Ask the Geezers

An Overwhelmed Manager

Question It seems that there are issues all the time, and if I choose to deal with them all I will have no time and exhaustion will get the best of me. What do I do?

Mike One large difference between being an individual contributor and being a manager is that a manager's job is driven more by time and interruption. As a manager, I have spent a career with unfinished work. Senior management jobs usually have a lot more to do with the calendar than with project milestones. And the issues that come unexpectedly are often the most important at any moment.

The key is to delegate as much as you logically can, and then focus on the things that you *must* do. If you try to do everything yourself, you are doomed to exhaustion, failure or both.

Sin-Yaw It is a bit surprising to see this question. A person not knowing the concept of prioritization should not become a manager to begin with.

How to prioritize, on the other hand, is a question that frequently eludes even the most experienced managers. I offer you an algorithm that works for me:
1. Carve out time for family and personal life first. In the long run, they are the real engine for your success. Sacrificing them is suicidal, only slowly.
2. Align with your boss. Do not ask him/her to prioritize for you. Ask for his/her priority. Ask for their interpretations too.
3. Balance urgency and importance. Have a 2-by-2 matrix of high/low urgency/importance. Put things into the matrix. You won't believe the clarity you'll get by this process. While you are there, check the timing of each item.
4. March toward personal goals. Is this good for yourself? Do you know where you're going to?

Amiram This isn't a simple question. And in my mind, this is where management becomes more art and less science. Intuition is not scientific. Intuition is something that you have (or don't) and that develops over the course of your career and the collection of your experience, successes and failures.

To make it more complicated, let me use an analogy from wartime. Wars are not won by winning 100% of the battles. Wars are won by winning the important few battles. The question is, how do I know? And the answer is simple: you don't. Over the years, and as you gain experience, you develop a sense for the battles you want to win, the battles you don't mind losing, and the battles you simply don't show up to. Certainly, if you choose to fight all battles, you will lose the war. So, to answer your question: sift through the issues, find the ones that are really important to you, and take them as far as you possibly can. Don't hesitate. Don't look back. You would realize soon, that subset of battles you need to win in order to win the war, is much smaller than you imagine.

Posted at 10:29AM Jul 13, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[1]

Can I Be Both a Friend And Manager?

Question: As a manager, I want to be liked and appreciated. I want to be my staff's friend. But I also must have their respect. Can I have both friendship and authority at the same time? If yes, how do I do that?

Mike: If we refer back to the things that we talked about around the implied contract between the manager & employees, authority is something that someone else confers on you or delegates to you. If you want both friendship and authority, the employee who you want to be friends with had better understand and buy in to that implied contract very well.

Genuine friends support each other in different ways. I have very good friends who have been my employees. I have also had friends with whom I agreed we shouldn't be in a manager/employee relationship at any time. Having both friendship and a healthy manager/employee relationship is a thing that can be done, but you have to avoid letting friendship stand in the way of getting the job done. For example, if you need to talk to your friend about something he doesn't like to hear, ask yourself whether you can have a conversation because you are friends or your friendship keeps you from having the conversation. If the fact that you are friends makes it harder for the group and the person and you to do the job, that could be a problem. And for you as a manager, the most important thing is getting the job done well.

I have seen this concept in other contexts as well. For example, if a friend wants to borrow money from me, I know he won't ask unless he absolutely needs it and I will give it to him. If the person doesn't pay back or uses my money to do things that I don't support, I will conclude that the friendship is only worth as much as the money he borrows.

Be reminded that another side effect of this is due to a phenomenon that people tend to infer things from what they see. People could make undue association between friendship and certain business decisions. So always try to make sure business decisions are only based on business factors. Conflicts of interest must be avoided.

Finally, you need to think about whether you are confusing pure social relationship with the term friendship. A social relationship may look to some people like a special friendship, but it isn't. A casual, social relationship is healthy in a work group and makes people more at ease working together.

Sin-Yaw Many of my personal friends worked for me before and I think a few of my bosses are my personal friends too. We like each other and keep in touch long after our career paths parted.

But they are exceptions, rather than the norm. The best relationship with those who work for you is probably "close but not personal." A manager will have to make the right decisions for the company, even if they are against the wishes of the employees. A manager must choose the best for the entire group, sometimes short-changing a few individuals. Maintaining a little distance gives you the objectivity to reach optimal decisions.

You don't have a choice in this matter. A manager who cannot make the right decision loses both the friendship and the respect from his/her staff.

Amiram Many managers may tell you not to befriend your staff. Let me state this clearly: don't listen to them. You can be good friends with your staff, as long as you maintain certain guidelines, and practice good judgment. In general, the kind of friendship you can develop is the kind which will allow you to maintain respect and authority. You can go for a beer with your staff, but you probably shouldn't get drunk. You probably shouldn't get romantically involved. Nor should you get financially involved. Activities as such may interfere with your judgment when it comes to job distribution, evaluation, promotions and raises.

You can introduce yourself and your family, and I don't mean your professional career and education. I mean other things like children, hobbies, sports. You can engage in after-work activities together. It's fine to spend some of your one on one meetings talking about things that are not work-related - don't try to be all business all the time. You should talk a little, and listen a lot - remember: one mouth, two ears... Let people know that you care about them (assuming that you do. If you don't - don't pretend). The goal is to do whatever is necessary to be able to give your staff instructions, without risking that they pay less attention because they think that your friendship supersedes the job. Bottom line: draw boundaries and make sure they are clear. Practice good judgment. And yes, one more thing: it isn't easy, but it is possible!

Posted at 12:02PM Jun 29, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[0]

Dilemma for a Hands-on Manager

Question: I am a very hands-on manager. But someone told me I can only grow people by letting it go because I can't help them forever, and people grow under pressure instead of through coaching. How can I "let it go" so that they don't always come to me with the same kind of questions and still be ensured they will do the right things?

Amiram: An individual contributor can take upon himself/herself a lot. But very few individual contributors can contribute for 10 people. It is just impossible. What your friend is telling you, is that as a manager you cannot be as competent as each one on your team, and you can't be as productive as all of them combined.

By "letting go" your friend probably means two things:
1. Allow people to make mistakes - micro managers usually cannot stand by when mistakes happen. But mistakes are essential for growth. Let people experiment, let them come up with their own solutions - they may actually surprise you...
2. Coach people - do not provide them with the ready and already chewed answer - make them think,let them reach the answer on their own, even if it takes longer. That's what coaching is all about.

Sin-Yaw: Those "people" are telling you that you micro-manage too much. In general, micro-managing "chokes" the creativity of the team and is detrimental to your mental health and family life. It does not win.

First, delineate 1 or 2 things that matter the most to you. It could be on-time delivery, quality, team-work, or whatever. The important thing is not to have 5 items, but only less than 3. Then manage only what's relevant to them.

Secondly, focus on the result and not the process. Tell you people what you expect at the end. Also tell them how you plan to inspect the result. After that, leave them alone. When the time comes, inspect what you expect.

In this way you should find your team and yourself much less stressful.

Mike: The idea of "letting go" is easier for someone than for others. The idea is to try to have someone to grow to a point where they don't need as much help.

According to MASLOW's law, people's needs are classified into five tiers starting from physiological, safety, belonging-love, self-esteem, to the ultimate goal of self-actualization. We are fortunate to be in an environment where the people we are dealing with on a daily basis are CAPABLE of establishing self-actualization as their ultimate goal. It is a really good situation for managers to deal with people that are willing to learn and progress because it is easier to let them go and be on their own.

However how to “let go” could vary case by case even with the same people. As a manager, he/she can refer to the concepts of “situational leadership” and “leadership continuum” to choose different management styles for different scenarios. A manager may “let go” completely if a team member is both experienced at the task and highly committed to it. A manager may also turn to autocracy when the team member is generally lacking the necessary skills. For competent team members that have a lower confidence, manager could choose to be supportive and motivating while still leaving the control with the team members. Managers will also need to provide coaching and make decisions for people that are relatively inexperienced, and involve them in the decision-making process to restore their commitment.

Where problems could happen are with people whose idea of their ability are different from others including their managers' perception of their ability. If people think themselves are good but others don't, that is problematic. Even though these people might be really smart people, they may not work out in our organization because they can't tolerate different opinions for themselves.

Editor's Summary:
- Micro-management has bad influence all around. It causes an over-burdened manager, lack of creativity among the team members and a decreased team productivity in overall.
- Managers can "let go" by setting expectations on results without giving step-by-step instructions.
- Mistakes during the learning experience are essential and acceptable. That is not a reason not to "let go".
- Reference readings:
Situational leadership: http://www.12manage.com/methods_blanchard_situational_leadership.html
Leadership Continuum: http://www.12manage.com/methods_tannebaum_leadership_continuum.html

Posted at 09:11AM Jan 11, 2007 by Wen Michelle Lei in Management Style  |  Comments[2]