Sound Management, between myth and reality
476
like it- 11 comments
- ‹ Back to all posts
Today, I’ll answer some of the questions that we’re often asked. And that is, on the one hand, to explain and place the Sound Management concept on the management chessboard of Québec and Canada, and more and more at the international level. On the other hand, to clarify the role of the ISM for the profession of manager in Canada.
The management chessboard in Canada
Into the 2000s, Statistique Canada reported that 14.7% of the Canadian professional activities corresponded to the definition of manager. This definition included directors, top executives, managers, and other persons related to these tasks. At that moment this represented 1,667,300 managers.
Nowadays, from a very conservative perspective, it is possible to estimate in Québec about 350,000 managers, top executives, and leaders capable of taking the administrative acts as defined by the OAAQ.
1.2 (7) “Administrative act:” Demonstration of a manager willingness to use the means required in order to achieve an objective through any event, gesture, action, inaction, or spoken word which expresses a decision to plan, organise, direct, control, or revise the activities of an organization.
In spite of their academic and personal skills, thousands of managers have little or no professional references to sustain their integrity and a Sound Management of the resources they had been entrusted. In Québec, the OAAQ supervises about 2,000 of the 350,000 professionals in management who act as directors, managers or executives. The OAAQ defines the administrator as follows:
1.2 (2) «Administrator»: An individual, who, by fulfilling his functions, executes administrative acts while taking into account the resources vested in him in order to achieve specified objectives within a given environment. This person can be the executive, the manager, the senior-executive, the officer, or the administrator. (In conformity with the articles. 321, 1229, 2213, 2236, 2270 C.c.Q.; 102 L.C.S.A.; art. 83, 123.72, 123.83 L.C.Q.; et art. 80 et suiv. L. coop.) (05-05-2002)
The Sound Management Institute is a non-profit organization having the mission of promoting towards the public in general and all the managers in Canada or from abroad the concept, the model, and the practical tools necessary to ensure a Sound Management, as well as teaching them on its Website, its blogs, articles, and training sessions. It’s important to mention that the ISM is in no way related to the OAAQ.
What do we understand by “Sound Management?”
“Sound Management” is first of all a concept allowing to better define the actions taken by the professionals in management. This concept is a way of mixing together law and society, more precisely the day-to-day reality that the managers have to confront.
Since the management is a complex process, making use of such skills that emphasize certain aspects of the human nature, the interpretation of the administrative act can be related to both the legal context and the managerial one.
That’s why the Sound Management has its origins in a rule of law society, but also in the ethical values that should be at the basis of the relationship between the mandator, that is the person who entrusts the power and the resources to another person, that is the mandatary. In Sound Management, the professional manager is defined as the fiduciary of the resources that had been entrusted to him.
Origin of this concept
In the early ‘90s, Bernard Brault F.Adm.A, FCMC together with a high level multidisciplinary team, developed the 6 fundamental principles and norms that were to constitute later the Sound Management concept and model.
Mandated by the OAAQ as president of the Professional Practice Development Committee for more than 17 years, Mr. Brault was very much involved in the writing process of about 320 principles, norms, definitions, and recommendations that were collated in 7 chapters.
These auxiliary rules of legal-administration, almost the same as in accountancy, have an important role in emphasizing the Sound Management obligation.
These professional norms have been developed starting from the matrix model of “finite elements” that allows ensuring a comprehensiveness aspect of the management field. Therefore, the management best practice could be audited and an opinion of conformity could be issued. The Sound Management concept and the Generally Accepted Sound management Principles (GASMP) were created to better define the profession of Chartered Administrator C.Adm.
The mission of the Institute of Sound Management
Since these rules and the Sound Management concept can be applied to any public or private management activity, it is on these grounds that the Institute of Sound Management (ISM) takes action.
Finite elements matrix approach
The ISM wishes to make better known the power and the professional authority implied by the Sound Management concept and matrix. Its anticorruption characteristic is not to be neglected either. The Sound Management is better defined by the matrix model that combines the 6 principles of Sound Management with the classic managerial functions. This matrix allowed the conception of the Sound Management Framework (SMF) suggested by the ISM.
The SMF defines an environment favourable to practice a management in conformity with the Sound Management concept. The SMF suggests to the administrator the actions to be taken in conformity with the GASMP. Highly practical and adjustable for each type of public or private organization, the SMF explains the WHAT and the HOW of the day-to-day activities.
The finite elements approach ensures a comprehensiveness aspect to the management process, more precisely the capacity to conclude and finish the decision-making process by taking coherent actions and eliminating the loopholes.
To sum up, Sound Management is first of all a concept based on a rule of law society and on the ethical comprehension of the relationship between the mandator and mandatary. The all-purpose character of the Sound Management allows avoiding the pitfalls of the personal ethics and moral code.
Gilles Auger CA Adm.A CMC
11 comments
Excellent explications sur le Saine Gestion… Clair comme le crystal… Un des meilleurs blog de ce site!!! Il faut vite traduire!
Sandra
Senior Manager
C’est un article qui rend à César ce qui revient à César! Bravo à Mr. Gilles!
Heinrich Ferhardt
Vous dites que “presque universelle “, pourquoi ne pas “complètement universelle”? Gestion saine et rationnelle comme vous le proposez ça sonne vraiment bien. Dommage, il est seulement utilisé au Canada.
Tim
Googgle give interesting translation explanation for sound management. When english copy online because we are very interested here in Russia.
Igor
Bonjour, moi aussi, je suis d’accord avec les autres visiteurs, ce blog est vraiment le plus instructif jusqu’à maintenant sur http://www.sainegestion.org. C’est presque comme des notes de cours. Félicitations à Mr. Auger pour cette excellente vulgarisation.
Salutations du Liban,
Michel
Saine Gestion… Est-ce un concept québécois ? J’ai fait les HEC, mais je n’ai jamais entendu l’expression consacrée de cette manière. J’ai exploré votre site, mais je ne suis pas certain de comprendre comment en gérant à vos préceptes, on ne doive pas pour autant renoncer à faire des profits. Faire des profits, n’est-ce pas là justement le premier geste « malsain » qu’on fait sur les dos des autres, comme si on les volait impunément ?
Romulus
Mr Romulus,
En bref Saine Gestion s’articule autour de la mission de l’organisation. On y ajoute la question éthique du mandataire dans sa relation avec le mandant. Saine Gestion n’est ni de gauche ni de droite ! Au milieu des années 1990 plusieurs professeurs (chargés de cours) prenaient l’initiative d’en faire la présentation. Disons qu’un changement de garde a fait oublier le concept. De là, notre rôle maintenant. Il faut lire l’article de Gilles Auger http://www.sainegestion.org/archives/1812.
Monsieur Auger,
Au travers de votre site et des différents blogues, vous soutenez que la Saine Gestion n’est pas incompatible avec les sociétés à but lucratif. Or, à part votre principe d’efficience qui, par extension nous rappelle la notion d’économie des moyens, je ne vois pas aucune référence à la notion de bénéfice, de rentabilité ou même de profit. Je ne pense pas que de clamer être efficient saura satisfaire les conseils d’administration des grandes sociétés. Ne vous manque-t-il pas alors un principe de rentabilité?
Jacques
Bonjour Jacques,
Merci de votre commentaire, il est des plus pertinent. Dans le modèle de Saine Gestion, la notion de rentabilité n’est définitivement pas exclue. Néanmoins, nous considérons qu’elle n’est pas un principe en lui-même mais plutôt une résultante de l’application homéostatique des principes fondamentaux de saine gestion en conjonction avec les cinq fonctions de gestion. Nous voyons le respect des principes et normes de saine gestion comme un pré-requis à la viabilité économique de toute organisation et particulièrement dans le cas d’une société à but lucratif, cette viabilité passe entre autres et de manière incontournable par faire des profits.
Gilles Auger, CA Adm.A CMC
Bonjour Alejandra,
Malheureusement c’est ni l’un ni l’autre et bien que le modèle proposé soit supporté par un ordre professionnel il n’a pas fait l’objet d’une réglementation de la part de nos législateurs. Cependant, de plus en plus d’avocats s’en inspirent devant les tribunaux pour démontrer une mauvaise gestion c’est-à-dire une gestion non conforme aux principes et normes de Saine Gestion prônés par l’Ordre des administrateurs agréés du Québec.
Gilles Auger CA Adm.A CMC
Monsieur Auger,
Merci de votre réponse. Cependant, je dois vous avouer, je ne suis qu’à moitié satisfait. Pour moi, une organisation sans but lucratif se doit d’être efficiente. Mais une organisation à but lucratif, même une société d’État, se doit d’être plus qu’efficiente; elle doit afficher des profits. La notion de rentabilité est une des valeurs fondamentale qui soutient une organisation, pas seulement la résultante de quelques valeurs nobles. On se lance en affaires pour faire des profits, à moins bien sûr d’être Mère Thérèsa! À mon avis, si vous ajoutiez le principe de rentabilité en “homéostatique” avec vos autres principes (pour reprendre votre image), vous auriez une base de gouvernance solide et plus crédible auprès de gens d’affaires.
Jacques
