One of the most peculiarly persistent problems in management at all levels is the reluctance of managers to develop their juniors, out of a fear that they may outshine and, ultimately, outpace their seniors. It seems to me that there are three problems with this.
First, one’s skill as a manager should be measured by his or her ability to . . . well: manage. This includes, of course, managing staff.
You want to be able to develop your staff’s ability to think and act for themselves, whether within the parameters of specific authority, or, better, according to the spirit of clearly expressed goals. If you can do this, then you are extending the reach, capability, and productivity of your entire unit. How could your results not improve? How could you, as the unit manager, not be recognized for this?
But many managers insist on representing themselves to their seniors essentially as the unit itself, keeping their staff shuttered up in the department, and preventing them from gaining any freedom of maneuver or opportunity to shine that might cause them to dim the manager’s star, or even to rise above it. Productivity in such a unit may spike for a while, but ultimately, wider measures of efficiency, such as attendance behavior or turnover, will begin to precede a broad decline. How long do you think you can build a career on riding the crest of such waves?
Second, another critical skill of a manager is the ability to train his or her own replacement – or, at least, to develop the skills of juniors in ways that enhance their value to the firm, and the value of the firm to them. If you are promoted, for example, for your exemplary performance, but then your seniors discover that there is no one in your unit capable of taking your place, they may begin to reconsider their initial enthusiasm.
What you want them to do is to see flowers blooming all over your department. Rest assured that you won’t be lost in the crowd; you’ll be celebrated as the master gardener.
But too many managers think they need to be clearly – and singly - visible, rising majestically like oaks in the midst of lowly scrub or, even, general devastation. But of what organizational value is such stunted growth under the management of so self-centered a steward? Where is the majesty in so poor a realm?
Third, the problem often is a reflection of more than merely the ill-informed paranoia of insecure managers. It may be a realistic appraisal of what it takes to survive in a corrosive culture actively promoted by seniors. If this is the case, there is really little alternative to just firing your boss: find another position, in another firm.
Apprehensions such as those touched on above – from being outshone to outpaced – tend to be realized the more one fears them. But strong managers who seek out talent in their units and work to develop it do not weaken their individual reputation. Rather, they extend their reach and influence, enhance their individual and unit effectiveness, and broaden and deepen their network of constructive support even as it widens around – or even above and beyond – the mature, confident manager who is its source.
—
Today’s tip: Speaking of building networks rather than focusing on self-aggrandizement, please see this depiction of the glass ceiling in a particularly interesting case, as thoughtfully elaborated by John Phillips, author of The Word on Employment Law.
—
Have you noticed the blue “Sphere” icon, below? When you click on it, it will produce a window offering you content related to today’s item from other blogs and the regular media. Give it a try!
And, while you’re clicking around down there, don’t forget to subscribe, by email or RSS reader!
Technorati Tags: management, manager, authority, goal, capability, productivity, efficiency, turnover, career, skill, performance, organization, culture, boss, influence, network, glass ceiling, John Phillips, The Word on Employment Law
Sphere: Related Content
2 Comments
Hi Jim,
Nice post. Yes, I agree with you here. Most organizations have little in the way of explicitly spelling out accountabilities in the managerial leadership realm. Most job descriptions of managers address the “technical” part of their job, e.g. client account management or product quality control, but precious little to none is spells out managerial leadership accountabilities.
It’s a shame because managerial leadership system design can help ameliorate some of the talent grooming issues you’ve brought up here.
First, I recommend that organizations have a leadership framework that spells their leadership principles and practices.
Within that framework I suggest two-level accountability regarding talent development. The manager is accountable to coach, i.e. bring their team’s current potential capability up to their current applied capability via feedback, training opportunities, stretch job assignments.
Then, the manager-once-removed should be accountable for mentoring, i.e. the longer term development and career planning for his talent pool two levels down.
When the accountabilities are set up in this manner, the manager is judged on how well his employees are performing in their current roles. The manager once removed is judged via pipeline development two levels down.
So rather than managers developing their replacements, managers-once-removed are developing a talent pool that will eventually work for them.
Two sets of eyes are accountable to be upon all employees. This builds extra fairness into the system because high potentials can often get mistreated/overlooked/sabotaged by a threatened manager. It is the manager-once-removed accountability to spot that and “rescue” an organization’s high potentials who are often shoved out the door by their current managers.
Regards,
Michelle Malay Carter
Hello Michelle,
You’re describing a solid, specific system for talent development, one that, in one form or another, typically receives more verbal support from practicing managers than actual application.
Teachers/consultants need to keep up the pressure on the systematic confrontation of this issue. Your insistence that a junior have both a formal coach and mentor in his or her reporting senior and that person’s reporting senior is an interesting approach.
Allow me to note that my reference to a manager training his or her replacement is meant to highlight the import of the general talent-development responsibilities of any manager, rather than narrow them, certainly, to that single purpose. I will add, however, that I do believe that is a central duty of any manager. Having a reporting senior train your juniors to be prepared to replace you may be upsetting to important organizational dynamics, as opposed to straightforward mentoring. Indeed, mentoring by a manager-once-removed, or even one in the junior’s reporting chain, could be problemattic.
But the programmatic sense of your proposal is still attractive - it’s a main reason I think it is so interesting. It promises a functional way of institutionalizing a robust coaching/mentoring system into the managerial chain of relationships, and it does this in a way that argues for your chain-of-command proposal. A system of incentives to drive it is next. This bears further discussion of the possible difficulties to its implementation that I’ve speculated about, above.
I see your points - it’s a lot to think about - thanks!
One Trackback/Pingback
[...] on the true meaning of something we’ve heard much about lately: change–and another one on the unfortunate failure of senior execs to bring along their [...]
Post a Comment