BY STEVEN E. LURIE
Making the transition from an individual, technical
contributor in an organization to a leader and team player can
be difficult. A new manager must redefine personal and professional
effectiveness to include not only technical excellence, but also
the ability to motivate, assess, develop, and influence people
individually and collectively.
Careers of some of the most technically gifted and individually
effective managers are sidelined indefinitely by the challenge
of developing "people skills".
People with such qualities as competitiveness, independence,
aggression, dominance, and the need for control – some of
the very traits traditionally associated with individual corporate
success – seem especially vulnerable.
From the point of view of the company, the fallout can be
heavy if a manager’s people-handling skills are underdeveloped.
It can mean high turnover, disaffection, and low productivity
for staff members – and burnout for the manager.
In spite of these costs, the number of managers with poor
people skills remains high. Why is this so common a trap for
U.S. managers? What are some of the critical barriers that impede
their development into more effective supervisors?
To address those questions, let’s look at the experience
of Roger Strong, a hypothetical product manager at a Fortune
500 company. Roger was in many ways a fairly typical middle
manager. He made his way up to just shy of general manager through
hard work, unmatched business knowledge, unflinching competitiveness,
and a quick, intuitive, "steel trap" mind.
Roger usually worked independently or supervised a small hand
picked staff of "clones". His accomplishments had earned
him a reputation as someone who could get things done. With his
highly competitive and aggressive style, he soon became a favorite
of the president, clearing the way for a fast trek up the ladder
of success.
But behind the scenes, Roger was developing a reputation for
being impossible to work with. He was generous and available
to those who needed his help, but hid his vulnerabilities behind
a mask of total self-reliance, confidence, and control. A "black-and-white
thinker", he showed little patience for opinions, approaches,
or work styles that differed from his own. There was his way
and the wrong way.
The competitive, aggressive style for which Roger had been
so well rewarded was seen by subordinates as insensitivity, defensiveness,
and over control. His intimidating style compelled others to
agree with him, avoid him, or keep their differences to themselves.
That pattern, along with his tendency to recruit like-style executives
as his closest subordinates, enabled Roger to maintain an unrealistically
positive view of himself as a manager. In the meantime, he had
created a highly repressive atmosphere in which most team members
felt devalued and underutilized.
In time, disaffection and turnover increased among his staff,
as did complaints to the human resource manager. Morale was low,
and with it loyalty, creativity, and innovation.
Encouraged by his human resource manager, Roger tried to practice
a more participatory style of management. He attended a variety
of management training activities. They were helpful in identifying
many of his weaknesses and some alternative management approaches,
but Roger’s trouble was in applying that new knowledge in
the high-pressure work world for more than a few weeks.
For example, he tried delegating more responsibility to subordinates,
but he was too anxious about giving up control to allow his people
to take different approaches than the ones he preferred. Rather
than truly allowing autonomy, he continued to rescue, control,
and second-guess his employees – in effect, undermining
their confidence and authority. This pressure brought out the
worst in his people and reinforced his excuse for not being more
participative: "They are not ready for it".
A successful transformation
Over the next four years, Roger was passed up several times
for promotions and transferred laterally to other areas. Then
the roof caved in. A peer steadfastly refused to work with him,
and his mentor, the president, retired.
Now Roger was read the riot act: "We value you, need
you, and want you, but your career now depends on your ability
to work effectively with people. People-handling skills are now
the bottom line."
Roger was given the support of an intensive, assessment-based,
one-on-one management development program with 10 follow-up coaching
and counseling interventions over a six-month period.
Much to the surprise of everyone, including Roger, he made
a lot of progress in the developmental objectives judged critical
to his success (improved skills in listening, conflict resolution,
assertion, and consensus building). He became more sharply aware
of his blind spots and the effect of his behavior on others.
His personality did not change dramatically, but he was able
to modify enough of the dysfunctional behaviors to make a difference
in his effectiveness.
Success was measured on the basis of his self-perceptions
and those of his superiors and subordinates. It was also assessed
by observing others’ reactions to him.
Subordinates actually began asking to work for him to learn
from his valuable business knowledge. His staff’s turnover
decreased. Co-workers became comfortable enough to seek his input,
actively, and sometimes even to disagree with him. Perhaps most
important was the fact that Roger felt more relaxed and comfortable
with himself.
So why did it take so much time for Roger to get to that point?
What prevented him from developing years earlier, before so many
opportunities were lost, so many bridges were burned, and so
much talent was squandered?
|
|
Part of the answer lies within Roger. During the management
development program, several personal barriers emerged that were
preventing his development as a people manager.
One barrier had to do with his fear of giving up control.
Although he hated feeling unpopular and rejected, it was safer
than risking a more participatory management style that would
mean giving up control, trusting and depending on others, and
feeling vulnerable.
Another important resistance was his reluctance to give up
the baton of technical star. As a highly pragmatic and concrete
individual, he was afraid that relinquishing the tangible role
of hands-on contributor – in exchange for the softer, more
intangible role of "catalyst", "galvanizer",
or "developer" – would lessen his value to the
company. On another level, it meant giving up a proven skill
for an unproven one. For Roger, who was actually rather unsure
of his self-worth outside of his narrow expertise, the thought
of taking such a risk created enormous anxiety.
Roger would never have addressed these personal barriers had
the organization not forced him to do so. The company created
a personal crisis for Roger. Top managers confronted him with
the realities of his effect on other people and the business,
and with their intolerance of his dysfunctional style.
Personal development of this magnitude is, in most cases,
only possible against the backdrop of an organization that demands
such development, communicates that demand unequivocally, and
provides incentives for achieving it.
It was only after the organization itself changed that it
was able to take that step. Before that, organizational barriers
kept Roger from addressing and overcoming his management deficiencies.
One such barrier was denial. Almost the entire organization
knew that Roger had a dysfunctional management style that had
to be addressed. But senior managers unconsciously conspired
with Roger to avoid seeing the impact of his dysfunctional management
style on the organization and its people. Their denial was evident
in their continuing to reward him largely on the basis of bottom-line
performance, in their avoidance of direct confrontation about
his style, and in their failure to follow up with him when he
participated in earlier management development efforts.
Several common – but mistaken – beliefs supported
this denial.
Equating bottom-line success with management success.
Roger and senior management made the mistake of attributing his
success to his approach to management.
"After all, with these profits, how bad could he be?"
asked the president to himself. Of course, several factors contributed
to Roger’s productivity. An objective analysis would have
shown that his bottom line was strong in spite of his style.
It was only after market conditions became increasingly competitive
that the negative effects of Roger’s management behavior
upon the company’s profits became evident.
Believing that Roger was incapable of changing his
management style. The company’s and Roger’s own denial
was fueled by a belief that he could not change. People avoided
talking about Roger’s dysfunctional style rather than bringing
something out into the open that they thought no one could do
anything about anyway.
Believing that they were protecting Roger’s self-esteem
and repaying him for his loyalty by not confronting him with
the real implications of his style. In fact, by avoiding the
issue, they were ultimately paving Roger’s way to failure.
Believing that strong interpersonal skills are important,
but not essential to management effectiveness and productivity.
This belief was communicated through the private conversations
and over-controlling, autocratic management behavior of several
senior executives, despite the organizational "party line"
that emphasized strong people-management skills.
In fact, it is likely that some senior managers feared having
to confront dysfunctional aspects of their own management style
if they confronted Roger’s problems. Those fears may have
contributed to their denial of his deficiencies.
Roger may have had more than his share of dysfunctional management
traits, but all managers have weaknesses. In the right (or more
accurately, wrong) situations, those weaknesses may compromise
their effectiveness. Over time, they can create silent fallout.
As an organization changes (business gets worse, mentors leave,
or the wrong toes get stepped on), previously overlooked weaknesses
can become a focus. Such attention can result in a second chance
for the manager in question (if he or she is lucky) or, in many
cases, termination.
Don’t wait for problems to develop.
Some suggestions for managers and those who are helping them
to manage people more effectively:
- Remember that for managers, people-handling skills are "bottom-line"
in the long run. Business success and technical competence may
diminish; strong relationships and people skills can sustain
success.
- Don’t assume that senior managers will accurately gauge
the impact of a manager’s style on long-term management
effectiveness. They are often unaware of the negatives, because
the effects are not immediate, because they are protected from
them, or because they deny them.
- Listen carefully to subordinates and peers. Good listening
skills are essential in enabling a manager to receive and pay
attention to feedback – direct or indirect – from those
who count.
- Find and meet regularly with a person whose interpersonal
skills you respect and whom you can trust to be honest with you
about your style and your impact on others.
- Make full use of the company’s training and development
opportunities on your own initiative, rather than in reaction
to a bad situation or in an effort to fulfill requirements.
- Make accurate self-assessment, with special emphasis on people
skills, an ongoing objective for yourself and your subordinates. n
|
