Did you know that car manufacturers tend to choose the letters for their car model references according to the type of buyer they want to attract?
For example, letters around the middle of the alphabet are used when aiming at the family market (like 340L or 570M).
On the other hand, letters towards the end of the alphabet are considered to spark more interest in buyers looking for performance, power, acceleration, and so on (690X, 88Z, etc.). So, what do you think “management” suggests in a business continuity context, and is this word really any basis for long term BC success?
Here’s how one comparison of “management” can be made with another concept, that of “leadership”.
Quoting from a management science handbook, “The core difference between management and leadership is that, whilst the managers have individuals who work for them, leaders have individuals who follow them…
For success to be attained by a business organization, in the long run, those placed in charge bust exhibit both managerial and leadership traits.”
The handbook lists some other differences of note too, characterizing a leader as a motivator; developer, focused on people, with a long-term perspective, and ready to promote new ideas and to challenge the status quo.
With business and technology moving fast, it is logical to imagine that business continuity will need to adapt too.
The static, “business as usual” approach of conventional management may not be enough to allow an organisation to keep up with changes elsewhere. Thus, “business continuity management” may not be the best name for an activity that must innovate and create.
Is “business continuity leader” any better? As the handbook points out, we need management and leadership together to solve the right problems (leadership) and solve them right (management).
What’s your vote for the right name for looking after and developing business continuity? Send us your ideas and we’ll write another blog post all about them!