The title for this post is what I like to call life’s “crap trifecta”; eventually all of us have to endure the three of them. Since I can’t find anything interesting to say regarding death and taxes, let’s focus on bad managers.
Being a manager is not as simple as having the granted power that comes with the title. I’ve seen and suffered awful managers that got picked for the job just because they were suck ups to upper management or lucky or political or a number of reasons that had nothing to do with being qualified for the job. Don’t get me wrong, a reasonable use of politics and luck are always required, but they cannot be the pillars for career advancement.
On the other hand I’ve seen great leaders become not so good managers. The reason is that leadership is derived from charisma, superb skills in one’s turf, seniority or some other trait that generates peer respect, but not all leaders are cut out for management (i.e. they do not have the people skills, administrative skills, desire, etc.)
The interesting thing is that good leaders do not require a title. While people will not always respect their managers they will always respect a leader.
So, what does it take to be a good manager?
In theory there are three types of management styles:
- Autocratic: The decision making lies in the manager.
- Democratic: The manager includes the team in the decision making process.
- Laissez Faire: The team has complete control over the decision making process.
A very important fact underlying all of the above: No matter how the manager chooses to delegate, he or she is always responsible for the actions of the team.
A good manager switches between management styles according to the situation. The rule of thumb for managers is asking where the expertise to make the decision lies. Is it oneself, the team, or all? Personally I’ve used the following criteria:
- For critical decisions or manager appointed tasks such as evaluations, setting of overall goals, career advancement, raises, disciplinary actions and such I use an autocratic approach.
- For everyday operative decisions or decisions that will affect the whole team, the best thing to do is be democratic.
- For stuff that is so every day that you lost the grip and the team clearly knows more about it than you do – and probably will get twice as affected as you by the outcome – let the team choose what is best (laissez faire)
By using these criteria I found that my style was a blend of approximately 60% democratic, 20% laissez faire and 20% autocratic.
Why this entire preamble when all you are looking for is somewhere to buy a sawed off shotgun to get rid of that bastard boss of yours? Because I believe that for the most part, bad managers are those who have a malfunction in the management style gland.
There are those who follow strictly one style and are dictatorial for the most part. There are those who are completely absent and leave the team meandering without goals or supervision. There are yet others who indeed use a mix of all three styles but make a poor choice as to where they should exercise which.
Some examples of bad management I experienced:
- Manager too busy or too careless to even set goals for the team (chronic laissez faire)
- Boss setting out to vote on a collective decision then just because the outcome of the vote is not the one he wanted vetoes it (phony democrat)
- Manager who won’t listen to anyone’s opinion for any matter (excessive autocrat)
- Boss who seemingly lets people work alone but then sneaks in an reads the e-mails his subordinates write (hidden autocrat – micro manager syndrome)
- Boss who lets the team make a decision then blames the team for a bad outcome (douche bag)
- Sadly a long list of etc.
This theory does not void other potential causes for a bad boss-subordinate relationship (often times “my boss is an idiot” is the only plausible explanation) but the next time you are confronted with a manager you dislike, try to analyze his actions in light of what I posted here. You will find that more often than not, what you don’t like about him lies in his management style. This, in turn, could help you try to modify things a bit.
Shuje
Disclaimer: No managers were harmed during the writing of this post.
On my next post I will show you how playing a Milli Vanilli record backwards uncovers a recipe for brownies. In the meantime if you have bad manager stories to share, or would like to discuss shotgun rentals please post below or contact me at shuje@holoom.com
October 7, 2009 at 10:52 am |
Some simple maths, let’s consider high-medium-low for each criteria… 3 criterias, 3 values for each criteria. This means that in your whole life, you’ll be under one out of 9 different type of managers. 6 of them were addressed in your text, this means that, at most, 33% of your managers can be a good guy for you to work with! Kinda creepy, huh?
Unless you are your own manager…in that case, please read the text and kick your own butt if you’re in the not-hot list.
October 7, 2009 at 10:54 am |
We all know you are not, and I concur.
October 7, 2009 at 11:08 am |
I don’t think it’s that linear. I believe there are more good managers than bad ones out there (one can only hope). Bear in mind a manager can make poor choices due to a number of factors (i.e. occassionaly pick a bad style) but still be an overall good manager.
October 8, 2009 at 4:12 pm |
unfortunately, to be a good manager requires more than a PMP certificate.
Could be another collateral effect of the “buzzword”
driven recuiting.
Link: http://www.infoq.com/news/2007/08/buzzword-driven-recruiting
October 8, 2009 at 4:35 pm |
Not unless a PMP comes with common sense inducing pills. A bad manager with a PMP is still a bad manager.
October 10, 2009 at 11:31 am |
I’m one of those that has the “Manager” badge because the company evolved and I stopped being operative to start managing..(yes, two dots =) Nice reading for a non-educated wannabe manager. Maybe in the future we can have some chat on the matter (or maybe after a DMB zapada)
October 10, 2009 at 1:57 pm |
That is a very valid way to become a manager. It happens a lot. We can chat on the matter whenever you want, and we SHOULD certainly get together for a good DMB jam session.
October 25, 2009 at 11:56 am |
Interesting post dude… should have been titled Neverending Story
I agree with most of your opinions and statements. Though, I’d like to humbly tune just two things:
1) Management Styles: I would add a fourth one, which is Anarchic. Why? Because I think that sometimes not the manager, nor the team, nor both of them make decisions. Sometimes not the pilot or even the crew flies the plane. Sometimes the plane flies just as induced by outside winds.
From my point of view, this is really close the worst case scenario. You might not only need to modify your rule of thumb mix, but consider the possibility that the pieces of team are not aligned.
2) Rule of thumb: I believe that it should consider not only the fact of where the expertise to make the decision lies, but also the current probability of that “where” for making an objective decision. In other words, your rule of thumb may suggest that person A is the right one for making B type of decisions. However, person A might be so overwhelmed or affected by a particular situation that his judgment might not be accurate. In these cases is where good managers apply their eye to identify the need of an alternative or to assume the risk of having person A still making the decision. Perhaps, person C would make a more accurate decision based in his poorer expertise but healthier common sense. This is where good managers should doubtlessly step in… not solely to define working schemas, but most importantly to identify exceptions to rules, to deal with them and prevent/avoid/control edging and stressful situations.
Cheers,
Mati (or Fatso, as I’m becoming better known as)
November 25, 2009 at 10:00 am |
[...] up with the formula to deal with the un-feedback-able: pulling rank. If you know me or have read my previous post on management you’ll know that I discourage this type of method unless necessary. This is one such [...]