Competent People

Loyalty to the leader leads the manager to excesses and to coercive management tactics and it leads the direct reports to bad decisions.
Be well,
Dwika-ExecuTrain



"And the Best Management Style for Smart, Competent People Is...."
**Steven Cerri

Here's the situation.
You are a manager. Your task is to assemble the team that will assist you in accomplishing that task. Who do you pick and how do you pick them?

I have generally picked the best people for the job, regardless of their personalities. In fact, I often pick people as my direct reports who are competent enough to do my job. What is or will be your selection process?

Your selection process is going to be driven by a "philosophy", that is often out of your consciousness, but I can guarantee you it will run something like one or more of these:

1. I want my friends on my team. I know we work together well and I know we trust each other...or...

2. I want the smartest people on the team who are my friends because they can get the job done and we trust each other...or...

3. I want the smartest people on the team regardless of whether they are my friends, because I'm in charge and I can guide them and direct them when I need to.

It's probably easy for you to think about your past management situations or, if you are not a manager, you can easily imagine who you'd pick for a project if you were a manager. Which philosophy do you subscribe to?

I use Philosophy #3 whenever I can. It appears that President Bush uses Philosophy #1 and President-Elect Obama uses Philosophy #3 primarily and Philosophy #2 as well.

Here's the motive.
What's the motive behind these various philosophies?

In each of the above philosophies, the manager is attempting to achieve something or avoid something. Usually these are the two main "drivers".

In the case of Philosophy #1 the manager is attempting to avoid the pain and discomfort that comes from the conflict between the manager and his or her direct reports. This conflict is so painful and is so driven by the insecurities of the manager, that the manager seeks out those people with whom he or she can have pleasant relationships and with whom he or she can "easily" stay in charge and in control. This management process is driven by insecurity, a lack of self-esteem, and a lack of personal power on the part of the manager. The only way this manager feels comfortable managing is to have friends on his team.

I've seen this management style in many situations and with many people. It easily morphs into Philosophy #2 and by far the majority of managers function somewhere between Philosophy #1 and Philosophy #2.

(Philosophy #2 is often used in mergers. The new controlling manager brings in his or her "team". These are the people with whom the new lead manager has experience and comfort. This is ultimately why so many mergers fail.)

These two management philosophies (#1 and #2) are driven by "LOYALTY" to the leader. Not loyalty to principles or loyalty to the task or loyalty to a larger purpose, but loyalty to the leader. Ultimately, it's the stuff of tyrants and dictators. It's the trademark of George Bush, Putin, and in an extreme case, Robert Mugabe. As much as I'd like not to place my current president in that category, his personnel selection process has often proved to be based on loyalty rather than on competence. He often doesn't even select people using Philosophy #2.

Because Philosophy #1 and to some extent Philosophy #2 are based on loyalty, it leads the manager to excesses and to coercive management tactics and it leads the direct reports to bad decisions. Decisions based on "what does my boss want me to do?" versus "what is best for the project, task, situation, etc.?" will ultimately lead to failure.


The path often not taken
The more powerful and useful management philosophy is #3. It is much more difficult and also much more effective.

It is based on a management philosophy that draws usually, on immense personal confidence of the manager. That is, the manager has immense confidence in himself or herself. This personal confidence leads the manager to MOVE TOWARDS what he or she wants rather than attempting to avoid the conflict they don't want. Conflict and the avoidance of conflict doesn't even enter the picture. The manager who uses Philosophy #3 is driven by what can be accomplished and he or she believes that they can manage, lead, direct, and win whatever battles and conflicts come up with their direct reports.

Now "win battles with direct reports" doesn't mean "They will do it my way." Winning battles to the Philosophy #3 manager means finding the best idea, the best path, the best solution regardless of who gets credit for it. This is the key nugget the Philosophy #3 manager is moving toward, the best solution, regardless of who gets the credit.

The best solution requires the best ideas which requires the best people generating those ideas. This therefore, leads the Philosophy #3 manager to the selection of people who are often more loyal to ideas than they are to people. This in turn, requires leadership and management that is comfortable managing people to ideas rather than managing people to loyalty.

We have two perfect examples developing now in the management philosophies of President George Bush and President-Elect Barak Obama.

Barak Obama appears to be selecting a cabinet and an administration made up of the best and brightest people he can find. To be sure, he is selecting primarily democrats and to some, he is selecting too many "Clinton Democrats", and to that extent he is selecting via Philosophy #2.

But in comparison to George Bush he is deep into the Philosophy #3 territory.

My experience was...
Throughout my management career, I had a reputation for managing people that other managers did not want to manage, or could not manage.

Time after time, I was given or I accepted direct reports that other managers could not manage or who performed poorly on other teams. Invariably, on my teams these people turned into stars.

Why?

Because they were good at what they did. They were smart and competent. And they were not to be managed based on loyalty. They wanted to be managed based on the task, the greater purpose.

When they worked for managers who demanded loyalty they balked. They resisted direction and appeared to be "not a team player". When they worked for me, I demanded focus on the task and the greater purpose, which allowed them freedom to be competent.

To be sure, managing based on loyalty is often easier. Managing your friends is easier than managing smart, competent people who could take your job away from you. But by utilizing Philosophy #3, a manager can accomplish so much more, and isn't that the job of a manager and leader?

Most new managers don't understand this. Most experienced managers don't understand this either.

Rather than managing your friends, and hoping they are smart and competent, manage smart, competent people and turn them into your friends.

Good luck and be well,

Steven