Taking the middle ground

I took a long lunch this afternoon, which isn’t how it sounds. It was in the office, with a co-worker and we were actually talking about a lot of topics that were very relevant to work.

One of the things we talked about was the effectiveness of corporate management. If I had to boil the conversation down to basics, we settled on a perspective that top-level management can go one of two ways: strict oversight or no oversight.

The two are pretty self-explanatory. An organization with strict oversight tends to manage for uniformity, making decisions and policies from a centralized source of power. Conversely, an organization that provides no oversight tends to decentralize its power, and play more of a hands-off role when it comes to management.

There are advantages and disadvantages to both styles of management, but that was not what my co-worker and I discussed during our extended lunch break. Rather, it’s the posture of sitting somewhere in between the two where we start to see even strong organizations fail. And, unfortunately, we both agree we are witnessing a sinking ship in the middle of its capsizing.

The fact of the matter is that it is not, in any circumstance, good strategy for a brand to find itself playing center field. To do so is just another way of saying it’s okay to have our cake and eat it too. It’s also the corporate equivalent of not being in ready stance before the start of a football play. Could you imagine an offensive guard trying to protect his quarterback from the opposing line without being crouched in a three-point stance before the ball is hiked? Being ready for the play is crucial for winning in sports and it’s equally important in running a solid and successful organization as well.