Management Misunderstood
| Author | Christine Lawrie |
| Date | 01 March 1989 |
| Published date | 01 March 1989 |
| DOI | 10.1177/026455058903600124 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
48
Management
Misunderstood
Had
we
been
advocating
a
centre-
periphery
model
of
management
in
our
article
(Probation
Journal,
Sept
1988)
Bill
McWilliams’
criticisms
(Dec
1988)
would
have
been
justified,
but
we
were
not.
Managers
are
responsible
for
the
formulation
of
policy.
This
does
not
mean
that
they
have
to
create
it
them-
selves
or
without
reference
to
others
in
the
organisation -
indeed,
good
mana-
gers
recognise
the
importance
of
con-
sultation
and
of
harnessing
the
creative
energies
of
all
employees.
The
buck
stops
somewhere,
however,
and
it
is
managers
who
have
the
responsibility
for
ensuring
that
an
organisation
has
the
policies
it
needs
and
that
they
are
put
into
practice.
When
responsibility
is
not
clearly
located
clarity
of purpose
suffers,
those
who
deserve
praise
or
blame
cannot
be
identified,
and
mediocrity
and
low
morale
follow.
This
is
bad
management
as
much
as
the
kind
described
by
Bill
McWilliams.
Our
proposal
explicitly
states
that
managers
should
be
held
accountable
for
the
effects
of
their
de-
cisions
and
actions
on
others.
Ruth
Forrester
(Dec
1988)
suggests
that
we
did
not
take
into
account
per-
sonal
development
and
that
we
were
pre-occupied
with
the
achievement
of
statistical
targets.
Nowhere
do
we
assert
that
objectives
have
to
be
statis-
tical,
and
we
acknowledge
the
signifi-
cance
of
ethical
and
personal
factors
in
the
work
of the
Service
and
the
need
to
include
these
in
the
appraisal.
We
stress,
however,
that
all
activity
by
workers
should
be
consciously
directed
towards
the
goals
of
the
Ser-
vice,
whether
these
are
immediate
or
long-term.
Personal
development
is
legitimate
as
long
as
the
consumer
be-
nefits
from
it.
Christine
Lawrie
ACPO,
Derbyshire
To continue reading
Request your trial