in intrigues for the sake of influence. If he has interesting ideas, he prefers to keep them secret.

The dead stump is concerned, first of all, with how to survive until retirement. His goal is to keep his little world intact. He spends his free time looking for achievements that he can appropriate. Change is a serious threat for such a manager; a dead stump prefers to hire not very bright employees and sometimes even promotes those who are sure to achieve even less than themselves.

Thus, more and more of the same dead stumps gather around it. Subordinates who want to grow and develop are completely confused and forced to quit.

One 0-manager can provoke the process of collapse of the organization.

2. Good manager

Each of the four management roles is necessary, but not sufficient to ensure an adequate management style; The manager must be successful in one or more core roles, but other functions must also be present in the code.

The production manager should be Paei, not P000, the administrative manager should be pAei, not 0A00, etc. The style that can be described as 0A00 is dysfunctional because the other roles are missing. In the table below, we can see all the functional management styles and the incorrect styles that oppose them. All of them are described within the PAEI coding framework. The difference between the two types is that an incorrect manager is not able to perform some roles, while a competent manager masters all standard roles at the minimum required level.

P000 = Lone Ranger but Paei = Manufacturer

0A00 = Bureaucrat but pAei = Administrator

00E0 = Arsonist, but paEi = Entrepreneur

000I = Super Follower but paeI = Integrator

0000 = Dead stump, but PAEI = "Book Manager"

PA00 = Slave owner, but PAei = Governor

PA0I = Benevolent Ruler, but PAeI = Shepherd

0A0I = Bureaucrat Patriarch, but pAeI = Heart Administrator

P00I = Untalented Trainer, but PaeI = Guide

P0E0 = Founder, but PaEi = Founder

PAE0 = Developer, but PAEi = Solo Developer

00EI = Demagogue, but paEI = Teacher

0AEI = False Leader, but pAEI = Eager Newcomer

0AE0 = Annoyed, but pAEi = Devil's Advocate

P0EI = Charismatic Guru, but PaEI = Statist

2.1. Characteristics of a good manager

He can perform all four management roles, although he is not equally strong in all. In other words, there are no zeros in its PAEI code.

He knows his own strengths and weaknesses.

He maintains contact with others. He listens to criticism of his work in order to better understand himself. He understands that he is what he does.

He has a balanced view of himself. He embraces his strengths and weaknesses and doesn't try to be someone else.

He can appreciate the excellent work of others, even in roles that he is not very good at.

He accepts the opinions of others if they are more competent than his own.

He knows how to resolve conflicts that inevitably arise when people with different needs and styles find themselves on the same management team in order to ensure the required set of professional qualities.

It creates an environment conducive to learning.

2.2. Education and development

The transformation of management into a profession has led to an increase in the popularity of educational programs in the field of management. Business schools try to equip newcomers with the knowledge and skills needed to manage successfully and help seasoned managers achieve greater excellence. Educational efforts are often wasted, especially when trying to create a leader who is equally successful in all the functions and roles that are considered to be components of “good management.”

Education that aims to create such a generalist is meaningless, since the “standard book manager” is an abstraction that has no relation to a real person.

In training practice, different roles in the PAEI system are given completely different attention. The most common is the training of the Producer (P) and the Administrator (A). It is impossible to acquire during the training process the qualities necessary for the Entrepreneur (E) and Integrator (I) - the most important roles in the upper echelon of management. These skills can only be developed through personal experience.

Every person has all the qualities necessary for successful management., although some of these qualities may be in an inactive state due to the fact that they are not in demand in practice. The manifestation of the ability to unite people in an ordinary employee may even be perceived as a threat to the company, the emergence of informal leadership or attempts to create a trade union. At a slightly higher level, the employee is expected to have qualities consistent with function A. However, until the employee reaches the vice president level, neither E nor I are expected of him.

At the senior management level, the employee is immediately required to be creative and bring people together. It can be very difficult for a person who has worked his way up the career ladder to find the emotional resources necessary to perform these new functions, especially if his creative impulses have been suppressed for 20 years.

Our educational system creates similar problems. For many years we have treated children as dependent people, and then we expect that, having ceased to be students, they will immediately become full-fledged adults and be able to cope with a reality for which they were not prepared. As a result, most people, ceasing to depend on their family and parents, become dependent on their employer and never become truly free and responsible.

A good manager does not necessarily come from the best business school. Additionally, if too much time is spent on formal education, it can negatively impact management abilities.

There is an old joke about an MBA graduate from one of the best business schools who became the president of a small company. On the first day, he was shown the production and office, and then introduced to his subordinates. When he reached his desk, he slammed his fist on it and enthusiastically asked the deputy: “When will we start working? What is our case today?

2.3. Management mix

For an effective and efficient management process, all four roles (PAEI) must be fulfilled. Each of them is necessary, but in itself is not sufficient to ensure adequate management. However, as we found out earlier, no one person can perform all roles at the required high professional level.

Failure to fulfill one of the roles inevitably entails certain anomalies in management, therefore it is necessary to create a management team of people whose work styles would mutually complement each other. It should include well-educated people with different orientations and personal needs, but able to work together and compensate for each other's shortcomings.

Having analyzed the history of any successful organization, we will see that it was the management team that made it possible to achieve the company's goals.

Everyone is used to thinking that the success of the Ford Motor Company is the merit of one person. However, from 1907 to the early 1920s, the company's greatest growth period, the company was run by a management team, with James Couzens sharing important decisions with Henry Ford. Couzens' departure significantly weakened the company's competitiveness.

3. Life cycle of an organization

3.1. Stages of organization development

People, products, markets, and even entire societies have a life cycle. They are born, grow, mature, grow old and die. At each stage of life they have a typical pattern of behavior, or style. Organizational behavior can also be described using the PAEI code.

On the stage courtship the organization does not yet exist. Founders just dream about what they could do. However, an idea alone is not enough to create an organization: a sincere commitment to this idea is required, comparable to the difficulty of starting a company.

On the stage infancy The heated discussion of ideas ends, a staff appears, and premises are rented. The entrepreneurial role E is replaced by the role of the Producer (P), dreams fade into the background, and what can actually be done becomes important.

At the stage rapid development, also called the “go-go” stage, almost every new opportunity seems to be a priority, employees often juggle multiple jobs, and marketing is equated with sales.

With the onset of the stage youth The importance of the administrative role of A increases, more attention is paid to planning and coordination, meetings are held, trainings are held, and procedures are developed.

Mature organization (stage heyday) knows her goals for the current year and is results-oriented (P). In such an organization, sales and revenue indicators are stable and predictable.

Entering the stage stability, the organization becomes less rigid, but it is still results-oriented and well-organized. There are fewer conflicts between colleagues. A creative approach and speed in decision making give way to conservatism and orderliness.

On the stage aristocracy The role of P (orientation toward achievement and creation) begins to fade away and signs of stagnation are felt: business continues “as usual.” The most creative employees are either forced to leave or lose motivation.

If a stable aristocratic company completely loses entrepreneurial activity (E), and the function P becomes barely noticeable, the company turns into bankrupt aristocracy. At this stage, the products produced by the company become obsolete, but no one does anything.

If the entrepreneurial and productive roles remain in decline for a long time, there comes a point of reckoning: despite rising prices, income declines and turnover and sales volume fall. The main distinguishing feature of the stage "witch hunt" - managerial paranoia: every year or quarter, the person responsible for the company’s problems is found and fired.

In mature conditions bureaucracy Almost nothing happens in the company. The typical answer to any question is: “Wait” or “You will be informed.” Company managers always agree with everything, no one is interested in the result and does not want to change, there is no teamwork, only a lot of procedures, instructions and rules. Bureaucratic organizations continue to exist only because they have a monopoly on certain areas.

The most striking sign death (bankruptcy) organization - the agony of defeat. Those who had the strength to leave the organization did so long ago. Only those who have no choice remain: beginners or those who do not represent professional value. They remember the “good old days” and blame the government, competitors and other external forces for everything.

3.2. Organizational therapy

At every stage of an organization's development, difficulties may arise. Simply increasing the number of well-trained managers who are fit for purpose and work well as part of a team will not produce the desired results.

The organizational climate, that is, the style appropriate to the stage of the organization's life cycle, must correspond to the style of the management team.

The purpose of organizational change is to speed up the process of improving the management system or reverse the “aging” of the organization. The most radical method - "organ transplantation" - is essentially not therapeutic, but surgical: all senior management is fired and a new management team is hired.

Often, external consultants are invited to develop a new organizational structure. All their planning, firing and hiring activities are kept secret. When their ideas are finally implemented, it comes as a shock to employees, and as a result, they develop a strong aversion to the word “change.” They react painfully whenever someone tries to report that something is wrong in the company. To avoid serious problems, Isaac Adizes calls for a switch from organizational surgery to organizational therapy.

Therapeutic methods are selected depending on the stage in which the company is located.

Working with an organization in its infancy (Paei)

A newborn organization does not have a system, so it often finds itself in difficult situations. The “therapist” consultant must, firstly, help to understand reality; secondly, to help develop a realistic vision of the future and long-term goals, rather than constantly telling people what to do. Organizational consultants-"therapists" help young companies learn to predict, analyze and plan, and also warn against excessive spending (a luxury office, expensive equipment and software), which leads to the loss of the main advantages of a young organization - flexibility and adaptability.

The head of a new company has to work harder and get paid less than he would otherwise be paid as an employee, but the bonuses are independence and pride in building his own business. If it is possible to attract another manager to manage, he should first of all be strong in E, the next most important function will be A, then I.

Working with an organization at the “go-go” stage (PaEi)

The company needs to strengthen the Administration A function (organization and stabilization). After management has developed a direction and development strategy, the “therapist” consultant should help systematize the organization’s activities. The goal of such therapy is to realize what not to do. The first task that a “therapist” consultant should offer to such a company is to list all the projects that are in the works: those that have just begun, those that are close to completion, as well as those that are just being discussed. Managers must then estimate the resources and time required for each project. It often turns out that a company is trying to do in one year work that would take a lifetime.

The task of the consultant-“therapist” is to teach how to determine priorities. The sooner this happens, the faster the company will grow. At later stages, it is a good idea to invite pAeI into a rapidly growing organization. Managers like pAeI and PaEi, working together, form a tandem, similar to a couple in a family business. Whoever gets the role of pAeI ensures order and stability, controlling the overall direction of activity.

Working with an organization at the youth stage (pAEi)

A maturing organization strives for stability, tries to get rid of superficial projects and confusion, and avoids costly and useless investments. The company strives to establish internal norms, standards, and systems. At the same time, she wants to maintain her freedom and try new methods. In such an organization, the consultant “therapist” finds himself caught between two fires. If he helps to achieve systematization and stability, one part of the team will not agree with him; if he does not engage in systematization, his activities will be incomprehensible to other employees. The consultant will need incredible patience to balance flexibility and systematization, changing direction and tasks quickly.

The consultant must help the organization focus first on the desired results and then on the process of achieving them. As a maturing organization clearly defines its goals and learns to stick to them, it becomes mature. When working with a maturing organization, a consultant, as a rule, assigns tasks to a whole group at once, which includes specialists from different areas (marketing, production, sales). This ensures an adequate balance between A and E, and the organization learns to focus on P. It is difficult for a new leader to adapt to an organization at the maturation stage. However, if you can find a good PAEi type manager, he will be able to set the organization's activities in the right direction and cope with the inconsistency of the team's behavior.

Working with an organization in its prime (PAEi)

The role of Integrator (I) in a mature organization, as a rule, is less developed: minimal attention is paid to interpersonal relationships. At this stage, it is generally accepted that only business results and market performance matter. First of all, decentralization is required to maintain the growth rate of a mature organization. Thus, the main task of the consultant-therapist becomes to facilitate the process of decentralization. Decentralization, in which the maintenance of E is accompanied by the development of teams (I), can in the long term create an organization like PAEI.

The consultant's assignments involve determining the limits of decentralization. These include modeling a new organizational structure and training the management team to manage new tasks. In a mature organization, new managers, as a rule, do not have problems with adaptation. In a situation where the business is growing, employees feel confident and welcome newcomers kindly. At this stage, the company adapts best if it acquires other companies or is acquired by someone else. If decentralization does not occur in a mature organization, it gradually enters a state of stagnation.

Working with a stable organization (PAeI)

At this stage, there is a lull in the company: there is complete unanimity among the company's employees, and they are deaf to what is happening around them. The consultant should help such a company plan for the future, analyze the competitive environment, anticipate threats and new opportunities, and set new challenging goals. Once the workforce of such an organization begins to see the future again, it is necessary to reorganize and quickly decentralize the company in order to stimulate and stabilize E. In this case, there is a chance to create a PAEI type organization. When working with a company in the stability stage, the consultant must assign tasks to large groups of people.

Tight deadlines are important here to “wake up” people; the group should consist of employees from different departments in order to maximize the activation of E. In a stable organization or at later stages of development, the adaptation of new managers becomes increasingly difficult. Everything in the organization is already established, and the new leadership style will take root with difficulty. The older the organization, the more the team will resist different individual management styles. If a guest manager like paEi appears in a stable organization, he will have a hard time because he is too different from the team. However, integration is still possible.

Working with an organization at the aristocracy stage (pAeI)

Working with an organization at the aristocratic stage is usually much more difficult than at any other stage of its life. The first thing you need to do when starting to work with such a company is to conduct a group diagnostic, during which participants share information with each other about problems in the organization. During such discussions, an understanding of the seriousness of the problems and the need for change comes. Working sessions need to be held frequently enough so that people can see where the company stands.

After the team has realized the need for change, it is necessary to “increase the E-capacity” of the company. The consultant gives the task to analyze the mission of the organization. Understanding the future helps the team develop a strategy, for which a new, decentralized organizational structure is created. Once the decision to decentralize is made, training is carried out, which should stimulate behavioral changes in the team.

In Adizes' experience, such a decentralized organization becomes a PAEI within a year. In order to stimulate the development of role E without reducing I, the consultant works in groups consisting of employees of different specialties and different levels of the hierarchy. Strict deadlines for completing tasks are set.

Managers like PaEi or PaEI organically join an aristocratic company. However, if an aristocratic organization is close to bankruptcy, creating a team is much more difficult, since the E role has already disappeared from the company completely - in its place a zero has appeared, and the team is completely averse to change. In this case, the only solution will be “surgical intervention” - replacing the management team, and later a period of organizational therapy will be required.

Working with a bureaucratic organization (0A0i or 0A00)

As a rule, bureaucratic organizations do not dare to invite a consultant who can take a comprehensive look at the problems, but limit themselves to hiring a specialist in analyzing management systems, which helps to strengthen the already redundant function A. Such organizations most likely require “surgical intervention” “, and a long “rehabilitation” after it. The operation should strengthen function E. At this moment, special persistence will be required, because the team will resist innovation with all its might. A recovery period will be needed to reactivate the R function. Shock therapy (threat of dismissal, too stringent demands) is not recommended - it will only scare people, and they will mindlessly carry out any tasks of the consultant. Instead of harsh measures, it is necessary to invite several new managers and help them fit into the team.

Aug 02 2016

The approach of I. Adizes is widely known today; it is used by large consulting companies, heads of largest enterprises and holdings, as well as owners of small and medium-sized businesses. I. Adizes Institutes created in different countries are actively working to disseminate the approach, providing assistance to owners and top managers.

The very idea of ​​a business life cycle is intuitively perceived as compelling, even uncontroversial. The classifications developed within the framework of the approach appear to be quite instrumental and practically useful.

However, although adherents of the approach apply it skillfully and masterfully, it is clear that this approach is not suitable for all managers, and not in all cases the approach of I. Adizes is the solution to the problem.

There is a saying that a real test pilot can fly anything, even a stool. A real manager can use almost any methodology (if, of course, it is a holistic methodology, and not an explosive mixture of absurd statements and intuitive insights), and the business project will take off. At the same time, an incompetent manager can apply any methodology, and this will not give any positive effect.

Therefore, it is naive to accept the fact that a manager is familiar with any methodology as a manifestation of his managerial competence. Competencies and knowledge are not so directly related.

The purpose of this publication is to present the most acute critical attacks against the approach of I. Adizes, and to see how the approach of I. Adizes itself dampens these attacks.

Critical Strike #1

In the approach of I. Adizes, it is assumed that each company follows the stages of the life cycle, while changing the main characteristics of the management system. This thesis seems undeniable until we begin to apply the idea expressed in it to real companies. If a company changes every year or every two years, initiating new business directions, then each business direction is a new start, the beginning of a new life cycle. Moreover, some of these new directions in 3-5 years may become the main directions of business. How, according to I. Adizes, should the management system of a company be built, in which, for example, there are five new businesses that started, respectively, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 year ago?

The life cycle stage is nothing more than an illustration, a metaphor that makes I. Adizes’ approach easily perceived and understandable. In fact, the famous curve reflects the total impact of three pairs of opposite parameters of the management system: “flexibility - rigidity”, “efficiency - inefficiency”, “simplicity - complexity”. Efficiency is closely related to transparency (accountability), since an effective business is always informationally transparent and generates reliable reports on the basis of which effective decisions can be made.

If a company is flexible, efficient and simple, this is the stage of “infancy”, and it is clear that any complex approaches or bureaucratic systems cannot be adequate for it. When a company reaches a level of business that requires specialization and distribution of responsibilities (for example, due to a large number of business lines), its effectiveness may decrease if the management system is not promptly complicated. Increased complexity and some reduction in flexibility can provide even greater efficiency. This is the “High Activity” stage or the “Go-Go” period, which ends when another complication and increase in the rigidity of the management system turns out to be necessary, now the complexity of the management system becomes so high that bureaucracy appears in the company and decentralization of power begins (delegation of powers to top -managers), in other words, the flexibility of the system is ensured by distributing the management function among areas of activity.

The flourishing stage that follows this adolescence is characterized by an even greater complexity of the management system and finding a balance between rigidity and flexibility, which arises when introducing a systematic approach to company management.

We will let the reader independently consider how the values ​​of the opposite parameters of the control system change at further stages of the life cycle. But I think the idea of ​​the approach is clear.

At any stage, due to the mistakes of managers (those who “can’t fly anything”), the company can lose efficiency and die, which is drawn on the life cycle curve in the form of side branches leading to death.

Our analysis provides an understanding that it is not a matter of the life cycle, that the life of a company is not predetermined in the same way as the life of an individual organism that is born, experiences childhood, adolescence, adulthood, grows old and dies. Companies may not age. The life cycle is just an illustration of a combination of three pairs of opposing management system parameters, which are selected as optimal for each company and for each business situation. We can say even more: periodically the company can go back along the life cycle curve, providing the necessary level of efficiency, flexibility-rigidity and complexity of the management system.

Therefore, if a company regularly creates new businesses, this does not mean that it returns to the beginning of its journey: the complexity of its management system increases proportionally to ensure the required efficiency and the necessary combination of rigidity and flexibility. This is the main idea of ​​the approach. Having determined which management system will be most adequate and effective in this case, we can begin to build it, moving from the abstract target parameters of the management system to specific things: mission, values, functions, business processes, distribution of powers and responsibilities, building a BSC, creating necessary management reporting, linking KPIs to employee bonuses, and so on.

Critical Strike #2

In the I. Adizes approach, PAEI management vitamins are widely used, which are usually deciphered as follows:

P - production of results (functioning)

A - administration, order, discipline

E - entrepreneurship, creativity, risk, development

I - integration, creating an atmosphere of cooperation and interaction, self-organization and corporate culture

The selection of these particular roles (characteristics, qualities, vitamins of management) looks somewhat strange, since they are all distinguished on different classification grounds, that is, they do not represent the integrity in which the parts are distinguished; accordingly, the question of the completeness of these characteristics arises.

In a sense, “management vitamins” are a way to popularize the approach of I. Adizes. They are simple and intuitive. It is quite possible to find a common basis for classification, although it is not explicitly described anywhere in the books of I. Adizes. In fact, the identified characteristics represent two opposing pairs of parameters that describe management styles. They can be reformulated as follows: “functioning” - “development”, “discipline” - “self-organization”.

The dots are top managers whose management styles are measured by the PAEI test

If you construct Cartesian coordinates with these characteristics and measure the corresponding manifestations of the management style of the top managers of your company (in the diagram you see six points corresponding to the coordinates of the six top managers), you will get an idea of ​​where the “center” of mass of your point cloud is, visualizing management styles. To construct such a chart relevant to your company, you should ask your top managers to take a test to measure PAEI indicators, and then find the difference between E and P (subtract P from E), this way you will get the horizontal axis coordinate, and then find the difference between I and A (subtract A from I), thus obtaining the coordinate along the vertical axis.

If your company is more inclined towards discipline and functioning, then you are “aging” along the life cycle curve, if it is towards self-organization and development, then you are developing. It should be emphasized that no one forbids you to orient yourself in time and completely change management styles in your company, thereby moving along the life cycle curve to another area.

Critical Strike #3

PAEI “management vitamins” are often associated with life cycle stage. It is assumed that there are certain preferences that determine the management style and the stage at which the company is located. However, different divisions of the company have different PAEI indicators. Otherwise it can not be. It is difficult to imagine a security service or accounting department in which the management style is described as paEi. Obviously, the very concept of “the management style that is most preferable for a given stage of the life cycle” does not withstand even elementary criticism. Everywhere in a company, and especially in a company where new business areas are regularly emerging, management styles will be different, and talking about some kind of “single”, “most preferable” or “suitable”, coming up with different ways to derive an integrated indicator, so It is naive to judge the health status of patients based on the average temperature in a hospital.

The connection between the expression of certain components in the management style and the stage of the life cycle in I. Adizes’ approach is largely illustrative, showing that the older the company, the more bureaucracy and rigidity it has, and the less entrepreneurship and self-organization.

The PAEI classification is nothing more than a language in which one can speak about such qualitative characteristics of the company as a whole. I. Adizes nowhere states that all key managers of a company at a given stage of its life cycle must have an appropriate profile of PAEI indicators.

In the approach of I. Adizes it is difficult to see any kind of rigidity and determinism, the inevitability of certain processes. On the contrary, the whole pathos of the approach is to move away from predetermination, consciously choose the most effective management system, and even largely manage age-related changes, sometimes turning back social time or stopping it.

Using the Cartesian coordinates proposed above, and plotting the PAEI of your managers on them, you can easily calculate the geometric center of the points (as the arithmetic mean of all horizontal and vertical coordinates), and see in which quadrant it is located. Then you can calculate the dispersion (the spread of points from the geometric center), and thus obtain a numerical expression of the degree of certainty of a unified management style in the company. By calculating for each pair of points the scalar products of vectors drawn from each point to the geometric center, you will receive a coefficient k, negative values ​​of which will indicate a “potential managerial conflict”, and positive values ​​“a potential managerial alliance”, and the module of the coefficient can be interpreted as the degree of expression of management conflict or alliance. Thus, using the PAEI language and Cartesian coordinates, you can obtain a management model of your company and visualize the range of management strategies that your team can potentially implement.

PAEI is nothing more than a model. And although a model is one of the very well-known ways of studying reality, you should not confuse a map with the terrain, or a model with reality, do not forget that a model cannot be true or false, it is a tool, and these concepts are not applicable to a tool. Can a hammer, for example, be true or false? Or a screwdriver?

But the model can be applicable or not applicable, useful or useless, convenient or inconvenient. We want to say that I. Adizes’ approach is essentially instrumental. And you can use it or not use it. After all, if you are reading these lines, you are a manager, and a manager differs from a managed person in that he himself creates the conditions and circumstances in which activities are carried out, including choosing which models are applicable or not applicable in a given specific situation.

Conclusion

Companies can live for centuries without aging. The approach of I. Adizes is not a dogmatic system that “forces” all companies to move strictly along a drawn life cycle curve. This is just one of the instrumental approaches that skilled managers can use in their daily work.

©Sergey Filyanin

©Alexander Shokhov

This interview with Isaac Adizes was published by an American magazine for entrepreneurs INCin the January 1991 issue. Original English text - .

We generally do not publish interviews with consultants about their own management theories. Yes, a few years ago we had a similar interview with Peter Drucker - consider it an exception made for God.

The name of Isaac Adizes has recently begun to be mentioned more and more often in conversations by well-known and respected company leaders. None of them made statements that he was an infallible management genius doomed to immortality. But all these people respectfully classified Adizes as one of the new, small “breed” of business consultants - those who really understand how business systems work and, most importantly, know what to do to make them work better.

In reality, Adizes is more than just a consultant. He is a true pioneer of management, a serious, wise and insightful observer. He has spent more than 35 years studying organizational behavior in companies around the world. Originally from Yugoslavia, he grew up in Israel and received his PhD from Columbia University. He has his own thriving company, the Adizes Institute, located in Santa Monica, California. Adizes’ company was founded in 1975. While “growing” it, Adizes became familiar with many of the pitfalls of management, about which he now writes books, lectures and consults.

Over the years, Adizes has created what rightfully claims to be called his own general theory of management. He presented this theory in surprisingly clear writing.book “Corporate Life Cycle Management” . The basic idea is that organizations have a life cycle, just like living organisms. Companies face difficulties and challenges at every stage, and it is easy to predict what problems accompany the transition from each stage to the next. However, Adizes argues that, unlike living things, organizations do not necessarily grow old and die - and describes a methodology that allows them to be kept thriving forever.

Leading journalist Bruce J. Posner and editor Bo Burlingham asked Adizes about how to reach and stay at the top.

* * *

INC .: It is generally accepted that any company can reach the level Federal Express - all it needs is for it to be founded by Fred Smith. You obviously think that you know a way to bring a company to the peak of competitiveness, even if its leader is not at all a seasoned business shark.

ITZHAK ADIZES: You are not mistaken. Moreover, I believe that my approach is the correct and progressive way. It makes life easier because you don't have to look for a “hero.” Traditionally, American business culture has relied on individuals. As soon as something goes wrong, everyone immediately shouts “Who did this? Who is guilty? Who will save us? I declare that there will be no one and only savior. If you want your company to function as efficiently as possible, please learn to cooperate and work together. This is the only way to bring a company to the stage of its life cycle called Heyday.

INC .: Tell us in more detail what you mean.

ITZHAK ADIZES: The stage of a company’s life cycle is determined by two factors: its flexibility and controllability. A young company, for example, has a lot of flexibility. But at the same time she behaves completely unpredictably. It's like dealing with a baby: you never know when he'll smile, when he'll have to change his diaper, and all that. What happens when a company “grows up”? Flexibility decreases, controllability increases - for a while. And then it falls again, just like a person’s. “Floor” is the point at which two lines converge, i.e. the company is both flexible and manageable. Here you can decide to change course and implement it.

INC .: So you're saying that reaching your prime is just a matter of time and experience?

ITZHAK ADIZES: No, no, under no circumstances! Neither the age of the company nor its size have anything to do with it. A company can exist for over a hundred years and still be extremely flexible. Likewise, a company that is only ten years old may find itself mired in bureaucracy. When I was working with Philip Morris , they had $8.5 billion in sales a year, but had far more flexibility than some companies with $10 million in sales. When I call a company “young,” I mean that it is flexible but poorly managed. An “old” company is easy to manage, but not particularly prone to change. Every company must remain “young” in some sense, but it does not necessarily have to grow old. A company can be in the Heyday stage indefinitely. The question is how to achieve it and prevent “aging”.

INC .: This is quite hard to believe. What about new market trends, new technologies, product life cycles? As far as we understand you, you seem to be saying that the company gets to the peak and then operates without any problems, without any regard to what is happening around it.

ITZHAK ADIZES: I did not say that there would be no problems. It is impossible to work without problems at all. But you can guarantee yourself the confidence that you are spending time and effort solving exactly the problems that you need to solve.

INC .: What tasks are “necessary”?

ITZHAK ADIZES: Listen, the success of any business depends on one single factor: the relationship between external and internal marketing. External marketing is the differentiation of your product, pricing policy, issues of product delivery, finding customers, service, etc. And internal marketing is all the sweat, tears and blood that you must spend, overcoming the “force of friction” in order to - happened inside the company. Any organization has a constant supply of energy. If almost all your energy is spent on internal marketing, how much will be left for external marketing? Very little, and the result will be appropriate.

INC .: So, you need to spend as little effort as possible within the company, right?

ITZHAK ADIZES: Yes, and this is achieved by creating mutual trust and respect. If you don't have either, you'll waste a lot of energy on technical inconsistencies and internal squabbles. As a result, when a customer finally appears, all you can say to him is “I'm exhausted today, so I can't serve you, come back tomorrow.” Nowadays in America everyone is simply obsessed with strategic planning. Apparently, they believe that all problems will be solved after they wipe the competitor’s nose. Nothing like this. Success must come from within, not from without. Only by solving your internal problems can you deal with external influencing factors. This is why it is your responsibility to maintain a balance between internal and external marketing.

INC .: But you say that the problems will still not go away.

ITZHAK ADIZES: Of course. If you have no problems, then you are already dead. Any change entails problems, and problems require solutions. You go and solve them and what happens? Solutions create more and more new problems. So in the end, all you do is help create another generation of problems. And the more successfully you solve problems today, the more difficult problems life will present to you tomorrow. In the New Year's cards that I send to my clients, I always write: “I wish you even more problems in the New Year than you had in the past... and the ability to cope with them!” After all, you are only as strong as the difficult tasks you can solve. Some small companies are hesitant to deal with big problems. And what? They remain small companies.

INC .: This sounds like little consolation to those who are faced with standard small business problems and do not feel able to cope with them.

ITZHAK ADIZES: The question is, what exactly are the problems that bother you so much? If these are normal “growing pains” of a company that is just gaining momentum, then there is nothing to worry about - you will outgrow them sooner or later. It’s an unpleasant process, but once you’ve been ill, you’ll develop immunity to them. If not, then you need the help of a specialist in order to get out of a vicious circle of problems.

INC .: But how to determine this difference?

ITZHAK ADIZES: You must understand what stage of the life cycle your company is at. The main theme of my book is the proof that the changes a company undergoes follow known patterns, and its problems also fall within those patterns. Of course, each company has its own specifics, and the stages may partially overlap each other, but basically everything happens the same way. If you know the pattern well, you can immediately see which problems do not fit into it and therefore are abnormal and require active intervention. We all know that we learn from mistakes; A wise person is distinguished by the fact that he learns from the mistakes of others, which have already been made more than once or twice before him. So, the head of the company could use a little wisdom.

INC .: Let's take for example a company that has just been created. What is her range of normal and abnormal problems?

ITZHAK ADIZES: You are now talking about a company in its Infancy stage. In fact, this is already the second stage of the corporate life cycle. The first stage is “conception” (Courtship), when you constantly dream about what your business will be like, reduce any conversation you have with anyone to this topic, and generally make as much noise as a plane taking off. You need all this in order to gain the courage to take on some obligations and convince future business partners to do so. This is very important to do, otherwise someone (even yourself) may suddenly backslide when you finally open your own business.

After this, you have no time for dreams and no time for talking. It's time to act. Business meetings are held in the elevator, and decisions are made just as the doors open. Everyone is constantly busy with something. When one of the employees says the words “...I think that...”, you interrupt him, explaining that he should work (sell!) and not think, since the company does not have time to think - it urgently needs to “make money” . There really is no money, or at least there is always not enough money. So everyone works, works and works.

INC .: In my opinion, these are the most difficult problems.

ITZHAK ADIZES: Yes, but they are within the norm. Lack of capital is normal for an infant company. It’s not normal to be surprised to discover that there is nothing in your current account, and you didn’t even notice how empty it was. Having an authoritarian, stubborn leader with whom no one dares to argue is normal. A leader who is looking for someone to entrust to do his work for him is not yet normal. Who can you entrust it to? People who can make it better than you? It is unlikely that there are such people among those who work for you, at least now. Your company is too small for this. Your current employees are people who wandered into your office by mistake, interns you forgot to fire, and the like. Even if you are somehow lucky to recruit smart people, you have no right to shift the responsibility onto them, because this way they can ruin your company, and you will not even understand how and when they did it. Now your path is one of trial and error, and you must go through it on your own, without relying on anyone. Otherwise, you yourself will create problems for your company that are inappropriate for its stage of development.

INC .: You said that the key to success is teamwork.

ITZHAK ADIZES: In order to achieve teamwork, the company first needs strict individual leadership. Teamwork begins when our baby stands on his feet and learns to walk, that is, when the monthly balance finally becomes positive and everyone can relax a little. But you asked a very good question, because I just wanted to say that what is good and normal for the Infancy stage may be abnormal and even dangerous for the next.

INC .: What danger can a strong, self-confident leader who knows what he wants pose?

ITZHAK ADIZES: At the “Stormy Years” stage, the next after Infancy, the company is growing by leaps and bounds, and it seems that it is no longer afraid of anything. And so our strong and responsible leader, who is used to doing everything himself, becomes overly arrogant. It seems to him that since he was able to do what he already could, then he is omnipotent. He rushes at any opportunity that seems promising to him - and all possibilities seem promising. Such arrogance of a leader, combined with strictly centralized management, is an explosive mixture that not every company can withstand for long.

INC .: Well, yes and no - there are companies that have been working this way for years and even become large and successful.

ITZHAK ADIZES: The “Stormy Years” stage can last a very long time, but everything has its limit. Sooner or later, a company will enter an area of ​​the market in which it knows nothing and is incapable of anything, and will receive a slap in the face. The more arrogance, the more powerful the slap in the face will be. The fact is that at this stage the company is growing rapidly, but at the same time it is completely unstructured. There is no established reporting system, no clarity of who is responsible for what. The calculation of product costs is probably not well established. There is no trace of a remuneration system, there is only a set of individual contracts... in short, all the conditions for a disaster.

INC .: And then the manager turns his gaze towards professional managers...

ITZHAK ADIZES: Usually they all do this, or at least try. If not, they fall into what I call the founder's trap. I mean a situation where the work of the entire company depends on one single person - and this becomes a problem. The founder of the company becomes both the main value and its weakest link. At some point, he realizes that his own brainchild is too big for him, and the time for a “one-man show” is passing. And after this, a professional manager is invited. This marks the beginning of the next stage of the life cycle - “Adolescence”. In fact, this is the most difficult stage. It turns out that it is not so difficult to create and “grow” a company as then for the founder to keep it in his hands.

INC .: Why is this stage of the life cycle the most difficult?

ITZHAK ADIZES: The reason is that the company needs to go through fundamental changes, which will be not so much quantitative as qualitative. And at the same time, the company founder often prevents change. There comes a time when the extensive path of development, if continued along it, will lead to collapse. Sales volumes are still growing, but their profitability is falling. Sooner or later it turns out that the more you sell, the greater the losses you incur. At this point, you need to look inside the company and start streamlining work, increasing efficiency and profitability - and you have no idea how this is done. You may find it boring or even scary. The founder understands that the company needs changes, but, on the other hand, he is afraid of losing the spark that helped the company conquer the peak at which it is already located. As a result, the professional manager whom you yourself brought to the company turns out to be an ordinary office rat, against whom all the old employees immediately unite - and you are not far from joining them.

INC .: Perhaps they are not so wrong - how many times has it happened that a professional manager ruined a promising company?

ITZHAK ADIZES: This happens, but the problem that forced you to hire a manager will not go away. The only way to escape the founder's trap is to restructure the company. Until now we have been an “organization for the people.” But now this approach has ceased to be effective. We need a clear system of subordination and responsibility, normal reporting, and an effective reward system. This is a people-for-organization approach. And I declare with all responsibility that such a change is very, very difficult. I've done this many times, with companies large and small, with Domino's Pizza and Bank of America . But right now I am unable to restructure my own company with a measly $3 million in annual revenue. Why? Because I look at the organization, but I see people. I hired them, I know them all, and I can't step over them. It's extremely painful.

INC .: But, presumably, it’s worth it? What awaits us at the end of all the transformations?

ITZHAK ADIZES: If everything is done correctly, the company reaches its Prosperity. If it is wrong, there may be several options. One of them is “premature aging”. Administrators take control of the control levers, and the company becomes completely manageable, while losing flexibility. She may still have some reserves for moving forward, preserved from her “childhood”, but if nothing changes, they will not last long and the company will practically cease to develop. This is exactly what is happening now with Apple Computer . Another option is to get stuck in a “leader trap,” which is exactly what happened to me.

INC .: Funny. Have you also experienced growing pains?

ITZHAK ADIZES: Naturally. Did you think that doctors don’t get sick? I was dealing with all the normal problems. In general, nothing abnormal happened, but what happened to me was enough for me.

INC.: For example?

ITZHAK ADIZES: At the beginning I was accused of being authoritarian, not listening to anyone and not being able to cooperate. They didn't understand why I insisted on certain things. I took this to heart and tried to change myself “for the better,” but to no avail. Now I understand that I defended my point of view, which I could not formulate in words due to lack of experience. There is no beaten path to success. In the end I just told them "Shut up and do it my way - I know what I'm saying." But it was very painful for me, both emotionally and mentally. And the current situation is no better.

Daria Molchanova,
psychologist, human resources specialist

Today, many companies in Russia are experiencing development difficulties. The whole country is in the process of change and transformation. Business in Russia is growing out of “short pants” and requires new approaches to management.