| |
1-
Get people to
cooperate
with you...
but also learn
from the reluctant ones and,
if justified,
accommodate them |
 Effective
management makes use of all skills that can be learned at
an MBA program. Still, the skill of managing people is
the most important one. Obviously this is because to be effective, a
manager needs the cooperation of other people. It is relatively easy
to obtain cooperation from some people. But sometimes
this is not the case, and it can create serious problems
if the reluctant person has very valuable skills.
Nora K. is in charge of an Information Systems (IS)
department which develops complex computerization
projects. One of her subordinates, Peter P., has key
technical knowledge but is reluctant to fully cooperate.
He frequently disagrees with Nora on technical matters.
What to do? Disciplinary action, threatening with it, or
any kind of pressure would probably make matters worse.
When confronted with this situation, Nora did what a good
manager does in such cases. She tried to learn as much as
she could from Peter, and gave in to some of Peter's
requests, which were not that unreasonable after all, as
Nora realized after better understanding his reasons. |
|
| |
2-
Make a solid
diagnosis before
acting... and first
of all,
do no harm |
A good medical
doctor would never write a prescription or perform a
procedure without
first making a careful diagnosis. Good doctors also have a basic rule:
first of all, never do harm.
Many managers ignore these principles. At Nora's company,
the Personnel manager noticed that some computer
programmers frequently arrived a few minutes late. He
sent them a memo "chewing them out" for their
alleged lack of discipline. What the Personnel manager
did not know was that these people were working late
hours without being paid overtime. They obviously took
offense, and two of them resigned. Good IS technical
people are in strong demand, another fact the Personnel
manager did not consider. As a result of his blunder, one
of Nora's key projects was delayed for several weeks. |
|
| |
3-
Personality
and situation
analysis as basis for
a solid diagnosis |
The two
elements of a good diagnosis are personality and situation analysis. In the western culture, there
is a tendency to concentrate in the first of those
elements. Nora is a good manager, but one time she made
this type of mistake. A systems engineer, Robin, was
transferred to her department from another unit of the
company. Robin was not performing according to Nora's
expectations. Nora spoke to her boss and demanded that
Robin be fired or transferred, claiming that he was
"lazy", "not very intelligent", and
that his work was not good enough. Nora's boss read
Robin's personal file and saw that his previous bosses
had been very satisfied with his performance. He then
told Nora to find out whether Robin's poor performance
was due to his personality, or to the situation Robin was in. |
|
| |
4-
Is the employee
"stupid and lazy",
or is it
the situation? |
Nora found out that:
1- Robin had been transferred from a small town in the
Midwest to his present job in New York. His salary had
not been adjusted to the much higher cost of living in
NY.
2- His job description was "Assistant Systems
Engineer (S.E)", while the role Nora had expected him
to perform was that of a Senior S.E..
Speaking to Robin, Nora understood that Robin was
distracted by his personal budgetary deficit, and that he
needed more experience and training to become Senior S.E.
Now she realized that Robin's poor performance was not due to his
personality,
that he was neither stupid nor lazy. The problem was the situation Robin was in. |
|
| |
5-
Roles
and the necessary
qualifications of the incumbent
to perform well |
Apart
from his money problems, Robin had a role problem. Roles are positions that
can be defined formally or informally. They are described
as an aggregate of responsibilities, tasks and
expectations on the behavior of the person the role is
assigned to.
Obviously, Robin mistakenly was given a role he was not
qualified to play at that moment.
The role an employee is formally or informally assigned
should not be one that, for whatever reasons, he or she
his not qualified to perform well at a given point in time. |
|
| |
6-
Nora and
Dr. Hume
discuss the effect
of assigning
challenging roles |
A few weeks after Nora had correctly
diagnosed Robin's problem and corrective action had been
taken -adjusting his salary and assigning him the role of
assistant rather than senior S.E.-, she attended a party
and met with her former Human Resources professor, Dr.
Hume. She was very pleased with herself about the outcome
of the episode with Robin, and she described it to Dr.
Hume. The professor surprised her by saying: "Nora,
I still think Robin may be lazy and stupid." When
she asked why he thought so,
Dr. Hume said: " Nora, you are an MBA. Did I not
teach you at Harvard that assigning
challenging roles is a proven way to get people to
respond with more effort and greater commitment? Robin
should have responded well to the challenges of his new
job." Nora blushed, hurriedly said goodbye and moved
on. |
|
| |
7-
Dr.
Hume had
a point,
but... |
On the drive back home, Nora reflected
on her conversation with Dr. Hume. She had to recognize
that, apart from being somewhat
pompous and patronizing, Dr. Hume had made a good point.
Assigning challenging roles may be an effective incentive
for talented and ambitious employees.
But -a very important "but"-, she also knew
that to be effective some key conditions had to be
fulfilled when assigning challenging roles.
Since she now was convinced that Robin was neither stupid
nor lazy, she promised herself to speak to him the
following Monday. |
|
| |
8-
Challenge
your
employees... BUT:
A- Give them the means
to perform well
(training, resources)
B- Establish clear
and realistic goals
C- Keep in mind that
REWARDS
are great motivators |
On Monday, Nora
interviewed Robin and told him:
1- That he would be given specific assignments that were
Senior S.E. level, in spite of the fact that Robin was
only Assistant S.E.
2- BUT -the important but- she added that:
- He would receive appropriate training.
- He could count on the support and advice of herself and
of his more experienced colleagues.
- If he performed well, he would eventually be promoted
to Senior S.E. and get the corresponding rewards.
Nora, being a good manager, understood the importance of
the "buts" listed on the left side of this
frame. |
|
| |
9-
The
two very
different
management styles |
Nora had a management
style that had served her well in her position of IS
manager. She was participative and warm with her
subordinates. She did not bother them with close and
constant supervision, and did not expect them to consult
with her on every small
detail of the job. She managed by objectives. Those
objectives were established by consensus with her
subordinates. She tolerated dissent and encouraged people
to express their opinions freely.
Nora's friend Bill, supervisor of the mailing room, had a
completely different style. He continuously made spot
checks on his subordinates' work. He gave them
little room for decision taking; their tasks were clearly
specified. In short, his management style was performing
very tight supervision.
Nora frequently challenged Bill on his management style,
assuring him that hers was superior, but she had to
recognize that his department was very efficient. |
|
| |
10-
Management
styles must be different
for different
situations.
A Chief of Staff
leading a group of
experienced officers can not act like
a drill sergeant in
charge of a platoon of recruits...
and vice-versa |
The reason why both Nora
and Bill ran efficient shops in spite of their very
different leadership styles is that they managed very
different people who performed very different tasks. The mailroom employees
were in general inexperienced due to a high rotation, and
by personality dependent. The tasks they performed were
simple and routine. In this situation, a tight
supervision tends to produce very good results.
In contrast, the Information Systems department Nora was
leading was staffed by mature, experienced and skilled
people. Their tasks were changing and complex and
required considerable creativity and imagination. In
general, under these conditions a warm and participative
leadership like Nora's produces better results. |
|
| |
11-
There
is not
a single
management style
which is
always the best |
Now, let's speculate on
what would happen if Nora and Bill switched jobs.
Probably the results would be these:
 If they continued with their customary
management styles, they would fail. The mailroom
employees would make many mistakes and make unwise
decisions. The Information Systems people would be upset,
would cease to be creative, and the performance of the
department would deteriorate.
If instead they adjusted to the
different types of people and tasks to be managed in
their new positions and changed their style accordingly,
they would continue to be successful.
A manager must not cling to his customary or preferred
style, but must be flexible and quick to adjust to each
different situation. |
|
| |
12-
The
managers'
dilemma:
To be or
not to be
(a warm, supporting, participative leader)? |
However, it can be
argued with good reasons that in general, a warm and
participative leadership is more effective. People
contribute their creativity and make useful suggestions,
and take more pride in their work.
So, what is a good manager to do? If he or she is
assigned the management of a department like Bill's one,
and applies this type of management, we said he would
probably fail. If he clings to a tight supervision style,
he loses the advantages mentioned above.
A great dilemma. But not unsolvable, at least in part. A
good people manager should aim at evolving his department into the
type that would work well under Nora's type of
leadership.
Hiring better educated people with the right personality
traits, training them well, creating incentives for
employees to stay longer with the company and rewarding
good performance are ways to evolve a group from one
requiring tight supervision to one performing more
effectively under warm and participative leadership. |
|
| |
13-
Check
if
what you believe
is real before
acting |
Let's go
back to Nora's first reactions in the case of Robin. She believed -wrongly- that Robin had been assigned
to her department as Senior S.E.
And why did Robin not speak up when confronted with tasks
that were clearly above an Assistant S.E.'s capabilities?
Because he
believed -wrongly-
that Nora was aware of his actual experience and was for
some reason putting the pressure on him.
Many people act -or refrain from acting- based on their
beliefs before checking if those beliefs are correct. |
|
| |
14-
Do
not act
automatically by
habit...
and check if others
are |
Eventually Robin was
promoted to Senior S.E., was performing well and became
one of Nora's trusted subordinates. One day she asked
him:
"Robin, back when you were transferred to here, why
didn't you tell me that I was giving you assignments
above your capabilities?"
He answered: "Nora, I was not used to speaking up to
my bosses. This attitude had served me well before
".
This dialogue illustrates how sometimes the behavior
of people can be explained by habit. Nora was used to her subordinates
speaking up to her. Robin was used not to speaking up to
his boss.
It is a good practice to investigate if others -or
yourself- are acting based on established habits rather
than on a rational reaction to a given situation. |
|
| |
15-
The End |
This is the end of Managing and Dealing
with People (Smartly Managing the
All-important Human Resource).
If you care to comment on this course, we'll appreciate
it. Kindly email us at comments@mbaii.org
When you are ready take your self-evaluation
test below. |
|
