« Again, a Taser would solve this | Main | HOW DOES THIS HAPPEN? »
I will now tell you the one central principle of being in charge, aka, being a manager:
You manage things, you lead people.
That's it. If you truly understand that, you can walk into any management position, and do a kick-ass job. If you don't, you are forever going to suck at being in charge.
Like many such principles that are simple to state, yet complex to understand, you could spend all day explaining this one to the clueless. But I'm a bit curious here. What's this principle mean to you, and if you disagree, why?
Technorati Tags:
Good Leadership, Management Principles
Posted by John C. Welch at 16:33 | Permalink
Comments
Mr. W., I'm *compelled* to disagree, if only by my experience of the past five years, observing an educational services company try to expand, while watching a parade of plug-in b-school-grad managers attempt to run a publishing division without the skill set needed to understand day-to-day/quarter-to-quarter issues, or even the distinction between the production line for "product" as opposed to the cubicle-farm for "services."
The ability to lead people is just *one* of the requirements for good management. But even the best-intentioned suits can do a lot of unintentional damage before having realized how much more they needed to know before assuming the job.
If our Manager of Production isn't, say, the best print production artist in the room, how qualified is he to hire production artists, and assess their work each week?
Posted by:
Moeskido 
|
April 5, 2008 4:50 PM
Hmm, I don't disagree with the principle but the implementation can be pretty tough.
Not everyone is a leader. Knowing that management is leadership doesn't make you a leader.
I speak from experience as a pretty dismal failure in a management role. My direct reports liked me well enough and did their jobs well but the guy who I reported to had no use for me.
I'm sure I could have done something better to deal with the situation but I decided that it wasn't worth it for me. I'd much rather return to a technical role. It is likely the last time I try the management track.
Posted by:
James Bailey |
April 5, 2008 4:55 PM
You know, the word "leader" has acquired such a "blind obedience" connotation in the last several years of US politics, that I can't see it without thinking it's an empty buzzword, especially in pithy statements.
So I would ask back of bynkii: what does "lead" mean to you?
Posted by:
Matt |
April 5, 2008 7:06 PM
Moeskido: Easy. You first recognize that the people you're in charge of are going to be far smarter and better at being print production artists than you are, and that while you should, and can educate yourself on it, they'll always be better than you.
Secondly, you realize your job is not to be a print production artist. Your job is to do the things that help them be kick-ass print production artists. That means making sure they have the things they need to do their job. That they don't catch shit from anyone but you. That your job is to keep the bullshit as far from them as possible. That when you are asked about assigning deadlines, you talk to them to make sure you assign realistic ones.
Being a manager is a support position. The ways to best support people don't really change.
Put another way, the worst manager in the world is an amazing worker who thinks that because they can do a job well, that they can be good managers. being in charge of people doing work is a different skill set than doing the work. Just like being in charge doesn't make you a great worker, being a great worker doesn't mean you're going to be a good manager.
Posted by:
John C. Welch 
|
April 5, 2008 7:28 PM
James, there's no doubt that being a good manager is really hard, as you learned.
The problem is, it's not a definite task, so people tend to blow it off, or assume it's easy. It *can* be easy to be a good manager, but it's even easier to be a bad one. The problem is that being a good manager means keeping the people over you happy and the people under you happy too. It means that sometimes, to do one, the other group is going to be unhappy, and you have to figure out how to do that in a way that they'll understand, even if they don't like it. I had to send people out in -40 F to fix planes. No one's happy about that, but it had to get done or more unhappiness would result.
It's a damned hard thing to do, which is why the cavalier treatment of being in charge is so infuriating, and so deadly to a company.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
April 5, 2008 7:32 PM
Matt, "blind obedience" is being in a cult, not being in a group.
Leadership is the job of getting people to do something they may not want to do, and getting them to do it well, with a good attitude. A ton of it is just your own behavior.
Trust your people to do the job you hired them to do. When they make a mistake, and they will, especially if they're trying to do a *better* job, don't worry about blame. Fix the problem, then make the "what we learned" part about *learning*. go over the steps that led to the problem and help them see where they made the mistake. They'll learn from it, and more importantly, when you don't ream them, they'll trust you more, so that the next time they make a mistake, they'll not worry about telling you, nor will they worry about failure in general.
Your people's needs come first. If someone has to have the shit computer, it's you. If someone has to work the holiday, you have to have your name at the top of the list. You get to work first, and you leave last. If it's a choice between your bonus or theirs, yours loses. Why? Because they're doing the work, you're making sure they are able to do it the best way possible.
No one fucks with your people but you. If some other manager reams your person out, you make sure that person knows never to do that again, then you make sure that the person they reamed knows that you took steps to prevent a repeat.
When you have to be the bearer of bad news, do it in the most human way possible.
Any chance you have to do something nice for your people, even if it's maybe a little hokey, do it. Gestures have real meaning, especially if they're sincere. At least make "please" and "thank you" a major part of your vocabulary.
When your team does good, you always defer credit to the rest of the team. When they fuck something up, it's your fault, because you're in charge, and while you can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility.
Even if you have to say "no", always, always listen. That new kid may have done things in ways you haven't heard of, and quite possibly has six outstanding ideas you'd never think of. What can it hurt to listen? You never know when you'll be in the presence of genius.
You're never smarter than everyone else. In fact, you should be the dumbest one on your team. Just make sure that you don't be dumb in a way that makes THEM be dumb.
Encourage honest disagreement. No idea is perfect, and all ideas need sanity checks.
Your job is to inspire, protect, and direct, in that order. As long as you remember that, you're leading.
Posted by:
John C. Welch |
April 5, 2008 7:44 PM
heh... I was about to post what John just did.
People refuse to be lead by people who they view as unable to do so. That said people will gladly respond well to the proper leadership. A good leader keeps people focussed on their overall task while also acting as a shield. Loyalty and respect are earned and it takes a lot of sacrifice on the part of the leader to earn those.
I've always lead IT people, which is a unique world filed with a lot of Asperger's types who are very smart, yet have the social skills of a bull in the streets of Pamplona. It has been nothing, if not entertaining.
--chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
Posted by:
chuckgoolsbee |
April 5, 2008 11:52 PM
Communicate well - make sure people know what's expected of them, when and why.
Say "please" and "thank you".
When you need to hire someone for a job, make sure you hire someone who is better at doing that job than you would be - you want them to do the work and not have to spend your time teaching or correcting them.
Let your people know you trust them to do their jobs; direct them when necessary, but don't butt in. Be available and approachable for guidance or advice.
Be decisive but not an asshole.
Posted by:
Fred |
April 6, 2008 4:08 AM
I've seen some of the ideals listed here take form at my company, but not on a regular enough basis, and not until relatively recently. Our growing pains have wasted a lot of man-hours, and I believe a large part of that was due to the supposition that promotion from within was less desirable than recruiting for management positions from the generic pool out there.
It seems to me that this only gets worse, the farther up in the food chain you look. Managers are absolutely interchangeable, because all businesses are run the same way, right? Don't we see evidence of this almost every week, when we read quotes from people like Ed Colligan? Or am I missing the point?
Whether the ability to lead people effectively was present (which I'm not trying to minimize the importance of), those who had sufficient experience within our specific industry managed their groups a lot better than the ones who eventually rotated out to find "other opportunities" within the company. And most of those were either useless academics or assholes who were more concerned with their racquetball game than with the people under them.
Posted by:
Moeskido |
April 6, 2008 1:03 PM
