REFLECTIVE PRACTICE
Management branding (MB)
Performance improvement through contextual
managerial behavior development
Alin Aurelian Posteuca˘
Exegens Management Consultants SRL, Bucharest, Romania
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to improve business strategies approach by performance
improvement through contextual managerial behavior development.
Design/methodology/approach – Management branding is the result of deep analysis and
observations made in many multinational companies, especially in the automotive industry.
Management branding is the answer to pressing questions such as: ”What is wrong with our
implementation of lean principles?”. The paper uses various methods of scientific research (definition
and checking of assumptions, field research, laboratory research, questionnaires and interviews).
Findings – Often, the partial failure of key performance indicators is derived from managers’
behavior. Often, managers are frustrated at the end of the assessment period because of the total or
partial failure of key performance indicators. Often managers seek solutions that are too old; they were
valid in the past but are inappropriate for current decision challenges. Too often managers rely on past
experience for today’s decisions, to the point where making decisions based on preconceived ideas is
no more than one step.
Research limitations/implications – Future developments will focus on testing the management
branding methodology in public and non-profit organizations and on defining the major types of risks
of various decisions taken using contextual managerial behavior identities.
Practical implications – Management branding definitely has practical implications, such as
“calming down the organizational climate” and increasing the chances of meeting key performance
indicators. Understanding the business and social character and wise use of management branding in
the everyday life of companies can create premises for strategy improvement in companies in any
industry, all around the globe.
Originality/value – This paper promotes new concepts such as management team by contexts,
desirable behavior, contextual behavioral strategy, etc.
KeywordsManagement techniques,Management strategy, Corporate strategy, Business improvement,
Lean production
Paper type Conceptual paper
1. Introduction
Recently, more and more companies have adopted lean manufacturing systems (lean
principles) to support the delivery of strategic objectives.
Many companies have implemented parts of lean techniques only in productive
areas or in certain productive areas (especially in production areas). This means that
some company areas (generally support areas) are excluded or at least not actively and
continuously involved in the application of lean principles, and managers’ messages
are often contradictory.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-0401.htm
Management
branding
529
International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management
Vol. 60 No. 5, 2011
pp. 529-543
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1741-0401
DOI 10.1108/17410401111140428

Within multinational companies, the lean culture of the parent company is often
implemented on a phased basis, sometimes with great delays and/or in different ways
within different parts of the group, irrespective of any training or audit programs carried
out. In the author’s opinion, this is at least partly a result of the
area/ethnic/religious/historic cultural imprint. As a result, many companies have
registered and still register failures in the consistent implementation of lean techniques.
Those familiar with the concepts of lean principles will know that companies must
continuously capture customer needs to continuously redesign work flows
accordingly, to seek standard ways and times for completing work processes (based
on the Takt time). To practice these disciplines effectively requires a certain type of
mentality, a certain set of values, a set of contextual, expected, assumed and repeatable
behaviors, regardless of the current context of the company.
Maintaining improvements (as the new standard practice) was and still is one of the
most challenging concerns of companies, especially for companies applying Lean
principles.
A company often achieves spectacular performance in the early days of adopting lean
principles. For a relatively short period of time the company maintains a strong desire
and a strong focus on the elimination of waste and delivering value to customers. Then
“contexts” that dilute the unconscious desire appear, for example changing the
management team and/or a considerable number of employees, a significant change in
customers’ needs, changes in suppliers’ practices, strong pressure from competitors,
technological/operational changes or changes that come from shareholders, etc. I have
seen in many companies a substantial rebound of performance targets after a certain
period of substantial achievement. This “concentration dilution” occurs in the first place
to managers and then, by example, to all company employees. This change in
management behavior – though perhaps only slight – means that the organization’s
strategic objectives are not fully supported. If a longer-term focus and directed effort is to
be maintained, firm targets should be set for management behavior (based on agreed
values) linked to the results expected from the implementation of a lean culture.
The continuous filtration of the “contexts” referred to above by the entire
managerial team, in line with business objectives and lean principles, is a major factor
in the continued fulfillment of lean goals. So, the organization needs a contextual
managerial behavioral identity. When managers show contradictory behaviors, stress
can be created among operators, a condition with direct implications for productivity
and quality levels.
In the absence of such a contextual managerial behavioral identity continuously
stated, assumed, expected and subsequently copied by all employees, resistance to
change is often paradoxically more observable at the management level.
The author believes that many employees leave their jobs because of the behavior of
their direct manager or that of the whole managerial team. This, in turn, is because
managers send contradictory signals based on common misunderstandings of current
contexts, and especially of future ones.
Enough companies have had, and still have, improvement projects with volatile
results or results that are non-concordant with other projects in that particular
improvement area or along the product family processes. Many companies still have
systems of internal suggestions unfocused contextually on loss areas. These systems are
still operating at a declarative level, especially for unproductive areas within companies.
IJPPM
60,5
530