Introduction
Management is a practice that has evolved for so many years, with each evolution bringing out advancement in management practices. This outcome has been the strive of the management fraternity to bring the best out of management by coming out with management styles that are deemed to be superior to the previous one. One thing that never changes in management is the basic principles of management around which all management styles revolve. Periodically, new management styles have come about, with some being successful while others have failed after being put to practice. The failure of some management practices can be attributed to different occasions that led to a total change in the dynamics of management thus causing a paradigm shift to the way management should be conducted. The performance of the world economies is part of the parameters that are used to evaluate management styles. The security situation on the global stage is a decisive factor in the success of management tactics due to its ability to cause a paradigm swing on a global stage. The paper, therefore, strives to find out how the different situations have led to a change in management advances that have been achieved so far.
How the Massive Managerial Advances brought about in the 1990s were quickly overshadowed by
The Collapse of the Dot com Economy
The demands of stakeholders in companies that they have invested in and the pressure that they put on managers to deliver profits can be considered the biggest drive behind management performance, which is mostly decided on its success or its loss. Beirne (2006) finds that the dot com economy was a new phenomenon that threw the business world into a frenzy of activities. The excitement was about investing in technology companies, which seemed to have a bright future (Beirne, 2006, p. 26). Managers excited investors by making very high projections of stocks by overpricing them before they were sold on their Initial Public Offering. This strategy led to massive investment in shares of companies that were believed to be the dot com.
Most companies had been built on traditional and strict management practices that had their foundations in the honest presentation of data. Most companies built on this foundation among others that came in during the dot com era suffered massive losses due to the management practices of the dot com managers. The dot com era led to business success being built on highly speculative terms on which losses were felt to the core of the economy when reality struck (Brent, Kirsch & David, 2008, p.123). During the dot com crash of the year 2000, NASDAQ’s value of about 10% was lost in one day. As Kiechel (2012) explains, this loss was due to a technique of undervaluing stocks so that there is the massive sell of the same to hungry investors (p. 65). The managerial advances of the 1990s, therefore, failed the test of time when most companies’ value plummeted leading to the closing of shops by most of them at the end of the decade. Most of these managerial advances had been based on high and false speculations, which valued companies on a false base in terms of underpriced and oversubscribed stocks.
The September 11, 2001 attacks and the ensuing Iraq war
The management advances brought about in the 1990s had led to a booming economy that was operating on a global scale. Companies were able to exploit opportunities and make overwhelming profits. The outcome led to the development of a strong economy. The economy provided massive job opportunities while at the same time allowing the importation of labor from outside, which spurred the economy further. However, the smooth running was shot down by the September 11 attack, which led to massive economic changes. The September 11 attack led to losing business and business opportunities to the tune of billions of dollars, which later led to a massive jolt of the economy (Parachuri & Ingram, 2012, p. 128).
Consumer spending was affected due to the security scare that had been caused by the attack. Thus, people started saving to take a flight to incase the situation became worse. Many jobs were lost during that time because many companies moved their businesses to safer havens that did not suffer security risks (Hurley, 2011, p. 378). The Involvement of the United States of America in the Iraq war led to the government shifting its investment priorities to spending the money on war. This shift led to an almost economic meltdown because the economy became starved of the much-needed government-supported programs that usually injected cash into the economy. This case adversely affected businesses that had thrived before the war started leading to many businesses closing shop. One of the businesses that had thrived before was the air transport industry, which was most affected by the attack (Odoyo, 2011, p. 259). Many people who used to travel by air changed to take other options leading to the economy being further affected by these actions.
Current practices involved in communicating objectives and policies to external stakeholders
Different companies and organizations have different ways of communicating objectives and policies to external stakeholders. In the same breath, they should have a way of receiving feedback from the stakeholders. Most of them have diverse ways of communicating depending on the number of persons they are supposed to reach, which is the deciding factor for choosing a method of communication.
Company Newsletters
Several organizations have company newsletters on which they publish the organizations’ issues on an ongoing basis with the aim of informing all stakeholders on the progress that is happening. Most of these publications are periodical. They are usually aimed at reporting actively on many issues both major and minor that are taking place, have taken place, or those that will happen in the future. This strategy is one of the ways that organizations use to communicate with stakeholders on matters they deem general. Most newsletters are then posted to the specific internal and external stakeholders. The use of newsletters does not usually require a response from stakeholders since they are usually free to make enquiries on an issue in the newsletter either through a telephone call, a letter to the management, or through a personal visit (Morche, 2006, p.678). This accessibility will then elicit an answer from the management of the organization.
Through Mails
Mailing is another form of communication that organizations use to communicate with external stakeholders. Ayande (2012) states that, depending on the subject at hand, a mail is usually prepared and sent to the relevant stakeholders outlining the issues needed (p. 61). An authorized person who has the authority to sign and send such a letter usually undersigns the mail. The stakeholders will also write back to respond to the letter or initiate a move that will take care of the said issue. Stakeholders too can initiate their own communication through letters to the organization by stating issues they need to be tackled. This mode serves both the stakeholder as well as the organization. Mails come in two forms: the hard copy mail, which is posted or hand-delivered to the interested party, and the use of emails, which can be official or personal in nature, which will still deliver the message as intended.
Meetings and Forums
Organizations nowadays organize meetings and seminars, which are christened as stakeholders’ forums from where they have a platform to address them (stakeholders) who in turn have a platform to address the organization. As Barbier (1999) notes, in this case, the agenda of the meeting is usually set for the purpose of discussion or simply communication. It is under this agenda that the organization will be able to inform the stakeholders of the policy issues as well as its other objectives (p. 376). In most cases, such meetings are held to discuss radical issues that would lead to a realignment on both sides so that one side is not caught flatfooted. Under this banner, stakeholders are able to respond to the agenda at hand or also take the opportunity to inform the organization of any impending changes they should anticipate. The advantage of such a forum is that the management of the organization is able to answer the queries that stakeholders might raise and give out instant answers to them, or refer them to another time.
The need for establishing annual objectives
There is the need to establish annual objectives that the organization should work on within a calendar year. The need can be termed as a short-term objective because of the period it is supposed to have been settled. The need to establish annual objectives can be related to the need to keep in touch with the long-term objectives that the organization is working towards achieving (Pooter, 2008, p. 66). Long-term and middle term objectives usually take a longer period to be achieved. It may happen that individuals within the organization might lose sight of the objectives as they continue to work. Therefore, when these objectives are broken down into annual objectives, it becomes easy for the organization to achieve them in a bit-by-bit form without losing sight of the intended target. As Yuan (2010) finds, setting up annual objectives also allows the organization to plan better for the period that it will be working (p. 93). This strategy will enable the organization to make budgetary allocations with regard to the available amounts while at the same time planning for the following year. Due to the instability of the economic world today, it is fair for organizations to plan as situations unfold so that, in case of major problems coming up, the organization should find itself in a situation where it has committed massive resources (Pooter, 2008, p. 69).
Annual objectives will enable the organization to prioritize its objectives in an order that would allow it to achieve the most important objectives among the major ones within a certain time through allocation of resources that will ensure what has been planned happens as planned. Price (2013) finds that annual objectives will enable the organization to evaluate on an annual basis the progress of the major objectives that are being executed by the organization (p. 53). This approach will help the organization to make decisions on whether to carry on with the intended objectives or not. At the end of the day, the organization will be able to abort objectives that are no longer feasible. Having annual objectives gives a realistic picture to the staff of intended goals because breaking them into annual bits becomes more achievable to the mind of the staff and thus a drive to work towards achieving them. They become a simplification of the larger complex objectives (Bregman, 2013, p. 45). In the organization, I worked called the Royal Media, the plan for rolling out the new IT infrastructure was broken down into three plans that would be executed at one plan per year. The role out was done this way to allow readjustment to the plans just in case new developments emerged due to the dynamic nature of the IT world. This style is a typical example of objectives that organizations can abort or readjust just in case they are no longer feasible so that they are not in a position that they are required to stick with objectives that are no longer important to them.
Conclusion
Strategic management as a form of management has become the latest practice that many organizations have adopted in their quest to beat the unknown nature of the future. It involves forecasting of the future by watching the trends that the world is coming up with since it has become very competitive and unpredictable. Thus, it is important for organizations to take measures that would allow them to have a glimpse of the future to plan for it accordingly. In case of any changes, the organization will also readjust its position without having adverse effects on its operations and existence.
Reference List
Ayande, A., & Sabourine, V. (2012). Managerial Execution in Public Administration: Practices of Managers when Implementing Strategic Objectives. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(19), 55-77.
Barbier, J. (1999). Intergovernmental Evaluation. Balancing Stakeholders Expectations with Enligtment Objectives. Forest Science-Washington, 46(1), 373-386.
Beirne, M. (2006). Back from the Brink: A Star from the dotcom Era that Nearly Crashed. Priceline is Now Enjoying a Rebirth. BrandWeek-New York, 47(10), 24-28.
Bregman, P. (2013). A Personal Approach to Organizational Time Management. McKinsey Quarterly, 1(1), 42-47.
Brent, G., Kishcer, M., & David, A. (2008). Was there Too Little Entry During the Dotcom Era? Journal of Financial Economics, 86(1), 100-144.
Hurley, H. (2011). The Effects of the Attacks of 9/11 on Organizational Policies, Employee Attitudes and Workers Psychological States. American Journal of Economics & Business Administration, 3(2), 377-389.
Kiechel, W. (20120. The Management Century. Harvard Business Review, 90(11), 62-75.
Morche, A. (2006). Complex Perspectives on Learning Objectives: Stakeholders Beliefs about Core Objectives Based on Focus Group Interviews. Medical Education, 40(7), 675-681.
Odoyo, S. (2011). The Effects US Anti Terrorism Laws on International Business Trade. Syracuse Journal of International Law & Commerce, 38(2), 257-294.
Parachuri, S., & Ingram, P. (2012). Appetite for Destruction: the Impact of September 11 Attacks on Business Founding. Industrial & Corporate Change, 21(1), 127-149.
Pooter, M. (2008). Delivering on Your Promises. An Effective Control Framework Helps Management Achieve Organizational Objectives and Create Value for Stakeholders. Internal Auditor, 65(1), 65-70.
Price, B. (2013). Preparing for Your Annual Staff Appraisal: Part 1. Nursing Standard, 27(20), 49-55.
Yuan, J. (2010). Performance Objectives Selection Model in Public Partnership Projects Based on the Perspectives of Stakeholders. Journal of Management in Engineering, 26(2), 89-104.