Why Ownership trumps Management?
Its a dark stormy night and you are sitting at the fireplace finishing the last bits of dinner in your plate. You hear a faint sound of a baby whimpering. You peek through the window but see nothing but heavy rain and swaying trees. You decide to open the door and investigate. Alas — there it is! Someone has left a baby in a bassinet at your door step. You look around and see no one. You start to think — what should I do — take the child in or drop it at an orphanage. The choice here marks the difference between ownership and management.
The baby in this instance is just a metaphor for the kind of opportunities that we get in professional life on a daily basis. There are crying babies all around seeking your attention all the time. You are always torn between which ones to take in to your life and nurture as your own versus the ones to abandon at the orphanage for it to be taken care of by some one else. It is important to understand that the end result in both cases is similar — the baby does get a shelter on its head and destiny will take its course after that. However, the fundamental difference is that people who take ownership more often than not reap the benefits of nurturing that opportunity in their own life. There is no shame in acknowledging the fact that people have differing priorities and these priorities drive their decisions or choices. But the ones who take it upon themselves to see it through tend to possess a much stronger moral fibre which ensures that the struggles of driving that opportunity to fruition are all worth it. They take pride in the challenges that they endure in reaching that stage and wear the scars with a smile — even if it is a tired one. This begs the question — why don’t we have more such people who take ownership and instead, typically, we have more managers.
My assessment — from my own personal opinion — points to 3 key reasons for this phenomenon.
- Transactional Culture in the organisation:
It is often seen that organisations which operate with a purpose of transacting — be it payment against product or payment against service — tend to demonstrate management characteristics at a company level which forms an integral part of the company’s DNA. In such organisations, there is negligible evidence of care for the cause and relatively more evidence of care for the deal. By taking care of the cause or purpose , the company can leave a lasting impression in the customer’s mind who will not hesitate in referring the company to his network and hence the delayed reward for the company in form of more customers. In simpler words, ownership breeds customer loyalty where as management may only be able to achieve customer retention — at best up until that customer finds something or someone more appealing to her needs. Therefore, it is essential that the organisational culture empowers its employees to act as owners as much as possible.
2. Placing undue importance on cost over value:
Many organisations get very hung up on the cost or expense part of the project and forget about the value being generated for the customer. When cost overawes the need for the value, toxic measures that are detrimental to the project become common sights. All so-called strategies are invariably driven keeping cost savings in mind. However, this approach pays minimal dividends to the long term success and sustainability of the project as well as organisation. One of the most important traits of an owner is one who does the right thing for the project — regardless of the cost. As an anecdote — costs are like shoes and project objective is to run— one may save money and buy cheaper shoes if the objective is to only run for exercise. But if the project objective is to win gold at the Olympics, then the shoes are essential tools for the runner and therefore cost cutting does not work in achieving that goal. Owners appreciate and acknowledge this equation, thereby placing value at the centre of the cause and costs at the periphery.
3. Delay in hiring top talent from the market:
This can happen to any organisation — unknowingly and involuntarily. Several organisations pride themselves for creating leaders of tomorrow from internal team members and also have a legacy that proves that this approach works. However, time and again, there have been instances where mega failures have occurred at these very organisations — either due to delay in acknowledging lack of good talent or investing too hard on grooming in-house talent or lack of leaders’ interest in challenging the status quo and continuing the same old methods. The ultimate result though is that the decision loop is too long and its potentially too late by then to recover from. Therefore, it is prudent to ensure that while in-house talent is groomed to become tomorrow’s leaders, the focus is firmly on ensuring that the business objectives are being achieved. If these leaders of tomorrow are ‘managers’ and do not demonstrate strong ‘ownership’ traits, then the decision to hire ready talent must be made immediately. Its possibly time to look for bringing in fresh blood, shuffle the deck and start a new game. At the end of the day, sustainability is more important to the organisation to thrive.
About the author:
Ameya Gore is a seasoned industry veteran with diverse experience in leading business verticals from inception to scale. For more information, visit https://www.linkedin.com/in/ameyagore/.
