business i - Business Link in the South West

Top-down and bottom-up are management approaches much discussed by business strategists. The latter is usually cited as a criticism of the former: top-down is bad because all power and decision-making is held centrally with managers, and bottom-up is good because an inclusive approach - where workers influence and control the strategic direction of a business - provides deeper customer insight, more informed decision-making and a happier workforce.

Bottom-up is indeed the popular choice. Its democratic and inclusive outlook is more aligned with modern ideals and the logic is sound. It makes sense that workers on the ground hold unique insights into customers and business processes, and thus could help their managers improve business performance. And of course, employees who feel part of the destiny of a business are more likely to be motivated, hard-working and loyal.

It does sound like an enlightened way to run a business and manage people. Even so, there are potential dangers hiding under the surface.

Business historian James Hoopes, author of ‘False Prophets’ - a book discussing the  perils of modern management ideas, explains the pitfalls in an interview with Management Consulting News. Hoopes argues that some of the attractiveness of modern management styles such as bottom-up had “been purchased at the expense of realism about the way managers have to operate”. Hoopes continues:

“The sad fact is that in business organisations where profit, not freedom, is the primary goal, it’s top-down power that often gets the job done best. We all need to recognise that corporations are not little models of democracy. If we cover up this reality, we can create serious problems for ourselves.”

The problem, Hoopes argues, is that bottom-up management offers a vision of democracy which is destined not to be realised. Saying no, making unpopular decisions and simply ‘being the boss’ are inevitable aspects of managerial duty. If managers set themselves up as ‘the people’s champion’ they may find themselves in trouble when tough decisions must be made. Hoopes adds:

“If you can create an environment in which people feel free, obviously that’s a wonderful thing. The trouble is, if you oversell the idea that everyone is free and that the workplace is nirvana, eventually there will be a hard landing for some disillusioned people. That can come back and hit a manager in the face.”

Crucially, none of this suggests that the bottom-up approach is inherently flawed or that an authoritarian top-down style is superior. Over-promising the ideals of bottom-up management seems to be the most glaring pitfall, which holds the potential to create long-term management problems. Conversely, a wholly authoritarian approach cuts out the many benefits of bottom-up thinking. There seems to be a happy middle-ground between the two opposing approaches.

You may not be a fan of newfangled management methodologies. Many find their teachings steeped with ideals and lacking enough consideration for practical business realities. One sure reality is that the arguments for and against either approach are, simply, matters of opinion.

The debate about whether top-down or bottom-up is ‘best’ is therefore irrelevant. Every business is different, with different leaders and managers. Strategic management approaches are not to be followed blindly. They are to be thought about, considered within the unique context of your own business, and applied with confidence and precision. That is the job of good leaders.

Interactive tool - Assess your leadership styles and strengths

Brainstorming was first popularised in the 1930s as a creative technique for generating ideas and solving problems. Since then, mixed attitudes have emerged regarding its effectiveness above other methods for sharing and collecting ideas. Nevertheless, it is widely recognised as an enjoyable group experience that can aid team building.

There is no doubting the assertion that employees do have good ideas. In fact, a recent global study by IBM found that the top source of innovative ideas is a company’s employees. Brainstorming is specifically designed to assist the collection of ideas, focussing on quantity over quality, and encouraging more unusual or unorthodox suggestions or approaches. In this sense brainstorming is about ideas - not necessarily ‘good’ ideas.

And herein lies the strength and weakness of brainstorming. It is argued that ideas should be positively considered and developed during a brainstorming session, but criticism or evaluation should not occur - in order to maintain a supportive atmosphere. The more ideas are criticised, the less individuals feel they can openly suggest them.

The strength therefore, is in creating an open and inclusive team environment where ideas are received with equal merit and without prejudice. The weakness is that not only might time be wasted developing bad ideas, these ideas need to be subsequently criticised and evaluated - adding a laborious next step with no guarantee that good ideas will result. Another potential risk is that ideas received positively during a brainstorming session but later dismissed may result in dissatisfaction as individuals feel their ideas have been ignored (it is therefore important to manage expectations throughout the process).

Of course, good ideas may result from brainstorming. Indeed, that one crucial, business changing idea that may never have surfaced without the act of brainstorming, may pop up from nowhere. The point is - brainstorming is not a hugely efficient ideas generation process - but it is a positive and engaging team building exercise.

So what should we learn? They key message is to take brainstorming for what it is: an engaging experience that helps teams feel equal and involved in the ideas generation and problem solving process. But at the same time, it should not be relied upon to generate that next big idea or solve your toughest problems. Even though potentially, it may well do.

Read the guide Lead and motivate your staff which includes advice on team building.