What Bad Managers, Good Managers, And Great Managers Do

Bavaria

JF-Expert Member
Jun 14, 2011
53,092
53,514
Bad managers tell employees what to do, good managers explain why they need to do it, but great managers involve people in decision making and improvement."

There might be more to management to that, but I think that's a pretty good start. "Lean management," or the Toyota management system, encourages leaders to live in that "good to great" range (with apologies to Jim Collins).

Bad managers bark orders. They are directive and tell employees what to do, without any explanation or context. I saw a lot of that style of management quite often during my first two years at General Motors (read my previous post about that experience) and the workplace was incredibly dysfunctional, as a result.

There are top-down, "command and control" managers in every type of workplace, unfortunately. Managers who are controlling and have all the answers want their employees to "check their brains at the door," and often say so quite explicitly - or they spread that message in more subtle ways.

At GM, front-line employees complained that they were "hired for their backs and their arms, not their brains." In hospitals, healthcare professionals (even those with master's degrees) have complained, "They just want us to do what we're told." This is not a recipe for quality, productivity, or good customer service.

A friend of mine lives in a high-rise condo building. One example of "telling" was the general manager telling employees that the doors to the resident gym must now be kept closed at all times. For years, previously, the doors had been left open unless a resident wanted privacy and chose to close them.

My friend asked one of the employees, "Why are the doors closed all of the time now?" The employee replied, "I don't know, [the manager] just told us to."

It's disrespectful to just give directives without letting people understand the reason(s) why. There might have very well been a good reason why the doors were now to be kept closed. Had the manager taken just a few minutes to share a reason why, the employees would feel better about themselves and would more likely keep the doors closed. If employees are following directives out of a fear of being "written up," they aren't in a position to provide great service.

A good condo manager would explain why the doors now need to be closed. And, if there wasn't a good reason why, they wouldn't force the change on a whim.

A great condo manager would involve the employees in coming up with solutions to whatever problem is being solved by keeping the doors closed. The employees, when being posed with the problem, might come up with the idea of "close the doors" or they might come up with something better. Either way, they would feel a greater sense of ownership over the idea since they were involved in its creation.

During my time at GM, the better of the two plant managers I worked for taught us that Lean leaders (in the style of Toyota leaders) will always explain why something must be done, in those rare instances when they have to give a directive. The dynamic changes from "thou shalt wear safety gloves (because I'm the boss and I told you so)" to "you must wear safety gloves (because it's necessary for your safety and we don't want you to get hurt, even though you might think there is little risk)."

Bad managers tell. Good managers explain why.

Great managers go beyond this.

Great managers might engage the employees in figuring out how to reduce the safety risk that makes gloves necessary in the first place. Maybe an employee would suggest that a different, but equally effective, chemical be used. We don't know unless we engage our employees.

In 90% of workplace situations, I'd guess, the manager shouldn't be telling people what to do, even if they are making the effort to explain why. Great managers engage people in designing their work and they continue to engage them in ongoing improvement. As I learned from former Toyota employees and the books of Taiichi Ohno, work procedures "should not be forced down from above but rather set by the production workers themselves."

This mindset and approach requires that leaders set aside their egos and century-old habits. of top-down management. Managers won't have all of the answers. Instead of dictating how things get done (and expecting obedience and compliance), managers need to work together with employees to define how the work is done. Managers need to ask employees what ideas they have for improving the workplace, through the practice of "Kaizen."

Our employees are adults and they deserve our respect. They deserve great leaders who can work together to help everybody succeed and do what's best for their customers (or residents).

Source:linkedin
 
THE #1 REASON LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT FAILS




By Mike Myatt, Forbes Magazine March 2013


Over the years, I’ve observed just about every type of leadership development program on the planet. And the sad thing is, most of them don’t even come close to accomplishing what they were designed to do – build better leaders. In today’s column I’ll share the #1 reason leadership development programs fail, and give you 20 things to focus on to ensure yours doesn’t become another casualty.


According to the American Society of Training and Development, U.S. businesses spend more than $170 Billion dollars on leadership-based curriculum, with the majority of those dollars being spent on “Leadership Training.” Here’s the thing – when it comes to leadership, the training industry has been broken for years. You don’t train leaders you develop them – a subtle yet important distinction lost on many. Leadership training is alive and well, but it should have died long, long ago.


This may be heresy to some – but training is indeed the #1 reason leadership development fails. While training is often accepted as productive, it rarely is. The terms training and development have somehow become synonymous when they are clearly not. This is more than an argument based on semantics – it’s painfully real. I’ll likely take some heat over my allegations against the training industry’s negative impact on the development of leaders, and while this column works off some broad generalizations, in my experience having worked with literally thousands of leaders, they are largely true.


An Overview of the Problem
My problem with training is it presumes the need for indoctrination on systems, processes and techniques. Moreover, training assumes that said systems, processes and techniques are the right way to do things. When a trainer refers to something as “best practices” you can with great certitude rest assured that’s not the case. Training focuses on


best practices, while development focuses on next practices. Training is often a rote, one directional, one dimensional, one size fits all, authoritarian process that imposes static, outdated information on people. The majority of training takes place within a monologue (lecture/presentation) rather than a dialog. Perhaps worst of all, training



The Solution
The solution to the leadership training problem is to scrap it in favor of development. Don’t train leaders, coach them, mentor them, disciple them, and develop them, but please don’t attempt to train them. Where training attempts to standardize by blending to a norm and acclimating to the status quo, development strives to call out the unique and differentiate by shattering the status quo. Training is something leaders dread and will try and avoid, whereas they will embrace and look forward to development. Development is nuanced, contextual, collaborative, fluid, and above all else, actionable.

The following 20 items point out some of the main differences between training and development:



1. Training blends to a norm – Development occurs beyond the norm.
2. Training focuses on technique/content/curriculum – Development focuses on people.
3. Training tests patience – Development tests courage.
4. Training focuses on the present – Development focuses on the future.
5. Training adheres to standards – Development focuses on maximizing potential.
6. Training is transactional – Development is transformational.
7. Training focuses on maintenance – Development focuses on growth.
8. Training focuses on the role – Development focuses on the person.
9. Training indoctrinates – Development educates.
10. Training maintains status quo – Development catalyzes innovation.
11. Training stifles culture – Development enriches culture.
12. Training encourages compliance – Development emphasizes performance.
13. Training focuses on efficiency – Development focuses on effectiveness.
14. Training focuses on problems - Development focuses on solutions.


15. Training focuses on reporting lines – Development expands influence.
16. Training places people in a box – Development frees them from the box.
17. Training is mechanical – Development is intellectual.
18. Training focuses on the knowns – Development explores the unknowns.
19. Training places people in a comfort zone – Development moves people beyond their comfort zones.
20. Training is finite – Development is infinite.
If what you desire is a robotic, static thinker – train them. If you’re seeking innovative, critical thinkers – develop them. I have always said it is impossible to have an enterprise which is growing and evolving if leadership is not.



Thoughts?
Source: Forbes Magazine, March 2013: Read more at
http://kiliankamota.blogspot.com/2013/03/weekly-news.html
 
Well, i see a Great Manager in me, basing to what is written in this article.
 
all of them wanafanya efficiency -do things right and effectiveness-do the right thing
 

Similar Discussions

Back
Top Bottom