Archive for the ‘Leadership’ Category
Managers aren’t good at listening
Are managers good listeners? This is the question Patrick Barwise and Sean Meehan address in a note published in the April 2008 issue of the Harvard Business Review. The research conducted by Barwise and Meehan indicates that managers tend to overrate themselves on their own openness to frank communication; the gap in self-perception being greatest when the views expressed are contrary those held by the manager. This conclusion is based on 360 degree surveys of more than 4000 US managers across a range of industries and functions.
The authors believe there are two factors at work here. Bosses tend to:
- Overestimate their openness to contrary views, as indicated by the wide differences between self evaluations and those of colleagues.
- Underestimate the extent to which the manager-managed relationship hinders their subordinates from communicating openly. That is, subordinates fear reprisals of some kind if they are the bearers of bad news or contrary views. The authors reckon this happens because bosses often unknowingly send out subtle signals discouraging their subordinates from speaking openly.
To get around this, they suggest that:
- Managers should assume they are less open to frank discussion than they think they are.
- Organisations should use 360 degree surveys specifically targeted to uncovering communication issues. They reckon that bad managers, when confronted with real data may be more open to changing their ways (Good luck with that, I say).
There’s no doubt (to me, at any rate) that Barwise and Meehan are right in their observations about managerial openness to frank communication . Most of us – managers or not – don’t like to be contradicted, and that’s no surprise.
On the other hand, I’m not so sure about their recommended solution. In my opinion fixes at the individual level, such as they suggest, will not work. I believe open communication needs to be fostered at the organisational level for it to permeate right through the corporate hierarchy. Put differently, it is an issue of organisational culture rather than management. Some workplaces have a culture conducive to open communication; others don’t. Those that don’t would not be able to fix the problem by confronting managers with the results of 360 degree surveys (or any other data for that matter). Given the anti-communication culture of the organisation, the said managers would simply deny there’s a problem and worse, may even confront those who they think are responsible for the negative feedback. In fact, because of the latter, such surveys may not even indicate there’s a problem as subordinates would not risk saying what they really think.
I’m interested in knowing what you think about this. Let me know via your comments.
What is management?
Most textbook definitions of the art of management (or science, depending on one’s leanings) aren’t particularly edifying. They all somehow seem to miss the essence of what it means to be a manager. Judge for yourself – here are some definitions of management gleaned from online resources:
-
Directing and controlling a group of one or more people or entities for the purpose of coordinating and harmonizing them towards accomplishing a goal. (Source: Wikipedia)
-
The process of getting work done through people (Source: UNR College of Business Administration, attributed to the American Management Association).
Additionally, this article provides an annotated compilation of definitions.
My problem with each of the above definitions – including those in the article – is that they emphasise a superior-subordinate relationship between the manager and the managed. Now, the good managers (that I know) go to great lengths to downplay the “I’m the boss” aspect of the relationship. Yet, the definitions – through their use of words like direct, control, supervise, manipulate, get done etc. – continue to propagate a distorted notion of what it really means to be a manager.
To date, the best definition I’ve seen is tucked away in half a line on page 19 of Scott Berkun’s book, The Art of Project Management. Here it is; a simple and succinct definition that captures the essence of what it means to be a manager:
Managers (are hired to) amplify the value of everyone around them. (Source: Scott Berkun, The Art of Project Managment, O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol, 2005 – Page 19)
“That’s it!”, I thought, when I first read it.
What I like about this definition is that it downplays the superior-subordinate aspect of management, which is not that important anyway. Instead it highlights the fact that everyone has something to offer (special skills, talents, whatever), and that a manager’s job is simply to amplify that “something” to best effect. As an aside I should add that, in my opinion, the tired debates on management versus leadership are misplaced, as (good) management encompasses many elements of leadership as well.
I’m interested in your opinion. What do you think – does Scott Berkun’s definition capture the essence of what it means to be a manager? Let me know through your comments.
Good results aren’t enough
Australia went to the polls on November 24th. The final standings in the lower house are yet to be declared (as of December 3rd), some seats being too close to call. But it was clear, by as early as 8:00 pm on election day, that the Australian Labor Party had won in a landslide, thereby ending the long tenure of the Liberal-National Coalition government headed by John Howard. This isn’t a political blog, so I’m not going to wade into potentially contentious debates on election issues. However, I’d like to draw your attention to one item which figured prominently in the lead up to the election: the strength of the economy . Now, conventional political wisdom deems that an incumbent government is never turfed out in good economic times. Yet, in this election, the ruling party was voted out (and emphatically so) despite having presided over a period of sustained economic growth.
Analysts and politicians, flummoxed by the electorate’s seeming obliviousness to economic issues, have attributed the loss to a host of reasons ranging from unpopularity of workplace reforms legislated by the erstwhile government to bad timing (yes, one pollie did offer that as an explanation). These and many other factors have played a part but an important reason, in my opinion, is that there was – and still is – a disconnect between the good economic news at the macro level (GDP, unemployment figures etc.) and the not-so-good news at the micro level (prices, household debt etc.). The results of the undoubtedly excellent “big-picture” performance of the economy, as nice as it looks on paper, hasn’t made people feel better off at a personal level.
This, in my usual circumlocutory fashion, brings me to my point: in any effort, good results mean nothing if people don’t get to share in them.
Managers of all shades and stripes are measured by the results they achieve – sales managers may be judged by their ability to meet and exceed sales targets, and project managers by the successes or failures of their projects. Regardless of what the goals may be, they’re rarely achieved by the managers’ own efforts. More likely, they’re a consequence of the coordinated work of a group – the sales or project team, as the case may be. It is important to remember this while the work is in progress, and also when it is done and the credits start to roll out. Acknowledge your team publicly, make them feel they’ve been a part of the effort and reward them adequately, else it may all come to nought.
Eight to Late 