This is an informal term used in the US Marines to refer to an officer with enlisted experience. In a civilian automobile factory, for comparison, it might describe someone moving up from being a blue-collar production-line factory employee - and perhaps through some of the supervisor levels, as well - before entering the white-collared ranks of management.
There are definitely advantages to this pipeline. For one thing, mustangers are often able to detect the sorts of orders coming down from on high that are destined to be greeted, by those who are to carry them out, with amused bafflement - almost never a productivity enhancer. Sometimes they can do something about those, and this usually works to the execution-enhancing benefit of both the recipients and the issuers.
But there is another interesting aspect to this, suggested in a comment left on Tuesday’s post by Mike King, who is the author of Learn This:
I find it very interesting to see the different styles and techniques of managers who have and haven’t come from MBA backgrounds. Personally, I prefer the ones who haven’t come at it with an MBA . . .”
In the military, the phenomenon is noted with real interest - and sometimes quite strong opinion. Marines are certainly intrigued by the approaches used by mustangers in comparison with officers commissioned in the usual manner, straight from college. Over time I became aware of three different sorts of outcomes. These varied among individuals and over time. But, initially, they fell into these two general categories for the Marines concerned:
1. We like it: Mustangers understand and know how to deal with us.
2. We dislike it: Mustangers play the experience card too much, and sometimes are too critical and dismissive of us.
A bit of a wash, really. An experienced and insightful senior officer once suggested that the best mustangers tended to fall into the first category if their enlisted experience was limited to a few years, and at most to the lower supervisory levels. But if they had a lot of years in, and had reached the mid- to higher-level supervisory ranks before becoming officers, they tended to be problematic; in addition to falling into the second category with their Marines, they had a more difficult time getting along with their fellow officers. One reason for that is that this group’s rank peers tended to be much younger due to the experience differential; a difficult adjustment on a number of levels for all concerned.
That touches on issues that are quite common in civilian enterprises, as well. But there is another angle to the topic that is relevant, here. It is revealed in the last phrase of Mike’s comment, which I left out, above; here it is again:
Personally, I prefer the ones who haven’t come at it with an MBA and instead with a real passion to manage.”
As we noted yesterday, military officers - whatever may be their path to commissioning - tend to have self selected for their dedication to organizational vision and the personal desire to be a part of advancing it from leadership positions. In the military, mustangers do not distinguish themselves from those who follow normal commissioning paths by their superior dedication or drive - they all share that.
But how many civilian managers seek out a career in management generally, or as managers in a particular firm specifically, with the combination of personal fire and altruistic zeal displayed by military officers? Probably not a lot.
So, Mike’s observation points to a very interesting notion: the better indicator of motivated managers (in civilian organizations) may be their having worked - rather than merely studied - their way into the job. Moreover, they may very well also enjoy greater credibility, resulting in increased productivity, with the staff - at least initially. This deserves study in its own right.
My own experience is that over time, managers who have that devotion and drive converge on excellence, whatever their route into the management ranks (this is the third outcome). But the question over the past few days has been, how do we know who are likely to develop into such managers? The instinctive suggestion that an MBA signals good management potential seems to pale in light of the considerations raised in this discussion.
We also noted yesterday some suggestions that education alone may have no signalling value at all for employers. Added to today’s considerations, where would that leave us?
Should we indeed reduce our instinctive reliance on formal schooling? Should we establish management development programs designed as direct pipelines accessible to our own employees? Might we receive more predictive signals from the reaction to them than we do from the resumes of traditional applicants?
What do you think?
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of predictors of management ability, we’ve argued here that women generally bring skills to the field that are both vital and sorely lacking. Indeed, while their abilities and those of men in this respect are complementary, it may nevertheless be that the primary set is the feminine one, amplified, rather than animated, by the masculine. In that light, please see this BNET piece by Michael Fitzgerald pointing to several articles covering similar themes.
—
Why not try out this feature provided here by Answers.com: If you double-click on any (non-hypertext-linked) word on the main page of the site, a window will open providing definitions or encyclopedic material about that term, together with links to additional sources of information. Try it out - it’s interesting and fun.
And, of course, while you’re clicking around, don’t forget to click on your choice of an email or RSS-feed subscription to these pages - we’ll be proud to have you join us!
Technorati Tags: US Marines, officer, enlisted, experience, civilian, factory, blue-collar, employee, supervisor, white-collar, management, pipeline, mustang, productivity, Mike King, manager, MBA, military, Marines, mustanger, college, experience, enterprise, organization, vision, leadership, credibility, productivity, excellence, education, employer, management development, ability, women, skill, BNET, Michael Fitzgerald
Sphere: Related Content
10 Comments
Interesting post Jim.
I have an MBA…..and I agree with Mike. The MBA does very little to prepare a person to be a good manager & leader.
I’ve interviewed recent MBA grads for positions and have found that the folks that graduate from school, enter the workforce for a few years and then go back for their MBA seem to have a better outlook on what the MBA will mean for them.
An MBA or any other degree is never a guarantee for success…only a means to learn more about a topic. The innate ability to lead and manage people must still exist within each person.
Hello Eric,
You make an excellent point - the experience gives them traction for reflection on the lessons of the MBA, and that’s how learning occurs and is converted into actionable managerial thinking and behavior.
So perhaps there is another pattern to look for in a resume - certain types of work experience for a certain length of time, followed by education.
Thanks for stopping in with this, Eric - and as always for your own work and writing!
Jim - I think the experience ‘on the job’ is essential to turning any MBA education (and some other education) into applicable knowledge.
BTW - I’m always amazed at the regularity and quality of your posts…excellent work and something I wish I could do
Keep it up.
Hello Eric,
Well, you just made my day! Thank you so much for your very kind words.
I don’t doubt for a minute that you do precisely what you so generously describe in another - it is evident in your writing and expression at your own site, and assuredly manifests itself in any number of ways in your daily work.
So: keep up the good work, as well!
And thanks again so much for your visit, your participation in this and other discussions here, and your own work and writing!
Hi Jim,
I don’t think looking at MBA programs for managers is necessarily bad. I do think, as you have suggested, that there are other methods to find good leaders. Perhaps it’s a question of what to look for instead of where to look. It seems to me that expertise attracts opportunity; therefore, the challenge for the job applicant is to find ways of developing and producing evidence of expertise.
The challenge of an organization doing the hiring is to look for evidence of expertise and not limit the search only to academia. To do so would limit the pool of talent available to meet the needs of the organization - the caliber of which includes people like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, Mark Twain, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, the Wright brothers, Walt Disney, Ted Turner, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Michael Dell. These Americans did not even achieve a four-year degree so any search for applicants limited to the halls of academia excludes some of the best talent, historically speaking. Given the chance, I would rather hire talent like this than compete with it.
The pendulum shouldn’t swing too far the other way. I’m sure there are MBAs that are also great leaders so the search for great leaders should not exclude MBA programs. Be it MBA programs, mustang programs, or simply with non-exclusionary hiring practices, there isn’t one best way to find great people, but rather a myriad of ways and places. Companies that are open to this concept will have access to the best talent, not just the best talent that schools produce.
Hello Gannon,
Thank you for stopping in with this thoughtful and even-handed assessment. You note that “Perhaps it’s a question of what to look for instead of where to look.”
That is precisely the question for hiring/promoting firms - and also, as you introduce into the topic, for candidates for hire/promotion. The problem is that the answer to that question is so commonly - sometimes even exclusively - considered to be possession of an MBA. This makes it tough on managers who disagree, but are trying to build their careers in an environment where that belief holds such sway.
Your tour of American history’s great non-MBAs (or equivalents for their time) is a perfect pointer to the folly of thoughtless, automatic answers to sensitive problems - an ongoing instinct which plagues much of management, well beyond the issue at hand.
The question remains, though, if we risk missing out on such great talent through a formulaic reliance on an MBA, what can we replace it with to help us have better luck in identifying and capturing them - bearing in mind that it would still be nice to have some sort of pattern matching method to help us screen the waves of resumes we get?
Well, to begin with, as you say, companies have to be open to new concepts, encompassing broader, more mature, and more sensitive approaches to finding - as you also say - “the best talent, not just the best talent that schools produce.”
And, actually, there are a number that are open to this, and that have developed intriguing approaches to this issue - and with many of your concerns expressed here specifically in mind. Perhaps some of these may turn out to be more widely applicable solutions to the problem. Maybe we’ll look at that, soon.
Thanks again, Gannon, for such a great, thought-provoking comment!
Hi Jim,
“The question remains, though, if we risk missing out on such great talent through a formulaic reliance on an MBA, what can we replace it with to help us have better luck in identifying and capturing them.”
I agree that this is the critical question. Truthfully, I don’t know if I have any comprehensive answers, but I have at least a little anecdotal tidbits that might be helpful. I’ve observed three strategies that are applicable:
Strategy #1: Know the skill sets that you are hiring for and screen applicants for those skill sets regardless of the credentials.
In my business, illustration ability of a particular style is an indicator of a good fit. The portfolio, not the resume, is the tool of the trade in terms of interviewing. Even there, because I’m an artist myself and have a good understanding of the skill sets that will make a person successful in the business, I don’t evaluate applicants based on how well their portfolio is put together, (whether it’s leather bound etc.) I’m looking for solid fundamentals, like an understanding of anatomy, perspective, etc. No amount of polish on the resume, or smoke and mirrors with regard to presentation will hide the fact if an applicant is weak in these areas.
One of my best hires was an artist that was working as a welder whose mom saw the ad in the paper. I interviewed him over the phone and found out enough to realize he was a good candidate for the job. Since he really wasn’t looking for work he didn’t have a good portfolio or resume put together. I told him not to worry about it and that as long as he had a few sketches to show me, I would be able to evaluate his potential to contribute to the business. He stopped by with a sketchpad and saw enough to hire him. He has proven himself to be a fantastic employee and has raised the bar of the products we produced.
Since the employee was not skilled in the job search dance that is typically played out, I feel that a typical human resources person not trained in art would not have been able see past the surface. Understanding what would make a person successful in a job is essential. Fixating on the presentation of the resume, impressive credentials and the like can distract an employer from the skills that really matter. Look for the attributes that matter and ignore all the rest.
Strategy # 2: Don’t hire your managers as managers - at least not initially.
When best selling author and marketing guru Seth Godin put together his team for Squidoo, he started it as an intern program. Many people applied and he selected a handful of individuals to get the project going. The person who eventually ended up as the COO of Squidoo was Corey Brown, who had less than year of college under his belt. I worked for Corey several years ago and I am completely not surprised by Seth’s selection of Corey. He has a dizzying understanding of the world-wide web, Internet marketing, project management, and getting the best out of a team.
It’s important to note that Corey did not get hired as the COO based on his resume. My understanding is that Corey’s resume got him in the door due to his knowledge of cascading style sheets and design. Once he was in the door his abilities had a chance to shine and his selection as COO came from actual performance on the job. In Seth’s book “The Dip,” he lists Corey as the best in the world at what he does.
To Seth’s credit, he selected his manager based on performance and not resume. He deferred the decision of who to make the COO until he could see his team in action and a COO emerged. He was also free of any MBA bias, even though he holds and MBA himself from Stanford.
Stragegy # 3: Hire entry-level people and develop them.
Good ol’ division of labor makes this possible. I’m convinced that even the most complex job can have a piece of it broken off so that someone can be hired to do it with little or no training. In my business, that’s the job of coloring designs for T-shirts. Even though it would take years to develop the ability to illustrate T-shirts at this level, we can train a candidate color designs in a few weeks. The criteria for this position shifts away from skill sets, to merely a desire to do the work. Enthusiasm for the job seems to be the key indicator for success. One candidate showed up who never used any of the software we use, didn’t own a computer, never worked in screen printing, and never even took a single art class. He wanted to do the job so badly though, that he kept showing up even when we didn’t have a position. He kept expressing how much he wanted to work in the company. He was hired on a part-time trial basis and has worked his tail off to become as skilled as possible. He is now an expert with the software and has a better command of this industry than any of the college students and graduates I’ve interviewed in the last two years. If I’m out of the office, I know I can rest easy because he is capable of handling almost any situation that my arise while I’m away. He does not do entry-level work anymore, but without creating an entry-level position, I would have missed out on him.
I’m sure there are other strategies to select great people regardless of how they became great. I am very interested in hearing any other ideas that you might have on the subject.
Hello Gannon,
You’ve provided some excellent material, here, that will be used to discuss your terrific points and examples in the next couple of days or so - thanks very much for this!
You missed mentioning one of the most important points when promoting from within, at least to me… many times, when promoting from within, the most senior person or the person with the most talent for whatever the department does is chosen. What you SHOULD be looking for is the one with the most talent for management/leadership… and quite often that person is neither the most senior, nor the most talented at whatever the department does, be it sales, IT, or whatever else.
Hello Jason,
Thank you for introducing this important factor to the discussion. I agree that if we should consider promoting from within in order to avoid having to make decisions on poor information when promoting from without, then we should at least make better use of the greater information we have!
I especially like your observation that the best candidate for promotion is by no means necessarily the one who is best at the job he or she is currently in - that’s a terrific insight. It is also a fascinating one because while many will immediately see the truth in it, others will not - and even some of those who do will be concerned about how one can justify and document the judgment that candidate A will be a better manager in the higher position than candidate B, even though B is perhaps clearly the better performer in the job they both hold now. How will such a decision be defended, and what effect will it have on morale?
On the other hand, if, due to fears such as this, that decision is not taken and the easier road is followed - what effect will that have on productivity and morale?
This is great - thanks for it, and thanks also for your visit!
4 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] In a comment to Friday’s post, Gannon Beck, an entrepreneur and author of The Art of the 3 Disciplines, described three strategies of particular interest in this context. We will look at each of them over the next few days, beginning with the first, under this heading: Know the skill sets that you are hiring for and screen applicants for those skill sets regardless of credentials. “In my business, illustration ability of a particular style is an indicator of a good fit. The portfolio, not the resume, is the tool of the trade in terms of interviewing. Even there, because I’m an artist myself and have a good understanding of the skill sets that will make a person successful in the business, I don’t evaluate applicants based on how well their portfolio is put together, (whether it’s leather bound etc.). I’m looking for solid fundamentals, like an understanding of anatomy, perspective, and so forth. No amount of polish on the resume, or smoke and mirrors with regard to presentation will hide the fact if an applicant is weak in these areas. One of my best hires was an artist that was working as a welder whose mom saw the ad in the paper. I interviewed him over the phone and found out enough to realize he was a good candidate to interview in person. Since he really wasn’t looking for work he didn’t have a good portfolio or resume put together. I told him not to worry about it, and that as long as he had a few sketches to show me, I would be able to evaluate his potential to contribute to the business. He stopped by with a sketchpad and I saw enough to hire him. He has proven himself to be a fantastic employee and has raised the bar of the products we produce. Since the employee was not skilled in the job search dance that is typically played out, I feel that a typical human resources person not trained in art would not have been able see past the surface. Understanding what would make a person successful in a job is essential. Fixating on the presentation of the resume, impressive credentials and the like can distract an employer from the skills that really matter. Look for the attributes that will make the business successful and ignore all the rest.” [...]
[...] Or how about this: As Gannon Beck noted in a comment to last Friday’s post, “Don’t hire your managers as managers - at least not initially.” [...]
[...] That single insight by itself can save organizations a tremendous amount of aggravation in infusing truly effective and robust talent development systems into their structures. And it need not start only at the entry level for management - but in the staff, as we discussed on Friday. [...]
[...] Or how about this: As Gannon Beck noted in a comment to last Friday’s post, “Don’t hire your managers as managers - at least not initially.” [...]
Post a Comment