I like to start off by asking a fundamental question to readers who hold top management positions: What constitutes effective management?

The question appears easy, which many in high echelons will readily respond with their perceptions.

Most may jump into the common bandwagon of conventional corporate hats to propagate it involves efficacies in implementing various key functions, namely delegation, supervision, planning, monitoring, control, analysis, assessment, direction........and so forth.

A popular encyclopaedia promulgates a more academically inclined definition. It outlines management as "the art of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives using available resources efficiently and effectively; management comprises planning, organising, staffing, directing and controlling an organisation."

I feel such narratives are correct merely from the functional overview perspective. To clarify my point, let me paraphrase my earlier question: What is the core determinant (in a corporation) that ensures all the important functions are in good order? Or alternatively rephrased, what is the prime factor that must be instituted by a corporation to deliver desired results? Well, my answer is expressed in my following management philosophy:

PUT THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RIGHT JOBS!

Sounds simple and practical as a philosophy, but not so in actual practice. To carry out this endeavour, corporations must be prepared to make some changes to their prevailing manpower structure. Changes invariably entail the preparedness to face up to some challenges.

First, the topmost management representatives must identify and then install the necessary jobs in place while weaning off redundant or irrelevant ones. Let me elaborate by giving an example.

Some financial service corporations have departments that are interlinked with one another, like compliance and risk management, hence creating positions for two separate department heads. Are the two roles not part and parcel of each other, which could be merged? Misdeeds like unethical marketing methods deployed by wayward business promotion personnel will ultimately tarnish the image of the corporation concerned. Such misdeed is a service, business and company image risk, if unabated. So, is the issue to be managed by the chief risk officer (CRO) only? To contain unethical business promotion approaches, is it not also a compliance issue; is it not a concern of the chief compliance officer (CCO) to ensure adherence to stipulated guidelines relating to such activities? What if the CRO, on one hand, and the CCO, on the other hand, hold differing stands regarding an obvious unethical sale episode? Whose view takes precedence and which side is responsible to resolve the problem? Will there be confusion or controversy among the two sides due to overlapping functional roles?

I opine that the compliance sector should be the overall scrutineer of risk issues. Containing risks means ensuring all work activities, processes and procedures comply with relevant encompassing guidelines set by the regulatory authorities, besides internal guidelines. Compliance and risk management functions overlap each other. Unless the regulatory authorities disallow so, appointing one overall head, i.e. chief compliance cum risk officer, to be accountable for wearing both hats may make more sense. Having one "merged" head of department in this respect averts redundancy.

In event the need arises to appoint a separate risk management head independent from the compliance head because of internal requirements, then the specific responsibilities and accountabilities of each should be unequivocally spelt out to avoid redundancy and possible confusion. Bear in mind redundancy also causes unwarranted extra costs.

Equally important as determining the right key jobs in a corporation is the wisdom to identify the right person for each. With regard to this, I like to elaborate by expanding further the slogan on "Put the right people in the right jobs". Here goes..........

Stanza 1: Put the right people in the right jobs, you'll get effectiveness and efficiency.

Stanza 2: Put the right people in the wrong jobs, you'll get underutilisation of manpower resource.

Stanza 3: Put the wrong people in the right jobs, you'll get dismal performance.

Stanza 4: Put the wrong people in the wrong jobs, you'll get........CHAOS!!!

Now, I explain with elaborations for each stanza.

1. When personnel of the right acumen in terms of qualification, experience and characteristics are matched with their respective role that is essential, probability of the corporation meeting its overall objectives will be high. Flaws can be averted. Redundancy and wastage can be curtailed The right jobs represent the important ones that cater for alignment with the set objectives. The right quality of people facilitates performance on high note because they know how to execute the right tasks in their right roles the right way to meet objectives. Effectiveness emanates from doing the right things. Efficiency emanates from doing things in the right way. Effectiveness plus efficiency is the sum of doing the right things right consistently.

2. Let us say a corporation engages an outstanding key executive with prominent positive attitude and wits, whose forte is in marketing strategies. Let us say he is assigned to head sales training instead of a marketing strategist position. Although market strategizing also relates to modelling of training programmes for sales personnel, yet any seasoned sales trainer would fit the bill to deliver such programmes. Appointing a marketing strategist to train sales personnel is akin to underutilisation of his capability. In fact, it is somewhat a loss to the corporation for failing to harness his special skills for more business vitality. Although sales training may be easily undertaken by him, yet it is not the matching role for manifestation of his expertise. His skills should be tapped to the maximum for more eventful sales results, which can only proper by putting him to plan vibrant marketing strategies.

3. Take the scenario of a corporation reliant on a large agency sales force to promote its products. The position of a chief agency officer (CAO) to manage the force is definitely needed. The essence pivoting the success of group results is the prowess level of the appointed CAO. It is a question whether he is cut for the vital role. Presuming that the top sales agent is asked to take on the job, would he fit in perfectly? Well, maybe not so. Why? An elite sales agent is good for his personal sales, reaped from his eminent direct clientele contacts. In comparison, a dynamic CAO is one who works well with his sales agents; he ably guides them toward achieving individual and hence group sales goals. The top sales agent may not be experienced enough to command other sales agents, or may not be a strong team player since he has all along been an individual sales performer. Business objectives of a corporation cannot be achieved by appointing sales management personnel without leadership experience to lead team members.

4. As demonstrated earlier, a wrong job is one that overlaps with another jurisdiction, or redundant, or irrelevant, or not commensurate with the skills of a personnel. To make the situation worse is to appoint someone totally inept. Let us refer again to the earlier example of a separate risk management head existing side by side with the compliance head. Presume an auditor from mutual fund service background is recruited to be the CRO in an insurance company. Being unfamiliar with the technicalities and regulatory guidelines relevant to the insurance industry, he would not be able to readily keep tab on risk elements and supervise his team efficiently. Work flow may be in a mess. And presuming he is a person who rigidly sticks to his guns in his opinion, would he not head for conflict with his compliance counterpart regarding a risk issue which violated set compliant guidelines? The end result of an inept head wearing a redundant hat - a chaotic working environment in his jurisdiction.


In theory, hiring the right people sounds practical. In reality, that does not occur across the board by practice of top executives. They are fond of picking their team of second-liners based on either one or more of the following criteria:

# Candidates of subservient character who toe the line without dissent - aptly described, the yes-men - are preferred.

Yes-men refrain from exhibiting diverse actions and opinions. Rather, they faithfully carry out what their boss tells them to do, regardless knowing whether workable or unworkable. Their boss actually makes all the main calls, and they just follow orders. The subservient type reflects character weakness. A docile character will never make own important decisions, thus lacking initiative. Top executives who micro manage always show they exert authority over subordinates. Having yes-men under them will appear they are in total command.

# Strong contenders by virtue of proven records, qualifications and experiences are not favoured as such individuals may outshine their superiors.

Top executives want to protect their own turf. They shun appointing potential competitors who could pose as future threats to their position. So, the second-liners are normally average performers, churning out average results.

# A candidate in the same fraternal circle (with the key executive) is preferred over an "outsider", although the latter may be more qualified for the specific role.

Quality is no longer the main consideration. Again, the intent is for turf protection rather than turf enhancement. Having a friend in the fold is safer than an unknown individual of higher quality but not sure whether he will ultimately toe the line. Unless the selected candidate from the same fraternal circle is also affirmed a good one for the right job, the choice will seem imprudent.

# Remuneration package should not be flexible but be conservatively capped in order to contain manpower expenses.

Good people cannot be attracted by unattractive remuneration package. When the quality of selected candidates is allowed to be compromised because of compromised remuneration offers, an unfavourable precipitating effect will materialise; effectiveness and efficiency will be compromised, which in turn results in compromised overall business and profit scores in the longer run - that is the holistic link.

Conclusion:

Success in putting the right people in the right jobs begins with the appointment of the chief executive and his key officers based on prowess level, such as their IQ, EQ, proficiency of the business, experience, assessment acumen etc. First things first, the board of the corporation concerned must initiate a sound standard operating procedure incorporating qualification criteria, interview approach and selection of candidates for each vital position, especially senior management personnel. Next, the right chief executive must be appointed to take care of the macro business requirements. Only the right chief executive knows how to identify the right type of key officers for the right roles. And only the right key officers know the right make of subordinates they want for effective implementation. If the top officers are the right ones, the entire manpower deployment should be entrenched in sound order, and optimism of the entity heading to the right direction is at hand - that is the positive domino impact.

The endeavour of putting the right people in the right jobs is profound. The board and top executives of a corporation need to move out of the common think box of normal norms. They need to shift their paradigm for a more holistic view on manpower engagement and deployment. I shall end my sharing with another prose for your ponder:

Management entails people and their roles under you. Administration entails processes, procedures, documents and issues in your jurisdiction of responsibility and accountability Only if the management endeavour (of people) is in right order, will the administration flow be in right order.
               (An extract from the Dilbert cartoon series published by a Malaysian print media)

(Note: The contents are based on my personal experiences and observations in the corporate world, first as a corporate officer until my retirement a few years ago, and now as a freelance consultant. I invite critiques from readers who do not concur with my views.)