Management fad

Management fad is a term used to characterize a change in philosophy or operations implemented by a business or institution.

The term is subjective and tends to be used in a pejorative sense, as it implies that such a change is being implemented (often by management on its employees, with little or no input from them) solely because it is (at the time) "popular" within managerial circles, and not necessarily due to any real need for organizational change. The term further implies that once the underlying philosophy is no longer "popular", it will be replaced by the newest "popular" idea, in the same manner and for the same reason as the previous idea.

Several authors have argued that new management ideas should be subject to greater critical analysis, and for the need for greater conceptual awareness of new ideas by managers. Authors Leonard J. Ponzi and Michael Koenig believe that a key determinant of whether any management idea is a "management fad" is the number and timing of published articles on the idea. In their research, Ponzi and Koenig argue that once an idea has been discussed for around 3–5 years, if after this time the number of articles on the idea in a given year decreases significantly (similar to the right-hand side of a bell curve), then the idea is most likely a "management fad".

Common characteristics

Management fads are often characterized by the following:

• New jargon for existing business processes.
• External consultants who specialize in the implementation of the fad.
• A certification or appraisal process performed by an external agency for a fee.
• Amending the job titles of existing employees to include references to the fad.
• Claims of a measurable business improvement via measurement of a metric (e.g. key performance indicator) that is defined by the fad itself.
• An internal sponsoring department or individual that gains influence due to the fad's implementation.
• Big words and complex phrases (puffery).

Examples

The following management theories and practices appeared on a list of management fashions and fads compiled by Adrian Furnham, who arranged them in rough chronological order by their date of appearance, 1950s to 1990s:

• Management by objectives
• Matrix management
• Theory Z
• One-minute management
• Management by wandering around
• Total quality management
• Business process reengineering
• Delayering
• Empowerment
• 360-degree feedback
• Re-engineering
• Teamwork

Other theories and practices which have been tagged by some observers as fads include:

• ISO 9000
• Six Sigma
• the tendency to replace every occurrence of "data" in compound managerial terminology with "information", see e.g. information integration vs. data integration
• Knowledge management
• Agile software development

See also

• Philosophy of business
• Organizational performance
• Management consulting (Criticism section)
• Dilbert
• Hype cycle
• Business fable

Related reading

• Crainer, Stuart and Des Dearlove, “Whatever Happened to Yesterday's Bright Ideas?,” Across the Board, Vol. 43, No. 3, May/June 2006, pp. 34–40.
• Malone, Michael S., “A Way Too Short History of Fads,” Forbes, Vol. 159, No. 7, April 7, 1997 (ASAP supplement).
• Paul, Annie Murphy, “I Feel Your Pain,” Forbes, Vol. 174, No. 13, Dec. 27, 2004, p. 38.
• Strang, David and Michael W. Macy, "In Search of Excellence: Fads, Success Stories, and Adaptive Emulation," American Journal of Sociology, July 2001, Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 147–182.

For a critique of the practice of branding new management ideas as fads, see

• Collins, David, "The Branding of Management Knowledge: Rethinking Management 'Fads’," Journal of Organizational Change Management, 2003, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 186-204.
• Collins, David, "The Fad Motif in Management Scholarship," Employee Relations, Vol. 23, No. 1, Feb. 2001, pp. 26–37.

For a listicle see:

• The 8 Stupidest Management Fads of All Time, CBS Money