THE ACID TEST
OF MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS
What makes a manager
effective? The answer awaits you on all kinds of little lists. The trouble with
these little lists is that they are always incomplete. For example, where on
this one is basic intelligence, or being a good listener? Fear not—these appear
on other lists. So if we are to trust any of these lists, we shall have to
combine all of them with these pithy quotes of several management gurus of yesteryears....
Ø
Effectiveness is the central issue in management. It is the manager´s
job to be effective - it is the only job.
Ø
Whenever I meet a highly effective manager, I like to discover who hired
the manager, who is the current superior, and who had the most career influence.
That way I might find four effective managers, not one.
Ø
Good universities have an up-or-out system for all new lecturers; why
not other types of organizations, for all new managers?
Ø
People want to work well. A manager´s job is to create the situation
where they can. An effective manager attends all meetings to which a direct
contribution can be made - no others.
Ø
The only difficulty in planning is how to get managers to do it.
Ø
Managers should not do things right, but do right things.
Ø
In every firm some managers could be retired at full salary and profits
would go up.
Ø
Managers should not safeguard resources, but rather optimize resource
allocation.
Ø
Duties constrain managers, results liberate them.
Ø
If the degree of attainment of an objective is not measurable, eliminate
the objective because no one will know anyway.
Ø
If a manager becomes single-minded about achieving objectives, it shows
the game has been learned but not necessarily its spirit.
Ø
Most executive work is simply busy work to fill time.
Ø
Too many managers want to be clever rather than effective.
Ø
Most job outputs are measurable. Even saints had clear key results
areas, running a monastery is as complex
as running a business unit and there is no performance feedback loop
Ø
If two managers are responsible for the same thing, one of them is not
needed.
Ø
The question that managers ought to ask is not what must I do now, but
what must I decide now.
Ø
Anyone can find time to read if it is seen important.
Ø
Managers should work quicker and smarter, not harder.
Ø
I am sorry for the bright young managers, whose first boss isn´t as
bright as they are.
Ø
Energy is often confused with effectiveness.
Ø
Common sense is not very common. That´s the problem in management.
Ø
Shared and joint objectives usually indicate poor organisation design.
Ø
A focus on inputs rather than outputs provides management by subjectives,
not management by objectives.
Ø
Personality conflict seldom occurs, but role conflict often does and is
not recognized.
UNDERSTANDING
THE CORE OF MANAGERIAL WORK
Management
is in practical terms defined as creative problem solving. A manager challenged
to make efficient use of resources; with getting things done through people. Creative
problem solving is broader than problem finding, choice making or decision
making. It extends from analysis of the environment within which the business
is functioning to evaluation of the outcomes from the alternative implemented.
This
creative problem solving is accomplished through four functions of management:
planning, organizing, leading and controlling. The intended result is the use
of an organization's resources in a way that accomplishes its mission and
objectives. this standard definition is modified to align more closely with our
teaching objectives and to communicate more clearly the content of the
organizing function. Organizing is divided into organizing and staffing so that
the importance of staffing in small businesses receives emphasis along side
organizing.
Ø
PLANNING Is the ongoing process of developing the business' mission
and objectives and determining how they will be accomplished. Planning includes
both the broadest view of the organization, e.g., its mission, and the
narrowest, e.g., a tactic for accomplishing a specific goal.
Ø
ORGANIZING is establishing the internal organizational structure of
the organization. The focus is on division, coordination, and control of tasks
and the flow of information within the organization. It is in this function
that managers distribute authority to job holders.
Ø
EXECUTING
is influencing people's behavior through
motivation, communication, group dynamics, leadership and discipline. The
purpose of directing is to channel the behavior of all personnel to accomplish
the organization's mission and objectives while simultaneously helping them
accomplish their own career objectives.
Ø
MONITORING is a four-step
process of establishing performance standards based on the firm's objectives,
measuring and reporting actual performance, comparing the two, and taking
corrective or preventive action as necessary.
MEASUREMENT YARDSTICK- both
carrot and stick ???
You are a manager; you want
to know how you are doing. Other people around you are even more intent on
knowing how you are doing. There are lots of easy ways to assess how you
are doing. Beware of them all. The effectiveness of a manager can only be
judged in context.
Managers are not effective; matches are
effective. Success depends on the match between the person and the unit,
in the situation at the time, for a time. Hence a flaw that can be tolerable in
one context—even be considered a positive quality, such as a compulsive focus
on cost reduction—can prove to be fatal in another. There are no effective
managers in general, which also means there is no such thing as a
manager—someone who can manage anything. To assess the effectiveness of a
manager, you also have to assess the effectiveness of the unit being managed. some units
function well despite their managers, and others would function a lot worse if
not for their managers. So beware of assuming that the manager is automatically
responsible for any success or failure of a unit. You also have to assess
the contribution the manager made to the bottom-line results whether measured
in monetary or non-monetary terms
Managerial
effectiveness also has to be assessed for broader impact, beyond the unit and
even the organization. What use is a manager who makes the unit more
effective at the expense of the rest of the organization? For example, sales
sold so much product that manufacturing could not keep up, and so the company
went into turmoil. Blame the sales manager? For doing his or her job? Shouldn’t
general management be held responsible for managing the whole? Believe this,
exclusively, and you may be part of the bureaucracy that has brought down so
many organizations. All organizations are flawed: unexpected problems can
arise anywhere. Effective organizations deal with such problems in their own
time and place, by whoever is best able to respond. No organization can afford
to have managers put on blinders to do their jobs, refusing to look left or
right.
Imagine if more
organizations were to assess the performance of their units and managers
together, with regard to their contribution to the whole. To repeat what I
think cannot be repeated enough, a healthy organization is a community of
engaged human beings, not a collection of detached human
resources. Moreover, what is right for the unit and even for the
organization might be wrong for the world around it. For example, bribing
customers may be effective for making sales, but is this the kind of
effectiveness we want? Mussolini, the fascist dictator, was famous for making
the Italian trains run on time. In that respect, he was an effective
manager. In others, he was a monster.
Managerial
effectiveness has to be judged and not just measured. Where is the
composite measure that answers the magic question i.e. the overall
effectiveness of a manager. If you think that so many points to assess
managerial effectiveness is excessive, then think about the excessiveness of
efforts that have ignored most of them. The effectiveness of executives has to
be assessed over the long run, but since we don’t know how to measure that, at
least as attributable to any specific individual
|
STRENGTHS FOR A GREAT MANAGER |
|
|
1.
Courageous/
candid 2.
Committed/
dependable 3.
consistent
but flexible 4.
curious
learner 5.
confident/
inspiring 6.
decision
maker -reflective/insightful 7.
open-minded/tolerant
(of people, ambiguities, and ideas) 8.
innovative 9.
communicative
(including being a good listener) 10. connected/informed 11. thoughtful-analytic/objective 12. pragmatic 13. decisive (action-oriented) 14. proactive |
15. passionate 16. visionary 17. energetic/enthusiastic 18. upbeat/optimistic 19. ambitious 20. tenacious/persistent/zealous 21. team worker collaborative 22. engaging 23. supportive/ 24. Emotionally intelligent (sympathetic/empathetic) 25. Stable/ balanced/integrative 26. fair/ ethical/honest 27. results oriented/ accountable 28. execution excellence |
My module of the META+ COACH has a dedicated time for understanding your managerial style and upgrading your strenghts to become a META+ MANAGER
With best
wishes
Dr Wilfred
Monteiro
No comments:
Post a Comment