I wonder if we expect too much of “management”?
In a knowledge-based economy, we supposedly hire staff that has the ability to innovate.
Given a broad description of an objective, the expectation is staff will be able to go away with this, and evolve strategy, tactics as well as an operational means of achieving the objective.
This requires problem definition, identification of alternative solutions, assessment of risk/uncertainty for each, submission of a recommendation as to which alternative is ‘best” and submission of an ROI/timeline.
Surely, management action in the form of go/no go is sufficient with the proviso that priorities may change and require acceleration, slowdown or termination of a project but, otherwise, should we not be able rely on the hierarchy of knowledge workers, supervisors, managers to steer the project, leaving top management to focus on what they supposedly do best?
I think when we cite “lack of commitment” what we are really saying is the implementation was such that it was not self-sustaining. That, for me, means the run-time infrastructure is wrong.
My idea of senior management “commitment” is a periodic walkabout.
I am not a great fan of royalty, but it always impressed me during official visits, how members of the UK Royal Family would stop and take the time to speak to people. It seems from their body language that they have a genuine interest.