The impact of ostrich managers on strategic management.

Pryor, Mildred Golden ; Taneja, Sonia ; Toombs, Leslie A. 等

INTRODUCTION

One of the most important roles a manager can play is that of strategist. However, many people in authority function as ostrich managers rather than strategists, thereby limiting their own effectiveness as well as the effectiveness of their organizations. By choosing to positively impact the strategic management of an organization, its leaders can help determine the organization's future as well as its influence on the history and future of the world (Pryor, White, and Toombs, 2007, 1998). Yet ostrich managers choose not to have such positive impact.

METHODOLOGY

The authors developed a survey entitled Ostrich Manager Quick Test (Chart 1) for managers who wish to assess themselves and determine the extent to which they are ostrich managers or strategists.

Chart 1: Ostrich Manager Quick Test

Ostrich Manager Quick Test

The following simple test is provided for managers who wish to
assess themselves to see if their actions would encourage people to
call them ostrich managers or strategists.

Please answer the following questions as: (1) Always, (2) Usually,
(3) Sometimes, (4) Rarely, and (5) Never to determine the extent to
which you are an ostrich manager.

______1. Do you avoid difficult confrontations with others, even
though you intuitively feel that the confrontation is necessary?

______2. Are you unaware of the common work problems faced by
members of your staff (all the way down to the lowest level in your
group)?

______3. Are you unaware of the common personal problems faced by
members of your staff (all the way down to the lowest level in your
group)?

______4. Do you ignore ideas or comments that don't fit within your
paradigms or your view of the world?

______5. Do you make decisions that significantly affect other
people without getting their inputs or without fully knowing the
consequences of your decisions?

______6. Are you hesitant to believe information that is
discomforting or "bad news"?

______7. Do you ever "skirt the truth" to protect people's
feelings?

______8. Do you discourage people in your organization to point out
problems?

______9. Do you discourage other people outside your organization
(i.e., suppliers and customers) to point out problems within your
organization and suggest improvements?

______10. Do you avoid making personnel decisions that would be
difficult for people to handle personally, even though you think
they would be good business decisions for your group or the
organization?

______11. Do you consider only the short-term consequences of
actions and decisions?

Scoring:

11-22 Unfortunately, you're an ostrich manager. Accept this fact
and try to change because this behavior is detrimental to your
effectiveness as a manager and to your organization as a whole.

23-43 The good news is you're not completely an ostrich manager.
You may be middle-of-the-road for all questions or you may have
found that you act like an ostrich manger on some occasions and act
like a strategist on other occasions. Keep up the good work on the
issues for which you're a strategist, buy try to correct the
situations in which you tend to bury your head.

44-55. As a strategist, you have developed the ability to create
your own future as well as the future of your organization. Keep up
the excellent work.

In an attempt to test construct validity and convergent validity, this survey was administered online to graduate Business students who are currently working or have worked in management, supervisory and/or team leader positions. Sixty-eight out of 113 (60%) responded to the survey. The students were able to respond anonymously. The results of the survey are presented in Table 1.

WHAT IS AN "OSTRICH MANAGER"?

The term "ostrich manager" comes from the common belief that an ostrich will bury its head in the sand to protect itself when faced with a threat. In reality, when confronted with a perceived threat, an ostrich will flatten its head to the ground until the threat is gone. By feigning death, the ostrich hopes to avoid a predator's attack. As a result of this behavior, ostriches have achieved notoriety for "burying their heads in the sand" in response to real or perceived environmental threats. This is a very simple strategy--ignore the threat and maybe it will go away. This strategy promotes the concept of "out of sight, out of mind." However, many times the threat does not go away, and this can make the situation worse. By "burying its head in the sand" an ostrich reduces the possibility for success of other potential responses such as fight or flight (Smith & Grosso, 2008).

Some human beings also tend to avoid situations that are perceived as discomforting or threatening. Sometimes they even pretend that these situations do not exist. Since these human beings are replicating ostrich behavior, we have named people exhibiting the behavior associated with this phenomenon as ostrich managers. While it is not productive for any employee within an organization to exhibit this behavior, it is especially detrimental when a manager has this mindset because of the sphere of influence that a manager typically has. The managers at the top of the hierarchy represent the greatest danger. Unfortunately, in some organizations many managers at all levels seem to have an ostrich mentality. Kipp (2004, pp 63-64) suggests that "some (ostrich) leaders have disempowering charisma ... and absorb only the positive projections around them, seeing the world as they wish it to be and resisting both messages and messengers to the contrary."

Similar to an ostrich avoiding a threat by "burying its head," an ostrich manager avoids the truth or reality because it is perceived as threatening or discomforting (Figure 1). Whether this threat or discomfort comes from a dysfunctional relationship with another person, some bit of information, an employee's idea, or another actual or perceived situation, the ostrich manager reacts or responds by ignoring the threat, putting it aside, or pretending that it does not exist.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Even when the correct action or solution is evident to everyone, ostrich managers are experts at rationalizing and making excuses for not taking an appropriate action or permanently solving a problem. Ostrich managers are not leaders seeking development or change. They are bureaucrats who seek safety and status quo. Sometimes, ostrich mangers become lazy or seem to be petrified by fear.

Managers may act like ostriches for many reasons including fear of change and uncertainty, the discomfort of learning and personal growth, the discomfort of unpleasant information, protection of one's ego or position in a company, and the comfort of the current familiar situation. See Figure 1 which depicts the differences in how Ostrich Managers and Strategists perceive threats, how they make decisions based on the perceived threats, and how they act based on the stimuli and their own respective decisions.

WHAT IS A STRATEGIST?

According to Hitt, Ireland, and Hoskison (2008, p. 22), "strategic leaders are people located in different parts of the firm using the strategic management process to help the firm reach its vision and mission." Martin (2007, pp. 60-62) says that people are "drawn to stories of effective leaders in action ... their bold moves, often culminating in successful outcomes, make for gripping narratives. But this focus on what a leader does is misplaced ... because moves that work in one context often make little sense in another, even at the same company or within the experience of a single leader. A more productive, though more difficult, approach is to focus on how a leader thinks" Strategists think differently. They are integrative thinkers who willingly confront messy problems and complex situations. These integrative thinkers are simply putting to work the human capability to simultaneously hold opposing views in constructive tension and contemplate them in such a way that they are able to "think their way" toward superior ideas (Martin, 2007). Kotter (1990) might differentiate a bit differently (i.e., between managers and leaders). He says that management is about coping with complexity and leadership is about coping with change (or perhaps initiating change as they invent the future). So it would appear that Kotter is addressing strategic managers as well as strategic leaders.

Martin (2007, p. 67) goes on to say that "integrative thinking is a 'habit of thought' that all of us can consciously develop to arrive at solutions that would otherwise not be evident." In fact, he suggests that we should teach integrative thinking as a concept in business schools (Martin, 2007). Strategic management courses are an obvious choice of where to teach integrative thinking.

While ostrich managers usually hide from the present and fail to contemplate the future, strategists seem to be passionate about understanding the present and using it as the foundation for inventing the future. Strategic managers and leaders simultaneously develop and execute plans that focus on the short term success and long term viability of their organizations. They understand that strategic execution is the key to long term and short term success(Pryor, Anderson, Toombs, & Humphreys, 2007).

CHARACTERISTICS OF OSTRICH MANAGERS

Since ostrich managers have difficulty acknowledging the existence of (or responding to) threats, their actions tend to be supportive of the status quo and not focused on improving operations and relationships. Threats and discomfort can come in many different forms, and managers may not even realize that they are using an "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" approach. It is possible that ostrich managers may tend to act in ways that are negative for their organization and/or the people involved. For example, they may:

* Avoid co-workers with whom they have differences even though there are good business reasons to communicate with these co-workers;

* Deny information that does not fit within their paradigms or assumptions;

* Avoid information or situations that are real and true, but uncomfortable;

* Be unaware of the common situations that their employees, suppliers, and customers face regularly;

* Allow non-productive circumstances to continue because of the difficulty and discomfort in correcting the situation;

* Avoid solving major problems because of the time and effort required;

* Consistently work with the wrong information or assumptions and make no effort to correct them or seek better data;

* Create a work atmosphere with poor morale and little enthusiasm;

* Be oblivious, or pretend to be oblivious, to the way things really get done within their groups;

* Seek self-preservation and avoid discomfort that might result from conflict, change, bad news, etc.

Forms of perceived discomfort and threats which may cause people to function as ostrich managers are: conflict (Smith & Grosso, 2008), unexpected information or circumstances, loss of reputation, loss of financial incentives, difficult relationships, failure, disappointment, rejection, intimacy or revealing one's true nature to someone, completely trusting someone, additional responsibilities, and seemingly overwhelming or impossible tasks.

OSTRICH MANAGEMENT, RESPONSIBILITY, AND ORGANIZATIONAL IMPACT

Ostrich managers may attempt to avoid responsibility by delegating it to their direct reports. Attempting to delegate responsibility violates a management principle relating to authority and responsibility. People can not delegate their own personal responsibility. When someone delegates to another person the authority to do something, the person receiving the authority is then responsible (i.e., accountable) for doing it. However, the delegator is still personally responsible for the results. For example, the president of a university delegates to people under his or her direction the authority to ensure that hiring practices are legal and ethical. Such authority carries with it commensurate (coequal) responsibility. If in the process of hiring a teacher, a team of teachers violates an equal employment law and the injured person files a lawsuit, he or she could sue (and hold responsible) the team of teachers, the department chair, the academic dean, the academic vice president, the president, et al. In other words, everyone in the chain of command from the president all the way down to, and including, the team of teachers would be responsible for the violation of the law because the president could only delegate his or her authority, not personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility also exists when a person should have known and/or should have done something. When there are major breeches of ethics and/or legalities, sometimes people attempt to prove that they did not know that people under their direction were doing something unethical or illegal. For example, scandals and/or alleged scandals, ethical issues, and illegalities at British Petroleum, BMW, the Catholic Church, Daimler Chrysler, Enron, HCA, HealthSouth, Nyack Hospital, Oral Roberts University, United Way, Volkswagen, World Bank, WorldCom, and other organizations show how organizations are vulnerable to the malevolent intentions of individuals who create chaos and seek personal enrichment at great cost to others, often leaving a legacy of financial ruin (Cleverly, 2002; Davis, 2005; Dougherty, 2007; Evans, 2005; Lindgreen, 2004; Padgett, 2007; Salmon, 2004; Sonnefeld, 2007; and Stires, 2004). From a legal perspective we don't have all the answers about responsibility in all of the above mentioned organizations. However, from a management perspective, the answer is very clear. People can not delegate (or abdicate because they are ostrich managers) their own personal responsibility for the assurance of ethics and legality within the areas under their direction.

Miles and Snow (1978) classified organizations as (1) Prospector organizations which thrive in changing, unpredictable business environments by exploiting new opportunities; (2) Defender organizations which function best in stable environments where they can strive for efficiency and rely on long-term planning; (3) Analyzer organizations that share some of the characteristics of Prospector and Defender organizations in that they focus on operational efficiency, but also on enough flexibility to meet new challenges; and (4) Reactor organizations that do not have a systematic strategy, design, or structure and are not prepared for changes they face. We would add a fifth organizational classification which we would entitle Pretender or Avoider. Organizations in the fifth classification face unique challenges because they are led by ostrich managers or managers who vacillate between functioning as ostrich Managers and strategists. Such managers often avoid facing internal and external realities and the people who could help with those realities.

MOVING FROM OSTRICH MANAGER TO STRATEGIC LEADER

Once managers encounter a stimulus that causes discomfort or a stimulus that is a perceived threat, they choose to respond as strategists or ostrich managers. Figure 1 compares the behaviors of strategists and ostrich managers on several spectrums. As depicted in Figure 1, the strategist will accept all data as being potentially beneficial, evaluate the data, determine its usefulness, and act based on the data. In fact, strategists are especially eager to receive information that is potentially threatening so that their actions can be proactive. Strategists invent the future and, therefore, value each piece of data as a contribution to the future.

Ostrich managers tend not to invent the future. Instead, they protect the status quo because changes are perceived as threats and sources of discomfort. Yet, in the past, ostrich managers who were often successful because they were good at "doing what we've always been doing." They did not rock the boat or make waves. They were squeaky clean, comfortable replicas of the bosses who promoted them. In today's business environment, this generally tends to be a less successful approach.

The good news is that ostrich managers can choose to become strategists. Notice that they must choose this behavior. Knowledge is useless unless it is applied; and awareness is detrimental if it is not accurate. While old habits die hard, it is still possible to change behavior such as ignoring information or pretending that it does not exist. However, before managers can change their behavior, they must change their fundamental assumptions because assumptions are the drivers of behavior. Ostrich mangers hold the following fundamental assumptions: Self preservation is more important than company preservation; short term results are valid predictors of long term results; protecting people from the truth helps them more than revealing to them the truth; and problems will go away or resolve themselves if ignored. The fundamental assumptions of strategists are the opposite: Self preservation is accomplished through company preservation; short term results are not a valid indicator of long term results; people need to know the truth so that they can act accordingly; and problems will only get worse if ignored.

In his book Managing Transitions, William Bridges (1991) offers a quote that reflects that change must be internalized if fundamental assumptions are to be changed:

"It isn't the changes that do you in, it's the transitions. Change is not the same as transition. Change is situational: the new site, the new boss, the new team roles, and the new policy. Transition is the psychological process people go through to come to terms with the new situation. Change is external, transition is internal....Unless transition occurs, change will not work."

After understanding their own fundamental assumptions, managers should evaluate the extent to which they are ostrich managers and decide the extent to which they wish to be strategists. They then need to brief their team members, staff, and others about the need for strategists and the dangers posed by ostrich managers at any level of the organization. At this point, they can solicit help from others in their respective journeys from ostrich manager to strategist. This journey will sometimes be painful for an ostrich manager who prefers safety and security because personal development and growth are often painful as the old self dies and the new self is born. However, becoming a strategist offers the only potential for more long term safety, security, and satisfaction.

SURVEY RESULTS

Of the respondents to the survey, 20.6% were classified as strategists, 1.5% were classified as ostrich managers, and 77.9% were classified as "middle of the road" managers (i.e., those who function as an ostrich manager or a strategist, depending on the circumstances). So, in terms of the complete test, few people were classified as ostrich managers. However, the respondents classified themselves as ostrich managers when answering some specific questions. For example, for Question 1, "Do you avoid difficult confrontations with others, even though you intuitively feel that the confrontation is necessary," 23.9% said always or usually, and another 55.2% said sometimes.

From this study, it appears that managers may exhibit ostrich behavior even if they are generally more inclined to be strategists. See Table 1 for survey results.

CONCLUSION

Ostrich managers tend to "bury their heads in the sand" by ignoring or avoiding information and situations that they perceive as threatening or discomforting. When they act like ostrich managers and ignore or avoid information that is essential to the strategic management, people can have a severe, negative impact on their organizations, themselves, and society. Strategists, on the other hand, eagerly seek all information whether it is good or bad so that it can be integrated and acted upon as they invent the future and set the standards for excellence in their respective organizations and industries. An Ostrich Management Quick Test is provided as Chart 1. This test can be used to determine the extent to which a person is an ostrich manager or a strategist. Ostrich managers can then learn how (and choose) to be strategists.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Being classified as an ostrich manager may not have as much relevance for individual managers or their direct reports as the knowledge that a large percentage of the respondents acknowledged on the Quick Test that they sometimes exhibit ostrich manager behavior. In other words, even though they are strategists, they sometimes or often function as ostrich managers. They sometimes or often make decisions, avoid making decisions, act, or fail to act in ways that are typical of ostrich managers. For those circumstances, the resulting impact on organizations and their people can be negative. A future study should investigate strategic and tactical organizational impact as well as ostrich manager behavior. In addition, researchers should address the extent to which it would be beneficial for organizational leaders to attempt to ensure that they are hiring, developing, and promoting people who have strategist tendencies as opposed to ostrich management tendencies. It may also be worthwhile for teachers to address the potential for negative impact when organizational leaders behave like ostriches.

REFERENCES

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.

Cleverley, W.O. (2002, October). Who is responsible for business failures? Healthcare Financial Management, 46-52.

Davis, W.N. (2005). Church and chapter 11. ABA (American Bar Association) Journal, 91(10). Retrieved November 15, 2008 from Business Source Complete.

Dougherty, C. (2007). Prosecutions of business corruption soar in Germany. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/15/business/deutsch.php

Evans, M. (2005, December). Oversight shortfall. Modern Healthcare, 35(51). Retrieved November 15, 2008 from Business Source Complete.

Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., and Hoskison, R.E. (2008). Strategic Management: Competitiveness and Globalization. 8th ed. United States: Thomson South-Western.

Kipp, Mike. (2004). Why head-in-the-sand leadership sinks ships, Journal of Business Strategy, 25(5), 63-64.

Kotter, J. (1990, May-June). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. 56, 103-111.

Lindgreen, A. (2004, April). Corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 51(1), 31-35.

Martin, R. (2007, June). How successful leaders think. Harvard Business Review, 60-67.

Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Outward Insights. (2005, February). Ostriches and Eagles: Competitive Intelligence Usage and Understanding in U.S. Companies. Burlington, MA: Outward Insights, LLC, 1-8.

Padgett, T. (2007, February 26). Pilfering priests. Time South Pacific. Issue 7. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from Business Source Complete.

Pryor, M.G., Anderson, D., Toombs, L.A. and Humphreys, J. (2007, April). Strategic implementation as a core competency: The 5P's Model. Journal ofManagement Research, 7(1), 3-17.

Pryor, M.G., White, J.C., and Toombs, L.A. (2007, 1998). Strategic Quality Management: A Strategic, Systems Approach to Continuous Improvement. U.S.: Cengage/Thomson Learning.

Salmon, J.L. (2004, March). Area United Way's ex-chief admits $500,000 fraud. Washington Post. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from Business Source Complete.

Smith, T.L., Grosso, J-L. (2008, January). The ostrich effect: Conflict avoidance and the costs of having your feathers plucked. Proceedings of the International Academy of Business and Public Administration Disciplines.

Sonnenfeld, J. (2007, May 14). The real scandal at BP. Business Week. Issue 4034. Retrieved November 15, 2008 from Business Source Complete.

Stires, D. (2004, February 9). Bringing HCA back to life. Fortune, 149(3), 136-138.

Mildred Golden Pryor, Texas A&M University-Commerce

Sonia Taneja, Texas A&M University-Commerce

Leslie A. Toombs, University of Texas at Permian Basin

J. Chris White, President, viaSim

Table 1: Ostrich Manager Quick Test Survey Results

                                     1            2            3
Quick Test Questions               Always      Usually     Sometimes
                                     %            %            %

1. Do you avoid difficult           1.5%        22.4%        55.2%
confrontations with others,
even though you intuitively
feel that confrontation is
necessary?

2. Are you unaware of the           4.5          11.9         34.3
common work problems faced by
members of your staff (all the
way down to the lowest level
in your group)?

3. Are you unaware of the           3.0          10.4         53.7
common personal problems faced
by members of your staff (all
the way down to the lowest
level in your group)?

4. Do you ignore ideas or           3.0          9.0          28.4
comments that don't fit within
your paradigms or your view of
the world?

5. Do you make decisions that       3.0          1.5          16.4
significantly affect other
people without getting their
inputs or without fully
knowing the consequences of
your decisions?

6. Are you hesitant to believe      1.5          16.4         44.8
information that is
"discomforting" or "bad news?"

7. Do you ever "skirt the           1.5          13.4         58.2
truth" to protect people's
feelings?

8. Do you discourage people in      3.0          1.5          7.5
your organization to point out
problems?

9. Do you discourage other          3.0          4.5          16.4
people outside your
organization (i.e., suppliers
and customers) to point out
problems within your
organization and suggest
improvements?

10. Do you avoid making             0.0          10.6         21.2
personnel decisions that would
be difficult for people to
handle personally even though
you think they would be good
business decisions for your
group or organization?

11. Do you consider only the        1.5          6.0          25.4
short-term consequences of
actions and decisions?

                                     4            5
Quick Test Questions               Rarely       Never
                                     %            %

1. Do you avoid difficult          20.9%         1.5%
confrontations with others,
even though you intuitively
feel that confrontation is
necessary?

2. Are you unaware of the           47.8         3.0
common work problems faced by
members of your staff (all the
way down to the lowest level
in your group)?

3. Are you unaware of the           31.3         3.0
common personal problems faced
by members of your staff (all
the way down to the lowest
level in your group)?

4. Do you ignore ideas or           41.8         19.4
comments that don't fit within
your paradigms or your view of
the world?

5. Do you make decisions that       58.2         22.4
significantly affect other
people without getting their
inputs or without fully
knowing the consequences of
your decisions?

6. Are you hesitant to believe      31.3         6.0
information that is
"discomforting" or "bad news?"

7. Do you ever "skirt the           16.4         11.9
truth" to protect people's
feelings?

8. Do you discourage people in      37.3         52.2
your organization to point out
problems?

9. Do you discourage other          20.9         56.7
people outside your
organization (i.e., suppliers
and customers) to point out
problems within your
organization and suggest
improvements?

10. Do you avoid making             48.5         21.2
personnel decisions that would
be difficult for people to
handle personally even though
you think they would be good
business decisions for your
group or organization?

11. Do you consider only the        38.8         28.4
short-term consequences of
actions and decisions?

Chart 2: Ostrich Manager Survey Question 1

Do you avoid difficult confrontations with others, even though
you Intuitively feel that the confrontation is necessary?

Options            Numeric Value      Percentage

Always                         1               1.5
Usually                        2              20.6
Sometimes                      3              54.4
Rarely                         4              22.1
Never                          5               1.5