probably this is because of the rapidly changing environment where managerial skills needs to change accordingly but most of the managers fail to shift. or other reason could be because of the difference between theory and practice. what managers learn in their MBAs is often not relevant in practice.

i found one article on causes and consequences of managerial failure.

Dear Harshita

Thanks for the very interesting paper that you have attached. Much appreciated. But I am a bit surprised at your remark that "What managers learn in MBAs is not relevant in practice." Actually, they might have learnt poor theory with which they find it difficult to distinguish between what is happening in the field and what a theory argues. I agree that there are some contextual factors in practice that differentiate the practical reality, and that has to be sufficiently explained theoretically. Kurt Lewin .has very rightly said, "there is nothing so practical as good theory." I fully agree with this.

In Organizations the Performance has no "END POINT" it is a progressive point of endeavor, hence managers who know  how to keep moving with the "Raising BARS" can only excel, other can survive with the association and synergy of others... else exit...

Yes, both of you--Krishnan and Alexandre--have very important points to make. There is no end to excellence; sky is the limit. But human ingenuity has limits. Managers need to use appropriate tactics to carry out the strategy. Relationships do not remain informal as in smaller organizations because a good number of people work together. All these factors, among others, contribute to complexity.

The managerial post in a large organization is a heavy burden, indeed. Start from the beginning, the manager has to state the simple prediction of success or failure. If matters are transparent enough in the organization, then the failure will be tolerated & many helping hands will ensure no embarrassment for the manager.

As dear Debi knows, in many 3rd world countries there are persons who strive to get the top post of an organization without thinking about the consequences. Even if the managing is a series of failures, there will be an effort to highlight "false" achievements in order to keep that post. We need to see matters from a different prospect "that each one is a soldier & an officer in the organization and the switch from this service to that must be accepted in good spirit". There is no logic of becoming at the top & staying at the top until one becomes a "senile" old person.

The war goes on inside organizations, people fight for power or for survival. Justice does not come into account when the renderings. Rather often deals are made based on politics and not on merit or on personal performance.

A few reasons I can think of are:

Good literature related to the subjects can be found here:

http://www.rhrinternational.com/100127/pdf/ei/V23N2-Management-Failure.pdf

http://www.thewisdomjournal.com/Blog/20-reasons-managers-fail/

The main reason must be detected inside the organisation (bureaucracy and exaggerated competition). Only in rare cases it is a problem related to personal capacity,

In large companies, there are a number of medium-level managers. Some can 'hind' and get unnoticed. Some amy blame other departmetns for his/her own failings. Some large companies are poorly organised and responsibilities are unclear and things do not get done in good time.

In a small company, things become apparent and responsibilities are clearer.

During your career you should be promoted through higher and higher posts till you achieve limitation of your competence (knowledge, experience, leadership, etc.). Then you stop your career and stay on this post. Level of this post is individual issue. But a lot of employers cannot stop on this post and try (e.g. due to financial, prestigious issues, etc.) to climb higher. There are posts too high for his/her competency, and they make much more errors than usually. Sometimes will help postgraduate education, sometimes co-workers or family, but not always. 

In the threads above all colleagues have focused on problems with the organization structure including excess bureaucracy, lack of career development (Nages, Emilla ) but some are suggesting that along with the structure also relevant is the issue of lack of capability of the person concerned (Nages, Huajiang ) in the context of functioning of larger organizations. Indeed, both are right. Both sets of issues are involved when we start looking for an answer. But dear Lerardi thinks that incapacity is never the issue; the organizational policies are to blame.

In these days of changing economic scenario, customer perceptions and competition, it is challenging for every manager to be In-charge of their existing roles and at the same time be aware of the happenings Cross-functionally...

Functional excellence will help a Manager to grow within a department and manage day-to-day indices, but on a net worth for organizational role aspirations it will not help them. There Cross-functionality coordination plays a vital role, this creates a synergy bond development with the contributing departments and pushes the 'Org.Goal" to be achieved with ease...

Dear Krishnan

Very well said. Today, one of the top concerns of organizational working is inter-departmental coordination. A lot of conflict and bickering is seen amongst managers in this connection. If a manager has patience and cooperative disposition, this is bound to reflect on her/his managerial competency. This is also reflective of the positivity in the persona of the manager. I feel, there needs to be a judicious combination of concern for results and concern for people/emotions. These can go a long way in determining the success of a manager.

Corporate governance and transparency are the main reasons for the success or failure of management. In addition, routine and organizational conflict can also be reasons for poor management.

I agree with all contributors as every one has certainly added valuable points. I find reply from respected @Dr. Rao tremendously good. I think some managers fail because they tend to monopolize and can't afford to help others to succeed/rise.

Respected @Prof. Kamal is right to mention such managers have short-sided vision for their organization(s). Therefore, managers who know how to keep moving with the "Raising BARS" can only excel, well said @Krishnan Umachandran.

From a pragmatic perspective, managers in large organisations may fail for a number of reasons. The most obvious include:

1. Bounded rationality

2. Work overload

3. Unrealistic expectations from senior management

3. An acute focus on the internal environment of the organisation

Well said, I endorse your comments, respected Prof.Kamal.

Thanks for the additional threads. Dear Mahfuz, i agree; the way the organization is governed is counter-productive to the efforts of managers, and lead to under-performance.

Dear Mohamed, the points you have listed are very interesting. But when we compare the large with the SMEs, the difference is the possibility of impersonalization in the large organization. This may be  due to the sheer size and the number of relationships. Rules come in between in a big way, which may also obfuscate realistic working. Managers are expected to demonstrate a higher incidence of  emotional intelligence so as to respond to the needs of formalism with better understanding. I was wondering if this dynamics plays its role in adding complexity to the managers' role.

Dear Debi, interesting theoretical point I must confess, and I could not agree more. Unfortunately, in practice reality is much different. I think it may be worse in SMEs since for managers. At least this is what I have experienced in my working life. Perhaps it might be too risky to generalise, it depends on a host of other things.

Overall I am thankful to you for your very keen thoughts.

In any type of organizations, some managers may fail and just survive, some may excel. Managerial success is not wholly dependent on type of organization . On the contrary, it is dependent on the capability, adaptability, inventiveness and decision making ability of the manager. Entrepreneurial managers  with vision are likely to excel more, whereas managers looking for short-time gains are likely to fail in the long run.

I'd say it's largely about autonomy. I think some people fit a large (or small) organization mentallity. Some like its rigidity and control and thrive, other hate or fight against too much structure - or bury themselves in it as a way of avoiding it.  Being more individualistiic/collcecive would be one of the characteristics I'd posit makes a big difference,  Do you want to succeed personally or do you want the organization to succeed (and hence gain because of it)?  Some manage both very well however, jumping from one organization to the other whilst progressing their career!   These you have to be careful of keeping too long.. but just long enough ! 

Jaharkanti, I am in agreement with Richard to some degree,specifically in the area of autonomy, which can be associated with the culture of the organization.  In addition to that, I believe it is because of a lack on knowledge and training.  In old large organizations that have survived for decades, some of the management staff has survived as well, using old management technology.  Old management techniques do not mix with new knowledge and new technology. The mixture creates chaos.

In contrast to the leadership in SME's, they realize they are the make or break of the organization, and survival depends greatly on their ability to successfully manage with savvy skill-sets.  Granted, some make it and some do not. However, it all boils down to plan Jane "Accountability" and the need for re-training to acquire new skill-sets in leadership. Unfortunately, true leadership ability has waned in American companies compared to previously.  Otherwise.... look what has happened in the world of employment.

Beverlyn 

Don't forget the Peter Principle.  People will keep getting promoted until they reach their level of incompetence.  Once they have been promoted out of their competence zone they will not get promoted further. People typically will not step down to a lower position. The Peter Principle is more likely to hold true in large bureaucratic organizations.

There is a very large body of research that goes back decades. There is never one single reason for manaagerial failure; indeed, taking a systems perspectivve and also examining the structural and processual attributes of organizational life and the organization's environment are critically important. One needs to go beyond the individual's attributes.  I find the case studies in the "Harvard Business Review" quite helpful, as well as theory and empirical research in the top-tier sociology, political science, and business journals. There are also a number of books on "leadership" that attempt to identify successful leadership qualities.

I can offer very little information or suggestion regarding this question. First, I think large organisations are synonymous with bureaucracy (red tape) which is also associated with: too much delays, huge paper work, incompetence, corruption, frustration, and low staff morale. Second, bureaucracy breeds inefficiency, ineffectiveness, or impunity. In such large organisation, it’s difficult to assess or measure staff performance including managers (especially the line managers). For example, if the supervisors are inefficient, then the organisation will follow suit. This may intensify to an extent where the survival of a manager can even be said to be good luck. On the other hand, managers or organisations that excel are usually associated with best OD practice, customer care oriented or focused, compliance with strategic plan, time line assessment or appraisal of managers, input-output assessment of staff, and less bureaucratic or decentralised decision making process (practice).Key to the success of an organisation is good human resource management with a focus on staff or personnel motivation or incentives. I am sure that a lot of has been done on this subject and much more is being done across the world.

peter's principle, ego, lack of balancing new functions

There is another factor, I assume. Large organizations tend to make hiring people a seperate function, whereas in small companies this is usually done by the people who oversee the areas the new employee will be working in. And to a certain degree small companies will hire someone to take some of the workload off their own shoulders. So, the perceived competence of the applicant has a lot of weight in that decision, just like how much he will fit into that certain area of the company.

Even though these decisions cannot be based on hard facts and there is a lot of room for individual failure, most of these failure probabilities multiply in large organizations where the HR department will take over the much of the decision process.

Competence will be judged, but it will - to a large extent - be judged solely on the qualifications the applicant has. My personal experience is that the connection between formal qualifications and individual qualities is rather loose. So, qualities will be overlooked regularly and qualities will be misjuedged just the same.

The apllicant-department fit may not even be judged at all. Even if the HR department tries to take this into consideration, it might not just misjudge the applicant's spirit, but also the the spirit of his future department.

And after the hiring process took place, a lot of the factors that were already mentioned emerge. One of the most important in my opinion is, that the typical middle manager job certainly destroys a lot of the qualities we would like to see in these people once they climb up another step on the corporate ladder.

I am fully agree with the answers of Prof. Nageswara Rao Posinasetti , Prof. Krishnan Umachandran and Prof. Kamal Eddin Bani-Hani.

Managerial behaviour is only adequate in bureaucratic organizations. In more complex environments they will fail if they stick to the norms of bureaucracies. In our research, not yet published, we see a misalignment of 34% between the complexity of the environment and its organization type. These companies should transform themselves into more open organizations, which are better able to cope with modern-day complexities.

A manager's "vertical" level of development plays a major role in the quality of complexity he or she is able to engage, the kind of feedback s/he is able to offer and process, and the number of time horizons s/he is able to integrate.  For a study that accounts for a very large percentage of the variance of which CEOs succeed and fail in supporting their organization to transform, along with a very careful review of threats to validity, see my June 2013 article "Listening into the Dark" accessible by googling integral-review.org  The review of the study starts on the 18th page of the article.  

I am not familiar with the statistics you mentioned, however there might be a different reason for that observation. Many SMEs struggle with managerial difficulties which subsequently lead to the organizations demise. Statistically, 66% of SMEs fail in the first 6 years (cf. Timmons, J. A., 1994) and especially threshold firms seem to struggle with management issues. From personal experience in my work with SMEs I can also say, that many of them are on the brink of failing due to bad leadership or bad management. However, since the failure rate in the first 6 years is so high, I think that most incidents of “management failures in SMEs” are not observed.

Debi - 

I do not think that the management positions in large organizations are generally difficult in which to excel.  In my experience, and those of many others, see the link below for opinions, the problem is that those who occupy such positions generally 'arrive' there for the wrong reasons. One may be talented at obtaining a position, but not at all fit for that position.  Many are shockingly ill-informed, and not interested in learning what they need to know.  Further, the uncooperative nature of many of these would-be 'leaders,' and their entitled attitudes, can be a huge obstacle.  Often more progress is made when the manager is absent. Such positions can remain vacant indefinitely,  without negative impact.  

Consider the reaction that W. Edwards Deming received last century when he tried to improve quality control in the US.  He was rejected.  He then went to Japan where circumstances were ripe for managers to listen and cooperate at that time, and the results were staggering. 

Thanks - Jim 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_might_responsible_decision_making_be_encouraged?_tpcectx=profile_questions

Base on the size of the organisation, effective communication within the team members by communicating the changes among everybody from the top management down the hierarchy and the top management should encourage,motivate and especially always be active in any formulated continuous improvement plans  as Deming maintained that most shortcoming or defects are as a result of faults in management.   (Lean Journey).

H Debi,

the key word is LARGE organization. In LARGE organization managers have more inputs from different parts of company and from the market. And of course there are many chances to make mistakes and huge mistakes. If manager who works in large organizations doesn't know to recogfnze and "read" all inputs and present them on right way, there are a lot of chances to make big mistakes before or later.

On the other hand, large organizations can tolerate mistakes which are done by some managers. It is very simple to explain: large organizations have support from other parts and other busnesses (let's say in telecom oparators: if manager who is enganged for post-paid private part makes mistake(s), it/they (mistake(s)) can be covered from pre-paid part and from business post-paid part of the company). Also, such large companies usually have a (large?) reserve of money and that money can be used for covering of lost that is caused by manager's mistake(s).    

Best regard.

Igor   

In my second contribution, I shall add just a simple note. From my observation of managers who have failed but they stayed for a longer time than expected in developing countries; they were supported by "artificial means" - just like a patient who is supported by instruments in the hospital to stay alive- & in most cases, the system or the establishment was on their side. Of course, failure will be transformed from macro- to micro-scale and ,later on, there will be false claims about the competence of the failing manager in the "propaganda machine".

I have been asking myself the same question recently because I wanted to correlate organisational performance to leader's competencies. However, it turned out from my observations that numbers of leaders excel because they practice politics instead of management taking advantage of their close relationship with influencial stakeholders to comfort their leadership positions. Those who survive maintain a slowdown position expressing their unhappiness about the situation. I have also seen managers fail in their mission because they were confronted to the challenge of a real achievement wherein they should rely on their own executive skills and not on any political advantage.

In a large organization for survival and excellence, four factors: competence, credibility, confidence and connections are important. Further, one who is proactive and possesses the ability to plan as per SWOT in the business environment , not only survives but also excels.

may be due to lack of strategic alignment.

Why Great Managers Are So Rare by ! Gallup

to me, affective leadership comes from within. to know your own competencies and were and what behaviors anyone can flourish at.

also it takes intra And extrapersonal skills. when one figures out his or her own qualities of expertise it becomes relatively easy to notice others qualities of expertise as well, and leading through experience and knowledge.

A central them to the leadership ability of anyone is how anyone see's the world and the people withen it. if everyone is of equal value just for being, then that's a trait of a competent leader.