This is the theory of situational leadership, in which leadership style is tailored to meet situational variables such as subordinates' levels of commitment and competence.
It's a good study for leaders looking to add to their leadership toolbox.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Yes it is dictatorial. That doesn't mean that it isn't leadership, nor that it isn't the best approach under specific circumstances.
If you are dealing with incompetence or people with a grossly inflated sense of their own competence and/or worth, then it may be the only practical option available.
If you are dealing with incompetence or people with a grossly inflated sense of their own competence and/or worth, then it may be the only practical option available.
It's coercion.
If you have those types (incompetent, inflated egos, etc.) working for you, one would have to question your judgment in the hiring process.
If you retain them, after seeing what you're dealing with, I'd have to conclude that neither you nor them bring any value to my organization and would can the lot of you.
Sieg Heil!
If you have those types (incompetent, inflated egos, etc.) working for you, one would have to question your judgment in the hiring process.
If you retain them, after seeing what you're dealing with, I'd have to conclude that neither you nor them bring any value to my organization and would can the lot of you.
Sieg Heil!
Given the last line of your post, I will assume your belief that anybody in authority who actually applies that authority is a Nazi.
But immediately prior to that you wrote "If you retain them, after seeing what you're dealing with, I'd have to conclude that neither you nor them bring any value to my organization and would can the lot of you."
I'd distill that to "Get rid of the deadwood or I'll get rid of you."
So which is it? Or does it only apply to you? I'd be willing to bet you're one of those people who thinks he has the right to tell others how to live their lives.
But immediately prior to that you wrote "If you retain them, after seeing what you're dealing with, I'd have to conclude that neither you nor them bring any value to my organization and would can the lot of you."
I'd distill that to "Get rid of the deadwood or I'll get rid of you."
So which is it? Or does it only apply to you? I'd be willing to bet you're one of those people who thinks he has the right to tell others how to live their lives.
From the employees point of view, an autocrat could come off as coercive, but from a managers standpoint, it is a means ( usually the last one for most folks ) to an end - just business.
When you really come down to it, Belexes, isn't employment itself coercive in nature? Do the job, or else ( someone else will )?
I think coercion is a bit strong as well as the Nazi reference. Nice. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences...
When you really come down to it, Belexes, isn't employment itself coercive in nature? Do the job, or else ( someone else will )?
I think coercion is a bit strong as well as the Nazi reference. Nice. Sounds like you've had some bad experiences...
You are right, upper management uses and keeps people like this. Even with above normal turnover rate, low moral. They like the budget numbers he produced.
It was funny, most of the number that were used were fudged, just to keep this guy off our backs, and everbody knew it. The budget keep everybody happy.
When the era of Customer interaction was Very big, they got rid of him, Autocrats can't deal with equal or more power.
Tom B.
It was funny, most of the number that were used were fudged, just to keep this guy off our backs, and everbody knew it. The budget keep everybody happy.
When the era of Customer interaction was Very big, they got rid of him, Autocrats can't deal with equal or more power.
Tom B.
Drew some people retreat behind the N word whenever someone rains on their parade. You are right. Nazi, coercive, these terms are nothing but bald faced hyperbole. Parasites will drain an organization, and see any attempt to see to the needs of the organization as evil. I was told by a buddy buddy slacker coddling manager that email is evil and it is unreasonable to say that if it is important it is important enough to write down.
Some people will do whatever it takes to get something for nothing. There are no free lunches. The economy is turning down. The best run organizations will survive, and the chaff will fold. People choose to enter into the arrangement wherein work is exchanged for pay. There is no coercion.
Some people will do whatever it takes to get something for nothing. There are no free lunches. The economy is turning down. The best run organizations will survive, and the chaff will fold. People choose to enter into the arrangement wherein work is exchanged for pay. There is no coercion.
egomaniac sociopaths do tend to hate it when the facts about exploitation, capitalism, coercion and yes, Nazism, are brought into the conversation.
In the end, Capitalism is only allowed to continue in order to serve the need in every economy to MOVE PROFITS DOWN THE FOODCHAIN.
Any other system would work as well...if the profiteers didn't control access to capital.
They do, so we all put up with it.
Repeat 1932, you get another FDR.
Or another Hitler.
Simple as that.
In the end, Capitalism is only allowed to continue in order to serve the need in every economy to MOVE PROFITS DOWN THE FOODCHAIN.
Any other system would work as well...if the profiteers didn't control access to capital.
They do, so we all put up with it.
Repeat 1932, you get another FDR.
Or another Hitler.
Simple as that.
There are old scool hiring philosophies that require flexibility in leadership. I can remember interviewing for an IT job years ago where no one from IT spoke with me during the interview process. I was asked questions by the HR people and could see them blank over when I asnswered, and then to see them get angry when I had to dumb down the answers the second time. Also, you have to see getting rid of people as tough, you have to document REPEATED instances of failure.
Keep in mind you can have a highly competent, motivated employee in one particular task and the same employee can be less-than-competent and have a low motivation for a different task. It's based on the situation. So you tailor how you lead that person depending on the task they are accomplishing.
For example, say you have a brilliant programmer. Using an autocratic leadership style on a programming project would surely kill their productivity and motivation, so you would likely use more of a supporting or delegating style. Give the programmer room to thrive in what they are competent in. But now you need this programmer to do something they've never done before, like set up and configure a new server. If you use the same leadership style, they may get frustrated and you may be setting them up for failure. In this case if you used more of a coaching or directing style (more autocratic), you would ensure they are successful.
It can be just as likely to frustrate and alienate a subordinate by NOT using an autocratic style when necessary as it would be by using it when it is not necessary.
If you think an employee is undesirable because they lack motivation, or competence on a particular task, then you aren't much of a leader. Leadership can be challenging and it is about moving employees towards a common goal (even if they are not always acting the way you would like them to).
For example, say you have a brilliant programmer. Using an autocratic leadership style on a programming project would surely kill their productivity and motivation, so you would likely use more of a supporting or delegating style. Give the programmer room to thrive in what they are competent in. But now you need this programmer to do something they've never done before, like set up and configure a new server. If you use the same leadership style, they may get frustrated and you may be setting them up for failure. In this case if you used more of a coaching or directing style (more autocratic), you would ensure they are successful.
It can be just as likely to frustrate and alienate a subordinate by NOT using an autocratic style when necessary as it would be by using it when it is not necessary.
If you think an employee is undesirable because they lack motivation, or competence on a particular task, then you aren't much of a leader. Leadership can be challenging and it is about moving employees towards a common goal (even if they are not always acting the way you would like them to).
I have been on both sides of the fence as a State Labor/Union Delegate and as a small/medium business owner(currently) and quite frankly the only person responsible for a failure/sacking of an employee/subordinate is(except for people who wish to get sacked--yep they exist)the person in charge. The sooner managers realise that they ultimately are the ones failing the subordinate the sooner they will learn how to manage effectively. Sometimes you have to accept you can't help a subordinate and the sooner you accept that and realise your short commings the sooner you will seek advice on how to overcome the same. To motivate a subordinate/employee is a key management role, and it starts as soon as you interview the person for a job, they do need precise guidelines for there job, and you have to determine if they fit your expectations for those guidelines. The sooner managers/bossess/owners in business realise they are only as good as there team the sooner you will have a productive and goal orientated business at all levels
The problem is that these people can't or don't want to change to fit the situation.
They themselfs are consumed with their own importance.
They themselfs are consumed with their own importance.
Yeah, I find people in high tech jobs are most productive when they are in constant fear of losing their jobs or being beaten: arbitrary layoffs, humiliation and public floggings, that's the way!
Those big words like "autocratic" and "situational" may confuse me, but I know what works: when people like what they are doing, they do it better. FUD distracts and derails good people and is an effective way destroy productivity, stifle creativity, and ensure mediocrity. What works: get to know everyone well enough to know when/what to ask and when/what to tell. You have to own up to your job. Know what the team expects from you, and make sure everyone knows what you expect from them. Loyalty and respect are earned, partly by being loyal and respectful (that is as important as being good at what you do). I learned most of what I know about team building when I was 6 (just didn't realize it for a while). Still works.
Those big words like "autocratic" and "situational" may confuse me, but I know what works: when people like what they are doing, they do it better. FUD distracts and derails good people and is an effective way destroy productivity, stifle creativity, and ensure mediocrity. What works: get to know everyone well enough to know when/what to ask and when/what to tell. You have to own up to your job. Know what the team expects from you, and make sure everyone knows what you expect from them. Loyalty and respect are earned, partly by being loyal and respectful (that is as important as being good at what you do). I learned most of what I know about team building when I was 6 (just didn't realize it for a while). Still works.
Yes leadership is situational. There are time you have to change leadrship style because of the compositoin of the team. Autocratic works if the team is less competent and less motivated. Coaching works if the team is less competent but motivated. Collaborative leadership works if the team is competent but less motivated and Delegative leadership works when the team is both competent and motivated. In this case leadership is also dynamic and will depend of the team composition. A good leader can switch the style of leadership according to individual team members capability and capacity and according to the teams capacity and capability as a whole.
Nicely stated, Rex! An autocratic style is just one tool of many that an effective manner has in his bag of tricks. Most of the time good managers must balance some level of autocrat, coach, collaborator and delegator at all times. Much of the time, the team is comprised of seasoned, motivated professionals as well as entry level, "don't know what they don't know" folks and others that fall in between.
You hit the NAIL ON THE HEAD, managers can theorize abt that style all they want. The people who use it are Dictators by personality....
Tom B
Tom B
Every situation should be analysed on its own merits, the whole point of sitautional leadership is to use the right style at the right time.
Is there a right time for autocratic leadership - of course there is. One would hope though that the manager takes steps to ensure that autocratic leadership isn't required continuously, through mentoring/coaching/training. If a manager is stuck in the same style all the time, they are lazy, stupid or both.
James
Is there a right time for autocratic leadership - of course there is. One would hope though that the manager takes steps to ensure that autocratic leadership isn't required continuously, through mentoring/coaching/training. If a manager is stuck in the same style all the time, they are lazy, stupid or both.
James
I believe there is a lot of misplaced thinking going on
This omes back to the difference between leadership and management as discussed in a post the other day
Leadership is about pathfinding, encouraging. demanding, anything that will enable you to meet the visionary goal that the leader sees will enable the company to reach a new plateau, or a new position in the future. Management is about dealing with the day to day minutae, meeting corporate planning objectives, dealing with leave, sick employees, non performance, purchase orders, accounting for opex and capex
both of these are essential to the performance of an organisation. a good comparison woud be the difference between Sol Tujillo and Ziggy Switkowski, both who have been CEO's of Telstra in australia
Sol is a visionary type with a clearer vision of what the future demands, and demands of Telstra that it delivers come what may, while ziggy is more of a manager type, who will take a vision, put the wall behind it and make it perform. Both are types that are required for different deliverables
Getting back to autocratic leadersip v management and democratic leadership and management, both have different functions. When there is an emergency, and you need to solve a problem now, there is no time to consult, to prove your point of view to countless others. you need to demand and get deliverys without arguement. Armed forces work very clearly in this viewpoint, whereby officers order, and soldiers do.
I note that one of the phenomenoms that seems to be occuring now is where companies talk about staff engagement, on the basis that engagement is a functin of the success of an organisation. It is useful when you are trying to change the culture of an organisation to that morse suited to the needs of the future. this does require a deal of democratisation (Which some will see as socialism). but it does depend on what you wish to achieve
This omes back to the difference between leadership and management as discussed in a post the other day
Leadership is about pathfinding, encouraging. demanding, anything that will enable you to meet the visionary goal that the leader sees will enable the company to reach a new plateau, or a new position in the future. Management is about dealing with the day to day minutae, meeting corporate planning objectives, dealing with leave, sick employees, non performance, purchase orders, accounting for opex and capex
both of these are essential to the performance of an organisation. a good comparison woud be the difference between Sol Tujillo and Ziggy Switkowski, both who have been CEO's of Telstra in australia
Sol is a visionary type with a clearer vision of what the future demands, and demands of Telstra that it delivers come what may, while ziggy is more of a manager type, who will take a vision, put the wall behind it and make it perform. Both are types that are required for different deliverables
Getting back to autocratic leadersip v management and democratic leadership and management, both have different functions. When there is an emergency, and you need to solve a problem now, there is no time to consult, to prove your point of view to countless others. you need to demand and get deliverys without arguement. Armed forces work very clearly in this viewpoint, whereby officers order, and soldiers do.
I note that one of the phenomenoms that seems to be occuring now is where companies talk about staff engagement, on the basis that engagement is a functin of the success of an organisation. It is useful when you are trying to change the culture of an organisation to that morse suited to the needs of the future. this does require a deal of democratisation (Which some will see as socialism). but it does depend on what you wish to achieve
Which is why Iraq went so well, yes?
So well the nation fell back on BRIBES to get Shieks to do our killing of resistance FOR US because we could not find them.
No input, no adaptation, no flexibility...no success.
So well the nation fell back on BRIBES to get Shieks to do our killing of resistance FOR US because we could not find them.
No input, no adaptation, no flexibility...no success.
Whilst much has been written about the value of Situational Leadership, it is also true that (for various reasons) managers find it difficult to adopt the best manage styles for differing situations.
Derek, you are completely correct in your assessment. Daniel Goleman wrote on this very topic in his HBR article "Leadership that gets results".
In it he discusses 6 leadership styles and when the use of each might be appropriate, so yes, some situations may demand an Autocratic or Coercive leadership style to get the desired result.
In it he discusses 6 leadership styles and when the use of each might be appropriate, so yes, some situations may demand an Autocratic or Coercive leadership style to get the desired result.
Many years ago, in the early 1980's to be precise, I studied situational leadership as a precuser to my appointment to lead a rather fractious IT Department. Until then I had thought leaders were born, and that leadership is something innate. But what I learned is that leadership is complex, and can be learned. I enrolled in a course with Wilf Jarvis, and Australian exponent of situational leadership, and soon after adopted his 4 quadrant method. Its been around since the 60's, and basically it is:
Q1 - low skills. Good commitment. Be directive.
Q2 - low to medium skills. Average commitment. Sell the job, coach the employee, and direct where necessary.
Q3 - medium to high skills. Good commitment. Mentor and support.
Q4 - high skills. High commitment. Delegate. You don't need to hover around this person.
The other important lesson, is know yourself. The biggest failure of a person in a leadership role is to find fault. Always try to find success. Suddenly this positive reinforcement translates to positive attitudes. People with positive attitudes find success. People know when they stuff-up. Just recognise this, and move on. Life then is much more fun.
Q1 - low skills. Good commitment. Be directive.
Q2 - low to medium skills. Average commitment. Sell the job, coach the employee, and direct where necessary.
Q3 - medium to high skills. Good commitment. Mentor and support.
Q4 - high skills. High commitment. Delegate. You don't need to hover around this person.
The other important lesson, is know yourself. The biggest failure of a person in a leadership role is to find fault. Always try to find success. Suddenly this positive reinforcement translates to positive attitudes. People with positive attitudes find success. People know when they stuff-up. Just recognise this, and move on. Life then is much more fun.
I like this philosophy, each professional is different and may require separate management guidance techniques to achieve individual and company success.
The military states that leadership is learned and trains from the lowest to the highest that concept. It is well worth everyone's effort to learn leadership so that not only can everyone lead, but so they can follow as well. It helps when everyone understands the importance of leadership.
One of the things I did was put different people in charge of basic things and in small groups to see how they did. This did a couple of things. One, I learned who was good at it and who wasn't and needed more training. Secondly, it actually made my job easier because since at some point I put everyone in charge over something, everyone understood that leadership isn't that easy.
Another thing that came of that was attitudes improved and performance increased. When you give people a chance to make a difference, then you have made a difference. When it all boils down to motivations, that is all anyone really wants.
One of the things I did was put different people in charge of basic things and in small groups to see how they did. This did a couple of things. One, I learned who was good at it and who wasn't and needed more training. Secondly, it actually made my job easier because since at some point I put everyone in charge over something, everyone understood that leadership isn't that easy.
Another thing that came of that was attitudes improved and performance increased. When you give people a chance to make a difference, then you have made a difference. When it all boils down to motivations, that is all anyone really wants.
Your statement is very accurate, learning about leadership can make one a better follower--and of course frustrate the hell out of you when you work for someone with poor or no leadership skills.
The desire to make a difference is one of the higher levels on Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Eventually, that is something most people want; however, until their other, more basic needs are met, they probably won't realize this desire (e.g. food, shelter, safety, love, belonging, etc).
The desire to make a difference is one of the higher levels on Maslow's heirarchy of needs. Eventually, that is something most people want; however, until their other, more basic needs are met, they probably won't realize this desire (e.g. food, shelter, safety, love, belonging, etc).
Why do we keep hearing about the military as a model?
They FAIL every single time they have a job to do.
"Bring us more billions" is ALWAYS the cry once actual battle is joined, despite having the lion's share of the national budget.
Can't do the job despite having 6 times more to spend than all competitors combined?
FAILURE!!!
They FAIL every single time they have a job to do.
"Bring us more billions" is ALWAYS the cry once actual battle is joined, despite having the lion's share of the national budget.
Can't do the job despite having 6 times more to spend than all competitors combined?
FAILURE!!!
...somebody who doesn't allow facts to color his opinions.
The military has the lion's share of the national budget? Where did you get your numbers? This link: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm ?
This sentence on that page made me laugh out loud: [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget?s grossly underestimated $38 billion in ?allowances? to be spent in 2009 for the ?War on Terror,? which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan].
In other words, "The numbers didn't say what we wanted them to, so we changed them until they did." Their problem is obvious...as is yours.
The military has the lion's share of the national budget? Where did you get your numbers? This link: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm ?
This sentence on that page made me laugh out loud: [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget?s grossly underestimated $38 billion in ?allowances? to be spent in 2009 for the ?War on Terror,? which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan].
In other words, "The numbers didn't say what we wanted them to, so we changed them until they did." Their problem is obvious...as is yours.
Situational leadership was taught heavily when I was in the USAF. The point of it is there is no perfect one-size-fits-all style. Some situations and/or people require a different approach. A good leader can and does use all the styles of leadership from autocratic to delegation.
Here's an example that ties back to the original topic. Autocratic leadership is almost always the only style to use during emergencies. There is no time for debate or buy-in. The job has to get done NOW.
Another time for autocratic leadership is when an unpopular task must be accomplished. Your people are are likely to be resistant to or in outright opposition of the task at hand. Autocratic leadership may be your only choice.
Here's an example that ties back to the original topic. Autocratic leadership is almost always the only style to use during emergencies. There is no time for debate or buy-in. The job has to get done NOW.
Another time for autocratic leadership is when an unpopular task must be accomplished. Your people are are likely to be resistant to or in outright opposition of the task at hand. Autocratic leadership may be your only choice.
You are completely correct, and each leadership situatation requires a reassessment of circumstances. If you cannot do that, it may be time to pass on the mantle of leadership to someone that can.
Many managers/leaders 'manage' on autopoilot - they don't think about style and they don't vary their approach. If their major leadership tool is simply to criticize, they suck the enthusiasm from their staff.
One of the most important things to being a successful manager is consistant behavior. There are times when you have to adopt a different style to deal with a unique situation. If you are perceived as having no style, because you try to adapt to every individual and situation, employees will not know how to deal with you and you will fail.
Adapting leadership style to the situation is still leadership. Not adapting will make one seem inflexible or incapable of leading effectively. This doesn't mean being wishy-washy or erratic--just able to identify when a particular style will be more effective. The consistency comes through in the leader's ability to set subordinates up for success in every situation.
"Situational" management sounds a bit too Disney for me. Sounds like something a consultant would try to sell us.
While in theory it may be useful, I think consistency is really of much more value.
Staff have to know what to expect from their managers.
While in theory it may be useful, I think consistency is really of much more value.
Staff have to know what to expect from their managers.
I don't agree with you on this one when you say Situational is abit "Disney".
People's capabilities are different , some are exceptional, some average etc. Although they might well qualified for their jobs.
To deal with such an outlay of employees needs and mixed approach.
They are some employees whose perfomance is not consistant , hence the need to apply different styles at different times.
People's capabilities are different , some are exceptional, some average etc. Although they might well qualified for their jobs.
To deal with such an outlay of employees needs and mixed approach.
They are some employees whose perfomance is not consistant , hence the need to apply different styles at different times.
In general, I agree that you need to be flexible in regards to individual needs, and react accordingly.
However, your overall method should remain consistent. Should not get caught up in re-inventing yourself to cater to individual expectations. If you are X, be X. If you are Y, be Y. ( Do they use X and Y mgmnt theories anymore? )
However, your overall method should remain consistent. Should not get caught up in re-inventing yourself to cater to individual expectations. If you are X, be X. If you are Y, be Y. ( Do they use X and Y mgmnt theories anymore? )
Situational management is just a means to help you as a manager focus correctly to achieve the right outcome for your organisation.
It helps you look not just at a person, but at tasks or projects.
If a person or project is off the rails, it is up the manager to work out what is wrong and an appropriate action.
I've had to use it in the past to bring projects back on track. This usually occurs when a manager allows too much creativity to abound without boundaries or clear indication of outcomes. Thankfully, my current team is mostly self-managed. They still expect me to do my job, which sometimes means I have to lay down the law. More nicely put... set a clear direction.
It helps you look not just at a person, but at tasks or projects.
If a person or project is off the rails, it is up the manager to work out what is wrong and an appropriate action.
I've had to use it in the past to bring projects back on track. This usually occurs when a manager allows too much creativity to abound without boundaries or clear indication of outcomes. Thankfully, my current team is mostly self-managed. They still expect me to do my job, which sometimes means I have to lay down the law. More nicely put... set a clear direction.
You are correct that consistency is vitally important. Your staff need to know and be able to predict (at least reasonably well) your approach based on circumstances, but they can be different responses based on different circumstances.
A low urgency task assigned to a trusted and competent staff member/team may only require a brief comment of the need and then a few casual checks as to whether they need any support around the coffee pot to achieve a successful outcome.
A critical task during a crisis assigned to the same staff member/team, may require a dictatorial command of precisely what is required.
What is important for this consistency is mutual respect and trust. You need to know your staff/teams (and their capacities and capabilities) and they need to know you and respect that if you are dictating (after they have earned the right to not be dictated to), there is a reason (it's not that you are just having a bad day).
It's worthwhile to have a debrief after any crisis (situation when you will dictate to staff who have earned the "trusted and competent" descriptor), to let everyone know what was happening. This reinforces that your dictates were for a reason, even if you didn't stop to let them know at the time.
As you can infer from the above, I believe that you can make levels of autonomy an "earnable" reward. Demonstrate competence (in specific areas) and dedication and you earn more autonomy (except in emergencies) in those areas. BUT this only works if you are as demanding of yourself.
If you don't know about an area, you must ask those that do - even if they are your subordinates.
A low urgency task assigned to a trusted and competent staff member/team may only require a brief comment of the need and then a few casual checks as to whether they need any support around the coffee pot to achieve a successful outcome.
A critical task during a crisis assigned to the same staff member/team, may require a dictatorial command of precisely what is required.
What is important for this consistency is mutual respect and trust. You need to know your staff/teams (and their capacities and capabilities) and they need to know you and respect that if you are dictating (after they have earned the right to not be dictated to), there is a reason (it's not that you are just having a bad day).
It's worthwhile to have a debrief after any crisis (situation when you will dictate to staff who have earned the "trusted and competent" descriptor), to let everyone know what was happening. This reinforces that your dictates were for a reason, even if you didn't stop to let them know at the time.
As you can infer from the above, I believe that you can make levels of autonomy an "earnable" reward. Demonstrate competence (in specific areas) and dedication and you earn more autonomy (except in emergencies) in those areas. BUT this only works if you are as demanding of yourself.
If you don't know about an area, you must ask those that do - even if they are your subordinates.
Having managed several retail stores as well as a small tech department, I can say from experience that one style does NOT fit all. People are all different. Some people respond to autocratic leadership, and others can be wound up and just go on their own. Managers that can't adjust will find that they have low productivity or high turn-over until they find enough employees who respond to their singular style.
Here's an example: At a computer store, I had two employees whom we'll call Jason and Dan. Jason was a very people-oriented salesperson. Dan was a very task-oriented salesperson. Both could sell because customers responded to their different styles. But at the close of the day, they both had the same duties.
I never had to do much to motivate Dan, and the less I hovered, the better job he would do. But if I did the same thing with Jason, nothing would get done - much less get done right - so I had to adjust. As much as it is against my nature, I found he did best when I would constantly follow up to keep him on task.
As an example of what NOT to do, when I went out of town for management training, I left Jason in charge (being the senior employee). But Jason tried to manage Dan like I had to manage Jason. When I got back, I had to put down a mutiny! Everyone was threatening to quit. I was able to straighten things out, but it goes to show you that you that one management style does not fit all employees.
Here's an example: At a computer store, I had two employees whom we'll call Jason and Dan. Jason was a very people-oriented salesperson. Dan was a very task-oriented salesperson. Both could sell because customers responded to their different styles. But at the close of the day, they both had the same duties.
I never had to do much to motivate Dan, and the less I hovered, the better job he would do. But if I did the same thing with Jason, nothing would get done - much less get done right - so I had to adjust. As much as it is against my nature, I found he did best when I would constantly follow up to keep him on task.
As an example of what NOT to do, when I went out of town for management training, I left Jason in charge (being the senior employee). But Jason tried to manage Dan like I had to manage Jason. When I got back, I had to put down a mutiny! Everyone was threatening to quit. I was able to straighten things out, but it goes to show you that you that one management style does not fit all employees.
One Management style does not fit all employees. Every employee is unique with different traits and talents. A good manager learns the employee and never loses sight of the goal to make that individual the most productive that they can possibly be. Productive motivated employees that know they are contributing are happy well adjusted employees.
In technology professionals for the most part can do their skill set with many companies. The environment to success is what we'll keep them from going to a better company environment.
I doubt your employees viewed you as inconsistent. If you would have treated both the same, no matter which style you used, one of them would have been set up for failure--and that person would have blamed your poor leadership 
Yes leadership is situational. There are time you have to change leadrship style because of the compositoin of the team. Autocratic works if the team is less competent and less motivated. Coaching works if the team is less competent but motivated. Collaborative leadership works if the team is competent but less motivated and Delegative leadership works when the team is both competent and motivated. In this case leadership is also dynamic and will depend of the team composition. A good leader can switch the style of leadership according to individual team members capability and capacity and according to the teams capacity and capability as a whole.
i'm with the people who note that the words "autocratic" and "autocratic style" are being stretched beyond their definitions. (though many may feel that focusing on definitions is not helpful, communication depends on agreement of terms and defining what is actually being discussed.) for instance, fairness and respect do not figure into autocracy. and since the basic belief underlying the autocratic style of management is that employees have no interest in work or its quality, it would be exceedingly difficult for a manager to show true respect while managing people autocratically. in addition, previously given examples do not actually represent unlimited authority. the assumption that an emergency gives a leader ultimate authority is misleading. to raise this to the level of absurdity, if you shoot someone because they did not follow your order, a higher authority will call you to task. your authority does have limits. likewise, even in an emergency, you may give orders autocratically, however, people still have to be willing to follow those orders. in conclusion, it seems, as mentioned by several others, that most comments that discuss autocratic leadership are actually discussing authoritative style, firmness and/or decisiveness as well as situational flexibility and adaptability.
When i started working I was given a task to do and a mentor to show me how it was to be done. Then I worked for the "do it" supervisor whos thought was it has to be done, you figure it out. From there it was mission oriented, then onto thee Management By Objective (MBO) model, as time move on it became one where we negotiated goals with the employee. No where in 40 years of management or supervision have i found one model working better than another. Some are easier and less stressful, but when it comes to getting the job done it has generally been the innovative manager that has succeeded. I recall one individual I worked for indicating he like to hire veterans because they were innovative, if the problem could not be solved one way they would keep working until it could be resolved. So often that aspect of leading has been discouraged with a by the book attitude. I still think there is a place for a little of each model.
I worked for a guy who would show you the "Project Plan" when you ask for direction about what to do. Some of the folks who worked for him just wanted someone to be the foreman. Give them the tools and the task and they will go do it.
When my boss had to take an emergency leave for a couple of weeks I became the foreman. It worked very well until he came back and took over. He went back to the Project Plan. The people still came to me wanting assignments for a month after he returned even though he was in charge.
Foreman style may be autocratic (without the whip) but many people really appreciate leadership having the direction and leadership.
When my boss had to take an emergency leave for a couple of weeks I became the foreman. It worked very well until he came back and took over. He went back to the Project Plan. The people still came to me wanting assignments for a month after he returned even though he was in charge.
Foreman style may be autocratic (without the whip) but many people really appreciate leadership having the direction and leadership.
on who the leader is. If it's me, the autocratic style works fine...
This concern may fall under 'situational' leadership, but frankly, I think when you deal with KNOWLEDGE WORKERS, you are not dealing with people who respond well to autocrats. The folks that like a set job which doesn't change from day to day and requires no independent thought don't fit well into a knowledge work environment. You can perhaps manage those specific employees better by being more commanding, but you cannot improve the output of the department until you get some _real_ knowledge workers, the kind that won't put up with bad mgmt.
Ok - I'm new here, please be gentle!
Surely there is still a place for Autocratic style leadership in transactional type role, where creativity or innovation is not required. For example, a McDonalds employee works in a highly structured, processed environment. How can you be democratic or transformational in this type of industry?
Surely there is still a place for Autocratic style leadership in transactional type role, where creativity or innovation is not required. For example, a McDonalds employee works in a highly structured, processed environment. How can you be democratic or transformational in this type of industry?
The answer is "You can't." Many posters to this discussion appear to be incapable of grasping this concept.
One issue I've encountered in more consultative or Theory Z environments is the presumption by some staff that if they've supplied input contrary to a management decision, they're off he hook for abiding by that decision.
Then you have the cases of people who provided input, the manager went a different way, and the people on the losing side of the argument walk around telling everyone within earshot that their manager is an idiot.
that the manager is an idiot. When in autocratic mode, you better be right on otherwise you lose the respect of your minions and when that happens well it is probably easier to replace the manager than all the people doing the work.
This is really interesting. MY boss is currently trying to implement some kind of warped communist regime which seems to be crumbling before it has even started.
I am going to forward this to him
I am going to forward this to him
"...Yuer jaicket's oan a shaky nail !!"
Thereby indicating the propensity for your jacket to NOT be in evidence, hanging in the office the following morning,
Thereby indicating the propensity for your jacket to NOT be in evidence, hanging in the office the following morning,
...or you'd know that the two terms are interchangeable.
I'd heard Handshake long before the other.
Should we ask OM which he thinks is more prevelent?
James
I'd heard Handshake long before the other.
Should we ask OM which he thinks is more prevelent?
James
by a former member of the Glasgow Junior Rangers in the mid 70s. I'm thinking he'd have known from pratical experience.
If you young'uns change the convention, you can't expect me to keep up.
James
If you young'uns change the convention, you can't expect me to keep up.
James
I think the democratic management style does not only apply to the establishment of goals but also can be applied to the business details area. It is true that some employees deal better with details than others. However the majority of them, specifically in the programming and configuration business, do not like to be told how to work with those details. For example a programmer may like management to define objectively what a program output should be, but not how to write the code to do it. In the other hand if management wants to define a coding standardization to be applied to all code generated, I am sure the programmers would like to participate on it.
Rather than managing differently according to employees only, you need to include the business situation you are dealing with.
Rather than managing differently according to employees only, you need to include the business situation you are dealing with.
Well, this is old stuff, isn't it? First, let me reposition the issue this way:
Management (is a subset of leadership) is both a science and an art. Autocratic science or art can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Therefore, an autocratic leadership, no matter the justification, is an aberration and can result in chaos.
I think that the primary role of managers is to make things--good to great- happen.
You might get good results by being autocratic (Saddam Hussein got his great results by being who he was and history is saturated with examples of leaders who used such methods to get results). However, this approach cannot always work. It might help for expediency, not in the long run.
When you kind of champion this managerial approach, do you really mean being autocratic? or do you want to mean being firm?
Being firm is not being autocratic. I liken autocratic management/leadership to management by intimidation (MBI), or management by threat (MBT).
Just like not everyone who has a child is a good or great parent, not every manager is a great leader. Some managers are great at managing technology than people, and other are excellent people managers than hardware or software/processes. If you have a manager who combine both people and IT management skills, then you are lucky.
Leaders--true leaders are those who thinks about people around them, i.e., they help them grow into future leader. Some managers' primary concern is keeping their job. And they would do that at all cost, even by becoming autocratic.
I work at a client site and must say that I have a great management team. They care about employees, including me in a rather special way. They don't just do the talking. Their actions are evidence of their talking. In fact, they act more than they promise.
Democratic management combined with firmness when needed is strategically important. Autocratic leadership is obsolete, destructive and lead to long-term chaos even if some managers/leaders can achieve short-term results through it.
Just my two cents and I might be mistaken.
Erick
Management (is a subset of leadership) is both a science and an art. Autocratic science or art can lead to catastrophic outcomes. Therefore, an autocratic leadership, no matter the justification, is an aberration and can result in chaos.
I think that the primary role of managers is to make things--good to great- happen.
You might get good results by being autocratic (Saddam Hussein got his great results by being who he was and history is saturated with examples of leaders who used such methods to get results). However, this approach cannot always work. It might help for expediency, not in the long run.
When you kind of champion this managerial approach, do you really mean being autocratic? or do you want to mean being firm?
Being firm is not being autocratic. I liken autocratic management/leadership to management by intimidation (MBI), or management by threat (MBT).
Just like not everyone who has a child is a good or great parent, not every manager is a great leader. Some managers are great at managing technology than people, and other are excellent people managers than hardware or software/processes. If you have a manager who combine both people and IT management skills, then you are lucky.
Leaders--true leaders are those who thinks about people around them, i.e., they help them grow into future leader. Some managers' primary concern is keeping their job. And they would do that at all cost, even by becoming autocratic.
I work at a client site and must say that I have a great management team. They care about employees, including me in a rather special way. They don't just do the talking. Their actions are evidence of their talking. In fact, they act more than they promise.
Democratic management combined with firmness when needed is strategically important. Autocratic leadership is obsolete, destructive and lead to long-term chaos even if some managers/leaders can achieve short-term results through it.
Just my two cents and I might be mistaken.
Erick
Autocratic leadership is obsolete, destructive and lead to long-term chaos even if some managers/leaders can achieve short-term results through it.
That's a crock. The autocratic style is essential in emergency response or when attempting to alleviate chaos. If you don't understand this, you have no business in management or consulting.
There's no time for round-table discussion when the levee breaks; you have to close the hole.
"A, do this. B, do that!"
B: "But I'd rather do this..."
"B, do that or get the hell out of the way. C, help B."
That's a crock. The autocratic style is essential in emergency response or when attempting to alleviate chaos. If you don't understand this, you have no business in management or consulting.
There's no time for round-table discussion when the levee breaks; you have to close the hole.
"A, do this. B, do that!"
B: "But I'd rather do this..."
"B, do that or get the hell out of the way. C, help B."
As you point out.
Hmmmm, it's been over 20 years since the last time I had a refresher course in leadership and management. So my memory is a bit rusty, but as I recall the basic leadership styles were authoritarian (or autocratic), democratic, bureaucratic, delegative, the coach, the friend, and I'm sure there are others I've forgotten,
What I haven't forgotten is that there are times and situations when each of the various styles might be the most effective tactic to use. And a good leader knows this.
Hmmmm, it's been over 20 years since the last time I had a refresher course in leadership and management. So my memory is a bit rusty, but as I recall the basic leadership styles were authoritarian (or autocratic), democratic, bureaucratic, delegative, the coach, the friend, and I'm sure there are others I've forgotten,
What I haven't forgotten is that there are times and situations when each of the various styles might be the most effective tactic to use. And a good leader knows this.
I agree with your Nick. There is a time and place for both kinds of leadership.
For instance....we had to roll out a training program and we had 30 days to train 4200 employees.
There was no time to say - register for the class when you have time...work it in your schedule.
No, here is your date, you need to be there or we will term you.
It was that serious...we had to be in control at that time. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
As a manager you need to be flexible. You need to adjust to the situation and provide the right style at the right time.
For instance....we had to roll out a training program and we had 30 days to train 4200 employees.
There was no time to say - register for the class when you have time...work it in your schedule.
No, here is your date, you need to be there or we will term you.
It was that serious...we had to be in control at that time. No "ifs", "ands" or "buts".
As a manager you need to be flexible. You need to adjust to the situation and provide the right style at the right time.
I think that before any attempt at stoning anyone, we would ourselves service by first defining the very concept of "autocracy/autocratic."
1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.
2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power. (Answer.com)
An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed ruler. The term autocrat is derived from the Greek word 'αυτοκράτωρ (lit. "self-ruler", or "he who rules by one's self"). Today it is usually seen as synonymous with despot, tyrant and/or dictator, though each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning. (Wikipedia).
In the first definition by Answer.com, let's substitute "government" with "management" or "leadership."
Now, let us reword the second definition as follows: "A business organization or corporation that is managed by a single person with unlimited power".
Wikipedia's definition has even more scary words: "Self-ruler", "self-appointed," "despot", "tyrant".
I would rather be stoned to death. But none of this can fit in any cadre of modern leadership or management. It is an irony to see that people condemn political leaders who use a crisis situation to establish censorship, which is an attribute of autocracy. How using a "crisis" situation to establish a corporate autocracy can help overcome the crisis? How can such a "leader" help an organization overcome a crisis? You don't stop a fire by pouring gas into fire. You can't help your organization stabilize its financial crisis 9resulting in share falling 50% below average) by becoming the CEO, the CFO, the CTO/CIO, and so on. You win crises through effective management, which requires effective communication, both horizontal and vertical. Autocratic "leaders" don't communicate; They order. Ordering can only lead to chaos, because people lose their "Ich."
Bottom line is, autocratic management leads to chaos. Leaders/managers need to be decisive especially in times of crisis. But autocracy is not decisiveness. While the former negates others' self, the latter involves employees while remaining decisive, setting clear goals and delegating and making others accountable. All of this in a climate of mutual respect.
J-P
1. Government by a single person having unlimited power; despotism.
2. A country or state that is governed by a single person with unlimited power. (Answer.com)
An autocracy is a form of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed ruler. The term autocrat is derived from the Greek word 'αυτοκράτωρ (lit. "self-ruler", or "he who rules by one's self"). Today it is usually seen as synonymous with despot, tyrant and/or dictator, though each of these terms originally had a separate and distinct meaning. (Wikipedia).
In the first definition by Answer.com, let's substitute "government" with "management" or "leadership."
Now, let us reword the second definition as follows: "A business organization or corporation that is managed by a single person with unlimited power".
Wikipedia's definition has even more scary words: "Self-ruler", "self-appointed," "despot", "tyrant".
I would rather be stoned to death. But none of this can fit in any cadre of modern leadership or management. It is an irony to see that people condemn political leaders who use a crisis situation to establish censorship, which is an attribute of autocracy. How using a "crisis" situation to establish a corporate autocracy can help overcome the crisis? How can such a "leader" help an organization overcome a crisis? You don't stop a fire by pouring gas into fire. You can't help your organization stabilize its financial crisis 9resulting in share falling 50% below average) by becoming the CEO, the CFO, the CTO/CIO, and so on. You win crises through effective management, which requires effective communication, both horizontal and vertical. Autocratic "leaders" don't communicate; They order. Ordering can only lead to chaos, because people lose their "Ich."
Bottom line is, autocratic management leads to chaos. Leaders/managers need to be decisive especially in times of crisis. But autocracy is not decisiveness. While the former negates others' self, the latter involves employees while remaining decisive, setting clear goals and delegating and making others accountable. All of this in a climate of mutual respect.
J-P
In my experience, "autocratic" and "directive" are used interchangeably when referring to a particular leadership style. My response was to your blanket statement that "Autocratic leadership is obsolete, destructive and lead to long-term chaos even if some managers/leaders can achieve short-term results through it." I was merely pointing out that in some situations, that leadership style is not only appropriate, but often necessary. I am in no way advocating use of that leadership style on a daily basis.
You continue your original line of thought that directive leadership is never appropriate with this statement: Bottom line is, autocratic management leads to chaos. Leaders/managers need to be decisive especially in times of crisis. But autocracy is not decisiveness. While the former negates others' self, the latter involves employees while remaining decisive, setting clear goals and delegating and making others accountable. All of this in a climate of mutual respect.
Part of being decisive is knowing when to direct, when to discuss, and when to delegate. As I said earlier, when the levee breaks, you've got to fill the hole. It's no time to involve employees in anything except packing and stacking sandbags. It's not a time to discuss, it's a time to do.
I honestly get the feeling there's a nit being picked here...
You continue your original line of thought that directive leadership is never appropriate with this statement: Bottom line is, autocratic management leads to chaos. Leaders/managers need to be decisive especially in times of crisis. But autocracy is not decisiveness. While the former negates others' self, the latter involves employees while remaining decisive, setting clear goals and delegating and making others accountable. All of this in a climate of mutual respect.
Part of being decisive is knowing when to direct, when to discuss, and when to delegate. As I said earlier, when the levee breaks, you've got to fill the hole. It's no time to involve employees in anything except packing and stacking sandbags. It's not a time to discuss, it's a time to do.
I honestly get the feeling there's a nit being picked here...
I'm not sure why you went through all of the effort to as you say "de-fine" autocracy... the article explained it quite clearly in regards to this context: "This is a leadership style in which the manager retains as much power and decision-making authority as possible. Under that leadership, employees are not consulted, nor are they allowed to give any input."
I don't think this style assumes a lack of mutual respect or professionalism.
P.S. I hope you don't get stoned to death
I don't think this style assumes a lack of mutual respect or professionalism.
P.S. I hope you don't get stoned to death
It seems as though employees, as well as management styles run parallel courses.
The greater the show of character, ethics and work habits by the employee, the greater the latitude given, as well as consideration and evaluation of suggestions.
My ultimate responsibility is to the customer.
The greater the show of character, ethics and work habits by the employee, the greater the latitude given, as well as consideration and evaluation of suggestions.
My ultimate responsibility is to the customer.
I think you might be picking a nit here.
Nobody suggested that the autocratic leadership style (also called authoritarian) should be used all the time. In fact, if you are a leader and are stuck in a rut of being unable or unwilling to utilize more than one leadership style ... the odds are pretty good that you are not all that great of a leader. And your odds of long term success are not good.
First, you seem to use the terms management and leadership pretty much interchangeably. There is a reason that in the English language we have separate words for the two concepts. While the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, they are not the same either.
A good leader, like a good carpenter, has more than one tool in his or her tool box. And in any given situation will select the appropriate tool for the given task/situation at hand that will produce the best results possible.
And just as the autocratic leadership style is not always appropriate, neither is it always wise to choose the democratic style. There is, in fact, no single leadership style that is ALWAYS appropriate or wise.
Let's try an example. Years ago I was transferred from one part of a large organization to another. Upon reporting in, and before I'd even gotten personal affairs arranged such as obtaining new quarters, getting unpacked, and so forth ... I was still staying at a hotel ... I dropped in to see my new boss to let him know I was in town, introduce myself, etc.
We did the glad handing thing, grabbed cups of coffee and then settled down in the privacy of his office and he got straight to the point. He made it clear that I was there at his request for a very special reason. Within his branch of the organization (that part for which he was responsible) he had a subdivision that failing miserably. Very much substandard performance. He'd made repeated tries to get that subdivision squared away. Including changing its leadership a number of times. The efforts hadn't worked. And he was loathe to take yet another man away from a working, successful unit within his branch and put him in charge of that subdivision. Which is what he'd done previously when changing the leadership in that poorly performing subdivision.
It weakened the subdivision that fellow was removed from, my new boss hated mucking with successful subdivisions. And the problem subdivision really was a highly technical specialty unit whose leader should have a strong background in that particular technical specialty. Especially given that the members of that unit, subdivision, tended to have ... well lets call it what it is ... swelled heads and opinions of themselves and their knowledge and abilities.
In short, a bunch of friggin prima-donnas.
Well, I'd been formally trained in that specialty and had worked within it for a number of years previously. Before moving on to other things. AND I had been looking for a new assignment and a transfer within the parent organization, a fact which had come to his attention. So he'd grabbed me.
Now I was his, and he was giving me his problem child. Sink or swim, succeed or fail. Was up to me to fix it. And he wasn't feeling particularly merciful or forgiving if I failed.
He asked me, "Am I clear? Do you know what I expect?" I did, indeed. Fact was I'd been looking for a transfer because I needed a shot at leading and managing a bigger group, and preferably a higher profile and important group, than where I'd been at. In order to be considered seriously for a promotion.
So, in effect, I'd asked for it ... now I had gotten what I'd asked for. Although I'd kinda hoped for a little better situation that being handed someone's bast*rd child, that was seriously broken, and which no one else wanted.
My new boss made it clear, he was at the end of his patience. Fix that group or he'd take the hit personally (acknowledge his failure to his superiors, which wouldn't do anything good for his reputation) and would shut down that group completely. Can the lot of em and start all over again. Accepting the adverse results that action would cause to the rest of his branch of the organization.
So I took over as the head of that subdivision (group).
At first, I didn't do a lot except observe and ask questions. I felt I needed to figure out what parts of it worked and what didn't. And needed to learn something about the personnel. Such as which ones were part of the problem and which were part of the solution.
It was pretty much as I expected. First, there were a lot of prima-donnas. This group consisted of some heavily tech savvy types at the top of the tech pyramid. Their specialty, at the time, being considered one of the most demanding and one mastered only by the best of the best.
No problem, that I understood. Had that background myself. They had a right to their pride. As long as their pride did not get in the way of accomplishing the organization's goals.
The other major problem was democracy. That is, too many of em not only had fat heads and inflated opinions of themselves and their personal abilities and importance ... they thought they worked in a total democracy. Everyone's opinion (or vote) counted as much as anyone else's.
For too many of em, not all ... just too many ... any attempt to direct or correct them just ended up in an endless debate and endless nitpicking of details. Often, nitpicking of irrelevant details that didn't really matter in the big picture or larger context of things.
It didn't matter. Pick a plan or course of action. No matter what it was, they'd object and find endless faults with it and debate those. For as long as you'd allow it to continue.
Of course there is NO perfect plan. Well, unless you are a religious person. Then it might be argued that the Creator (insert preferred name or term) had a perfect plan.
But in the real world, nothing is perfect nor can it be.
The fact was that what I had was a bunch of fat headed, prima-donnas (several of whom were MUCH smarter and more intelligent than I was) who were so focused on themselves and their individualism ... that they'd lost the big picture. That is, they were letting their expression of, and practice of individualism overwhelm something of more importance. Such as accomplishing the goals of that organization. And seemed to think they worked in a pure democracy.
In practice, one of that group's problems was that it was fragmented and did not work together as a team with common goals. Within that subdivision there had formed several sub-groups. Each pretty much headed up by it's own fat-head ... I mean, leader. Each thinking they were the elites of the elites, more important and more RIGHT than the others. Pretty much a "It's us against everyone else." sort of thing. And all of em engaging in a bunch of finger pointing, blame passing, back stabbing of any other team whenever opportunity presented, etc.
So one of my first tasks, when I started to take action, was to remind everyone that in fact ... that workplace was NOT a democracy. Nor was it a friggin debate society. First off, I needed to get everyone pointed in the same direction, with the same goals.
And I DICTATED the direction and goals. Wasn't subject to debate or discussion. There was no vote held. I didn't ask for opinions about them either. Pretty simple. This is ONE team. This is the direction we're headed. These are the goals we'll achieve. End of discussion.
Don't like it? You can and WILL be replaced.
And at first, I had to do some of that. Didn't really want to. But sometimes yah gotta do what yah gotta do.
It's not as if I hated, or even disliked any of em. Some of my problem children were in fact nice guys. More than a few of em VERY sharp and very good at what they did.
Although there were a couple of em who were not really as good as they thought they were. Although they had their personal supporters who were convinced that they walked on water.
Teams don't work well if they're made up of sub-teams, each loyal to itself above all others. And each of which has their own ideas of what direction and plan they're gonna follow and goals they want to achieve, not matter whether or not those directions, plans, and goals aid or hinder the whole of the team.
So I had situations like this one fellow, who had his own personal following. His little group had the responsibility for certain kinds of work. And he thought HIS ideas for how that work should be done constituted the ONLY right way to get it done. Problem was, his way took too much time and resources. I informed him of changes I wanted made, and my reasons. Essentially he was right, his way was better ... TECHNICALLY. But it was just too expensive in time and resources to justify the very small improvement in results as compared to my way. My way took about half the time at about half the expended resources and produced acceptable results that were AFFORDABLE. We, as a group, were operating way over budget.
At first he flat refused to change his methods. I pointed out he didn't have that option. So he complied. Kinda-sorta. Later I found out that he and his cohorts dragged their feet while working and spent more time b*tching and telling each other and anyone else who'd listen how scr*wed up I was than they spent getting the task done.
Now, personally, I didn't much care about em bad mouthing me. I'd heard worse done by much better experts in the subject. It was the dragging of the feet that concerned me. That wasn't doing anything to support the TEAM and its goals.
So I busted up that fellow's personal little team. Took him away and put him into an assignment doing work that a decently trained chimpanzee could accomplish. And where he worked mostly alone. Reassigned a couple of his chief supporters to other sub-teams. Brought in a couple replacements, taken from other sub-teams I was having a problem with. And gave the newly re-organized sub-team a little lecture.
As in reminding one and all that THESE were the goals I expected EVERYONE to support, and this was the direction we were headed in order to accomplish those goals. Now, as to the exact METHODS? I was open to discussion of that. But not about the methods utilized by that previous guy. Those were no longer acceptable. For reasons as stated.
It wasn't right then, but a couple days later one of that group approached me and said he had some ideas and would like to discuss them. We sat down and he outlined his thoughts. The methods he proposed were somewhat different than my own. And he explained the where and what of it as concerns how some of my ideas had flaws that he could improve upon ... but without much significant increase in time or resource expenditure. Sounded fine to me, at least worth a try. And I told him to go ahead, I'd give him a trial period to prove himself. And he did. I ended up putting him in charge of that sub-team.
In another case I had a sub-team leader who was very, very good at what he did. Problem was, he just wasn't very good a being a team player. He didn't teach or coach or share his expertise. His best techniques and methods he guarded as if they were the crown jewels. Doing the portion of the work his sub-team did that needed that extra knowledge himself, while delegating the others to doing the droll work. A regular king of the hill, who did not play well with others. I had a talk with him. It did no good. So I TOLD him to change his ways, or I had another trained chimpanzee job waiting to be filled.
Actually, it was the same one I'd assigned the other guy to. That other fellow got so upset he turned in his resignation. Which was fine with me, I felt the WHOLE TEAM was better off without him.
This guy with his secrets, got the idea through his thick skull, and started sharing the cherry parts of the work with his fellows, and spent time teaching em what he knew.
So on and so forth. There were numerous problems. Like some sub-groups operating like they didn't care about the rest of the team. As in, wouldn't lift a hand to help anyone else out. "Not my job, man !" I and some of those folks had a little understanding to achieve. And we did arrive at an understanding after a few one-on-one, one-sided conversations. And after a couple of the more hard-nosed and stubborn sorts bit the dust.
The thing is that AFTER I'd done the proverbial kick-*ss and take names routine, just to get across the idea that this sub-division was not, really, a democracy. And that I meant what I said. As in, "If yah want to make me act like a dictator in order to get your attention and make you listen ... I certainly can and will do that." then I started using other methods.
Which ones, depended on the specific situation. And who I was dealing with. Sometimes I did "ALLOW" democratic solutions.
I state it that way since I made it very clear that since I was the one who was ultimately responsible and paid the consequences for any failures ... I got the final vote, and the only one that really counted.
Other times I played the coach.
Sometimes, with selected individuals, I took the "friend" approach. I use that only very selectively. I have found that if yah get too friendly with too many, they start viewing you as "just one of the guys". And sometimes forget who is really the boss and that sometimes a boss/leader has got to cut a throat ... even a friend's throat ... if said friend does something to threaten the integrity of the team and it's ability to achieve the goals and doesn't respond when you try to correct him. A leader's job is not always pleasant, and a good leader doesn't avoid doing the unpleasant parts himself.
But I did find kindred souls. People who worked for me in that job who understood what I faced and what needed to be done. With them I could be open, and friendly, and it was the best approach with those individuals.
As that sub-division improved and got its stuff together, I engaged in more and more delegation. But that was after I'd started to establish to my satisfaction who was both trustworthy ... and capable. A person has to be capable of doing the delegated task, or able to learn with maybe a little coaching from time to time. But they also need to be trustworthy. After all, it was my neck on the line. If I delegate something to someone, I also accept the consequences of their failures or mistakes. So in my mind, I need to establish the fact that if I delegate ... the person in question will at least reliably give the task his or her best effort and due diligence.
Of course, change did not occur over night. But it did occur far faster than my boss thought it ever would. He was impressed as h*ll. And the results were far better than he expected. Far better. That sub-division went from being at the very bottom, to the top of his list of best performers in 2 years.
No, I don't claim all the credit for that. The fact is they had some very good personnel in that sub-division. They just needed to get organized and herded up so they were all heading in the same direction. Given common goals and made to feel as if they were all members of the same team. And in some cases some judicious boot to backside action was called for. Just to get people's attention and to let em know I meant business.
After they were all on the same page, I let democracy enter into the picture and they became more or less self governing.
In fact, I worked myself right out of a job. LOL ...
Towards the end there, before I put in for another transfer (because I was starting to get really, really bored) those folks didn't really need me. The various sections of the group were coming up with their own good ideas and implementing them. And things were running so well that in truth my average work day had come to be pretty friggin routine. In fact I applied for and was accepted into some advanced training. Which meant that I spent 8 weeks living in a hotel room in another state, then took a 30 day vacation after that. Just to return to my desk and find that everything was running along smoothly. 3 months away, and they hadn't missed me or needed me.
So, it was time to move on and I applied for another transfer. I'd gotten that promotion. Which meant, among other things, that this particular sub-division was too small a responsibility for me to justify the paycheck I was getting. Besides, I kinda like getting stuck with, "It's broke ... fix it" situations. Keeps life interesting. At least to me.
Chuckle, got assigned to a new job, different state. But when I got there, my new Big Boss informed me that I would not be going into the slot I was expecting to get. He sat me down and explained, "I've got a division that just S*CKS ! Their performance is lousy, they can't manage their budget worth a damn, they can't get things done within the scheduled time frame, etc. I've been considering canning the head of that division but I've been waiting for a likely replacement. I need a mean, grumpy, kick-*ss sort, who'll get rid of the deadwood and useless. But who'll shape up the personnel who are savable, square em away, and get em all moving in the right direction. None of my other managers want the job. I can't even bribe em to volunteer to give it a try. You're the new guy here and I've been reading your fitness reports from your last assignment. So guess what? You are SCREWED, buddy. Welcome aboard ! Now, let's go have a drink together while I explain to you just how bad a shafting I'm gonna give you."
ROFLMAO ... it was so nice to feel wanted and needed again.
All the above is true. My only point is to make it clear that there are times and situations where an authoritarian or autocrat approach is definitely called for. But in truth, it should never be more than a stop-gap measure. Used judiciously and only when necessary. You can't really build a good team, that performs well in the long run, using only that methodology.
Likewise, a purely democratic form of leadership has its problems and issues also. It can be carried too far. And is problematical the larger the organization is. The fact is, yah can't make EVERYONE happy, nor can yah get EVERYONE to agree on almost anything. Plus, in a pure Democracy no one is really responsible or accountable. A pure democracy in any truly sizable organization simply doesn't work well.
Nobody suggested that the autocratic leadership style (also called authoritarian) should be used all the time. In fact, if you are a leader and are stuck in a rut of being unable or unwilling to utilize more than one leadership style ... the odds are pretty good that you are not all that great of a leader. And your odds of long term success are not good.
First, you seem to use the terms management and leadership pretty much interchangeably. There is a reason that in the English language we have separate words for the two concepts. While the two concepts are not mutually exclusive, they are not the same either.
A good leader, like a good carpenter, has more than one tool in his or her tool box. And in any given situation will select the appropriate tool for the given task/situation at hand that will produce the best results possible.
And just as the autocratic leadership style is not always appropriate, neither is it always wise to choose the democratic style. There is, in fact, no single leadership style that is ALWAYS appropriate or wise.
Let's try an example. Years ago I was transferred from one part of a large organization to another. Upon reporting in, and before I'd even gotten personal affairs arranged such as obtaining new quarters, getting unpacked, and so forth ... I was still staying at a hotel ... I dropped in to see my new boss to let him know I was in town, introduce myself, etc.
We did the glad handing thing, grabbed cups of coffee and then settled down in the privacy of his office and he got straight to the point. He made it clear that I was there at his request for a very special reason. Within his branch of the organization (that part for which he was responsible) he had a subdivision that failing miserably. Very much substandard performance. He'd made repeated tries to get that subdivision squared away. Including changing its leadership a number of times. The efforts hadn't worked. And he was loathe to take yet another man away from a working, successful unit within his branch and put him in charge of that subdivision. Which is what he'd done previously when changing the leadership in that poorly performing subdivision.
It weakened the subdivision that fellow was removed from, my new boss hated mucking with successful subdivisions. And the problem subdivision really was a highly technical specialty unit whose leader should have a strong background in that particular technical specialty. Especially given that the members of that unit, subdivision, tended to have ... well lets call it what it is ... swelled heads and opinions of themselves and their knowledge and abilities.
In short, a bunch of friggin prima-donnas.
Well, I'd been formally trained in that specialty and had worked within it for a number of years previously. Before moving on to other things. AND I had been looking for a new assignment and a transfer within the parent organization, a fact which had come to his attention. So he'd grabbed me.
Now I was his, and he was giving me his problem child. Sink or swim, succeed or fail. Was up to me to fix it. And he wasn't feeling particularly merciful or forgiving if I failed.
He asked me, "Am I clear? Do you know what I expect?" I did, indeed. Fact was I'd been looking for a transfer because I needed a shot at leading and managing a bigger group, and preferably a higher profile and important group, than where I'd been at. In order to be considered seriously for a promotion.
So, in effect, I'd asked for it ... now I had gotten what I'd asked for. Although I'd kinda hoped for a little better situation that being handed someone's bast*rd child, that was seriously broken, and which no one else wanted.
My new boss made it clear, he was at the end of his patience. Fix that group or he'd take the hit personally (acknowledge his failure to his superiors, which wouldn't do anything good for his reputation) and would shut down that group completely. Can the lot of em and start all over again. Accepting the adverse results that action would cause to the rest of his branch of the organization.
So I took over as the head of that subdivision (group).
At first, I didn't do a lot except observe and ask questions. I felt I needed to figure out what parts of it worked and what didn't. And needed to learn something about the personnel. Such as which ones were part of the problem and which were part of the solution.
It was pretty much as I expected. First, there were a lot of prima-donnas. This group consisted of some heavily tech savvy types at the top of the tech pyramid. Their specialty, at the time, being considered one of the most demanding and one mastered only by the best of the best.
No problem, that I understood. Had that background myself. They had a right to their pride. As long as their pride did not get in the way of accomplishing the organization's goals.
The other major problem was democracy. That is, too many of em not only had fat heads and inflated opinions of themselves and their personal abilities and importance ... they thought they worked in a total democracy. Everyone's opinion (or vote) counted as much as anyone else's.
For too many of em, not all ... just too many ... any attempt to direct or correct them just ended up in an endless debate and endless nitpicking of details. Often, nitpicking of irrelevant details that didn't really matter in the big picture or larger context of things.
It didn't matter. Pick a plan or course of action. No matter what it was, they'd object and find endless faults with it and debate those. For as long as you'd allow it to continue.
Of course there is NO perfect plan. Well, unless you are a religious person. Then it might be argued that the Creator (insert preferred name or term) had a perfect plan.
But in the real world, nothing is perfect nor can it be.
The fact was that what I had was a bunch of fat headed, prima-donnas (several of whom were MUCH smarter and more intelligent than I was) who were so focused on themselves and their individualism ... that they'd lost the big picture. That is, they were letting their expression of, and practice of individualism overwhelm something of more importance. Such as accomplishing the goals of that organization. And seemed to think they worked in a pure democracy.
In practice, one of that group's problems was that it was fragmented and did not work together as a team with common goals. Within that subdivision there had formed several sub-groups. Each pretty much headed up by it's own fat-head ... I mean, leader. Each thinking they were the elites of the elites, more important and more RIGHT than the others. Pretty much a "It's us against everyone else." sort of thing. And all of em engaging in a bunch of finger pointing, blame passing, back stabbing of any other team whenever opportunity presented, etc.
So one of my first tasks, when I started to take action, was to remind everyone that in fact ... that workplace was NOT a democracy. Nor was it a friggin debate society. First off, I needed to get everyone pointed in the same direction, with the same goals.
And I DICTATED the direction and goals. Wasn't subject to debate or discussion. There was no vote held. I didn't ask for opinions about them either. Pretty simple. This is ONE team. This is the direction we're headed. These are the goals we'll achieve. End of discussion.
Don't like it? You can and WILL be replaced.
And at first, I had to do some of that. Didn't really want to. But sometimes yah gotta do what yah gotta do.
It's not as if I hated, or even disliked any of em. Some of my problem children were in fact nice guys. More than a few of em VERY sharp and very good at what they did.
Although there were a couple of em who were not really as good as they thought they were. Although they had their personal supporters who were convinced that they walked on water.
Teams don't work well if they're made up of sub-teams, each loyal to itself above all others. And each of which has their own ideas of what direction and plan they're gonna follow and goals they want to achieve, not matter whether or not those directions, plans, and goals aid or hinder the whole of the team.
So I had situations like this one fellow, who had his own personal following. His little group had the responsibility for certain kinds of work. And he thought HIS ideas for how that work should be done constituted the ONLY right way to get it done. Problem was, his way took too much time and resources. I informed him of changes I wanted made, and my reasons. Essentially he was right, his way was better ... TECHNICALLY. But it was just too expensive in time and resources to justify the very small improvement in results as compared to my way. My way took about half the time at about half the expended resources and produced acceptable results that were AFFORDABLE. We, as a group, were operating way over budget.
At first he flat refused to change his methods. I pointed out he didn't have that option. So he complied. Kinda-sorta. Later I found out that he and his cohorts dragged their feet while working and spent more time b*tching and telling each other and anyone else who'd listen how scr*wed up I was than they spent getting the task done.
Now, personally, I didn't much care about em bad mouthing me. I'd heard worse done by much better experts in the subject. It was the dragging of the feet that concerned me. That wasn't doing anything to support the TEAM and its goals.
So I busted up that fellow's personal little team. Took him away and put him into an assignment doing work that a decently trained chimpanzee could accomplish. And where he worked mostly alone. Reassigned a couple of his chief supporters to other sub-teams. Brought in a couple replacements, taken from other sub-teams I was having a problem with. And gave the newly re-organized sub-team a little lecture.
As in reminding one and all that THESE were the goals I expected EVERYONE to support, and this was the direction we were headed in order to accomplish those goals. Now, as to the exact METHODS? I was open to discussion of that. But not about the methods utilized by that previous guy. Those were no longer acceptable. For reasons as stated.
It wasn't right then, but a couple days later one of that group approached me and said he had some ideas and would like to discuss them. We sat down and he outlined his thoughts. The methods he proposed were somewhat different than my own. And he explained the where and what of it as concerns how some of my ideas had flaws that he could improve upon ... but without much significant increase in time or resource expenditure. Sounded fine to me, at least worth a try. And I told him to go ahead, I'd give him a trial period to prove himself. And he did. I ended up putting him in charge of that sub-team.
In another case I had a sub-team leader who was very, very good at what he did. Problem was, he just wasn't very good a being a team player. He didn't teach or coach or share his expertise. His best techniques and methods he guarded as if they were the crown jewels. Doing the portion of the work his sub-team did that needed that extra knowledge himself, while delegating the others to doing the droll work. A regular king of the hill, who did not play well with others. I had a talk with him. It did no good. So I TOLD him to change his ways, or I had another trained chimpanzee job waiting to be filled.
Actually, it was the same one I'd assigned the other guy to. That other fellow got so upset he turned in his resignation. Which was fine with me, I felt the WHOLE TEAM was better off without him.
This guy with his secrets, got the idea through his thick skull, and started sharing the cherry parts of the work with his fellows, and spent time teaching em what he knew.
So on and so forth. There were numerous problems. Like some sub-groups operating like they didn't care about the rest of the team. As in, wouldn't lift a hand to help anyone else out. "Not my job, man !" I and some of those folks had a little understanding to achieve. And we did arrive at an understanding after a few one-on-one, one-sided conversations. And after a couple of the more hard-nosed and stubborn sorts bit the dust.
The thing is that AFTER I'd done the proverbial kick-*ss and take names routine, just to get across the idea that this sub-division was not, really, a democracy. And that I meant what I said. As in, "If yah want to make me act like a dictator in order to get your attention and make you listen ... I certainly can and will do that." then I started using other methods.
Which ones, depended on the specific situation. And who I was dealing with. Sometimes I did "ALLOW" democratic solutions.
I state it that way since I made it very clear that since I was the one who was ultimately responsible and paid the consequences for any failures ... I got the final vote, and the only one that really counted.
Other times I played the coach.
Sometimes, with selected individuals, I took the "friend" approach. I use that only very selectively. I have found that if yah get too friendly with too many, they start viewing you as "just one of the guys". And sometimes forget who is really the boss and that sometimes a boss/leader has got to cut a throat ... even a friend's throat ... if said friend does something to threaten the integrity of the team and it's ability to achieve the goals and doesn't respond when you try to correct him. A leader's job is not always pleasant, and a good leader doesn't avoid doing the unpleasant parts himself.
But I did find kindred souls. People who worked for me in that job who understood what I faced and what needed to be done. With them I could be open, and friendly, and it was the best approach with those individuals.
As that sub-division improved and got its stuff together, I engaged in more and more delegation. But that was after I'd started to establish to my satisfaction who was both trustworthy ... and capable. A person has to be capable of doing the delegated task, or able to learn with maybe a little coaching from time to time. But they also need to be trustworthy. After all, it was my neck on the line. If I delegate something to someone, I also accept the consequences of their failures or mistakes. So in my mind, I need to establish the fact that if I delegate ... the person in question will at least reliably give the task his or her best effort and due diligence.
Of course, change did not occur over night. But it did occur far faster than my boss thought it ever would. He was impressed as h*ll. And the results were far better than he expected. Far better. That sub-division went from being at the very bottom, to the top of his list of best performers in 2 years.
No, I don't claim all the credit for that. The fact is they had some very good personnel in that sub-division. They just needed to get organized and herded up so they were all heading in the same direction. Given common goals and made to feel as if they were all members of the same team. And in some cases some judicious boot to backside action was called for. Just to get people's attention and to let em know I meant business.
After they were all on the same page, I let democracy enter into the picture and they became more or less self governing.
In fact, I worked myself right out of a job. LOL ...
Towards the end there, before I put in for another transfer (because I was starting to get really, really bored) those folks didn't really need me. The various sections of the group were coming up with their own good ideas and implementing them. And things were running so well that in truth my average work day had come to be pretty friggin routine. In fact I applied for and was accepted into some advanced training. Which meant that I spent 8 weeks living in a hotel room in another state, then took a 30 day vacation after that. Just to return to my desk and find that everything was running along smoothly. 3 months away, and they hadn't missed me or needed me.
So, it was time to move on and I applied for another transfer. I'd gotten that promotion. Which meant, among other things, that this particular sub-division was too small a responsibility for me to justify the paycheck I was getting. Besides, I kinda like getting stuck with, "It's broke ... fix it" situations. Keeps life interesting. At least to me.
Chuckle, got assigned to a new job, different state. But when I got there, my new Big Boss informed me that I would not be going into the slot I was expecting to get. He sat me down and explained, "I've got a division that just S*CKS ! Their performance is lousy, they can't manage their budget worth a damn, they can't get things done within the scheduled time frame, etc. I've been considering canning the head of that division but I've been waiting for a likely replacement. I need a mean, grumpy, kick-*ss sort, who'll get rid of the deadwood and useless. But who'll shape up the personnel who are savable, square em away, and get em all moving in the right direction. None of my other managers want the job. I can't even bribe em to volunteer to give it a try. You're the new guy here and I've been reading your fitness reports from your last assignment. So guess what? You are SCREWED, buddy. Welcome aboard ! Now, let's go have a drink together while I explain to you just how bad a shafting I'm gonna give you."
ROFLMAO ... it was so nice to feel wanted and needed again.
All the above is true. My only point is to make it clear that there are times and situations where an authoritarian or autocrat approach is definitely called for. But in truth, it should never be more than a stop-gap measure. Used judiciously and only when necessary. You can't really build a good team, that performs well in the long run, using only that methodology.
Likewise, a purely democratic form of leadership has its problems and issues also. It can be carried too far. And is problematical the larger the organization is. The fact is, yah can't make EVERYONE happy, nor can yah get EVERYONE to agree on almost anything. Plus, in a pure Democracy no one is really responsible or accountable. A pure democracy in any truly sizable organization simply doesn't work well.
There are tons of terrible managers out there. TONS! Is it desire, education, experience, or all three that make people good at leading others? There's so many people willing to tell other people what to do for various reasons but in the end; you know they aren't cut out for it. So why is the process repeated over and over again in which companies take on the lame to lead them to new heights only to stall out in mid-air?
Bad managers and leaders predominate because it takes a special set of circumstances where it matters. Kellogg's will sell corn flakes no matter who is in charge. When crash and burn happens because of poor leadership it's because companies do not take the long view.
One only gets lucky in these circumstances. It would be hard to imagine someone other than Truman in a position to become president on the death of FDR and no one would have predicted that he became of of the most respected presidents.
Leadership matters and most companies are too short sighted to notice.
One only gets lucky in these circumstances. It would be hard to imagine someone other than Truman in a position to become president on the death of FDR and no one would have predicted that he became of of the most respected presidents.
Leadership matters and most companies are too short sighted to notice.
It does not necessarily mean that if your a manager you are a good leader. A good leader can motivate and inspire people to move. To be a good manager one has to have the the leadership skill in him. i believe that leadership skill is not learned but one is born with it while management skills well for the most part of it can be learned.
The skills & motivation matrix is the closest to my experience and mgmnt challenges. But, I'm not sure it's comprehensive. For example, ...
Aligned Goals & Interests - does the motivation aspect of that matrix include *aligned* goals? What if a highly skilled and motivated worker is off on a tangent w/ respect to the organization's goals? (Does that mean he/she is not really highly-skilled? and/or not highly motivated b/c "skill" and/or "motivation" includes alignment?)
In the past, I've had to reign this in via performance agreements (c.f. Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership). And, that means being more autocratic for someone in the high-skills/high-motivation quadrant of that matrix. So, I don't find this matrix comprehensive unless I misunderstand it.
And, the list could go on.
Aligned Goals & Interests - does the motivation aspect of that matrix include *aligned* goals? What if a highly skilled and motivated worker is off on a tangent w/ respect to the organization's goals? (Does that mean he/she is not really highly-skilled? and/or not highly motivated b/c "skill" and/or "motivation" includes alignment?)
In the past, I've had to reign this in via performance agreements (c.f. Covey, Principle-Centered Leadership). And, that means being more autocratic for someone in the high-skills/high-motivation quadrant of that matrix. So, I don't find this matrix comprehensive unless I misunderstand it.
And, the list could go on.
I don't think situational leadership explicitly addresses this kind of situation, but I think you can realign an employee's focus within the framework of a particular management style--you don't automatically have to switch on the autocratic style to get the employee back on track. If you are using a supporting or coaching style with an employee, that doesn't preclude the need to tweak their motivation and focus from time to time. You would just use different tools than you would with an autocratic style.
Yes, it can. For me autocratic leadership is needed for highier level of management. Of course it do have pro and con it all depend on the capabiltiy and skill of the management level. Since here we talk about autocratic so i just share my view on why it is needed.
In large organization is very difficult to get agreement from all the parties, specially with time is running out. Decision have to be make even it may not be the favor of some parties or even it is the majority. Voting kind of decision is just allow the decision maker to have a clearer view on what other thinking. It may or may not influence the end result in his mind. Every decision in made show the capability of the leader.
There are some leader misuse the democracy to reduce thier responsibility weightage on the decision that they made. When the decision is right they will take the credit. But when it fail it will be "this is the decision make by every parties" and the failure is share among all the team.
As summary there is no actual answer on whether autocrtic leadership or democracy leadership works. It all depend on the team you have and your capability.
In large organization is very difficult to get agreement from all the parties, specially with time is running out. Decision have to be make even it may not be the favor of some parties or even it is the majority. Voting kind of decision is just allow the decision maker to have a clearer view on what other thinking. It may or may not influence the end result in his mind. Every decision in made show the capability of the leader.
There are some leader misuse the democracy to reduce thier responsibility weightage on the decision that they made. When the decision is right they will take the credit. But when it fail it will be "this is the decision make by every parties" and the failure is share among all the team.
As summary there is no actual answer on whether autocrtic leadership or democracy leadership works. It all depend on the team you have and your capability.
In an emergency situation, there is only ONE type of leadership: autocratic. Nothing else works better. In non-emergency situations, then you have to adjust to not only the what, but the who and the when.
I have 27 years in the military (combination of active and reserve duty), 10 of them working as an emergency operations liaison and the most successful leaders during an emergency employed an autocratic style, only reverting to what I would call their natural style after the emergency was contained.
I also have 10 years of nursing experience and I saw the very same leadership traits in that profession. During a medical emergency, there is always someone in complete control of the action.
My experience has taught me that every situation is different and therefore calls for different approaches.
Just my two cents...
I have 27 years in the military (combination of active and reserve duty), 10 of them working as an emergency operations liaison and the most successful leaders during an emergency employed an autocratic style, only reverting to what I would call their natural style after the emergency was contained.
I also have 10 years of nursing experience and I saw the very same leadership traits in that profession. During a medical emergency, there is always someone in complete control of the action.
My experience has taught me that every situation is different and therefore calls for different approaches.
Just my two cents...
I am a retired Air Force Master Sergeant, and I always tried to be open to input...but subordinates have to understand that there is a time, place, and manner to go about this.
During an emergency or time crunch? Definitely not, unless you're asked. After all is over, then yes, as long as it's done privately and respectfully.
A pet peeve of mine in the I.T. field is when techs are brought in for an "all hands" project such as a mass hardware refresh. In those cases you will have had a project manager or team do some dry runs, normalize the procedure, and then document in the form of a deployment checklist. Once that is done, the techs brought in (perhaps augmentees from the Tier 1 helpdesk) need to follow procedure and not try to re-engineer something that has been tried and proven. I have little to no patience with people who can't or won't follow directions.
A good approach here is to do a pre-brief with the team where each person has a copy of the checklist and each item is gone over, or perhaps a demo is done with a live machine. That is a time where they can ask questions, and if they question why a step is necessary or is being done a certain way, you can explain how you got there in the testing phase. They may not agree, but at least they know the reasoning behind it.
But! Here is where the autocratic style comes back into play. You must make it very clear that everyone is expected to follow the checklist without exception, and if people don't, I believe the current corporate phrase is "we have a performance issue".
During an emergency or time crunch? Definitely not, unless you're asked. After all is over, then yes, as long as it's done privately and respectfully.
A pet peeve of mine in the I.T. field is when techs are brought in for an "all hands" project such as a mass hardware refresh. In those cases you will have had a project manager or team do some dry runs, normalize the procedure, and then document in the form of a deployment checklist. Once that is done, the techs brought in (perhaps augmentees from the Tier 1 helpdesk) need to follow procedure and not try to re-engineer something that has been tried and proven. I have little to no patience with people who can't or won't follow directions.
A good approach here is to do a pre-brief with the team where each person has a copy of the checklist and each item is gone over, or perhaps a demo is done with a live machine. That is a time where they can ask questions, and if they question why a step is necessary or is being done a certain way, you can explain how you got there in the testing phase. They may not agree, but at least they know the reasoning behind it.
But! Here is where the autocratic style comes back into play. You must make it very clear that everyone is expected to follow the checklist without exception, and if people don't, I believe the current corporate phrase is "we have a performance issue".
Autocratic leadership style works best in disaster recovery/emergency situations. It works best in that situation if the leader also happens to have a plan to work from, and well trained subordinates who also have copies of the plan. It's one of the reason FEMA failed so miserably in the Katrina recovery - no usable plan, nobody willing or able to step up to the plate and tell people what to do until everything was over and done with.
Autocratic style also works with new employees who don't know how, or can't think for themselves and don't know enough about the job to do it without explicit direction.
The autocratic style doesn't work at all for day-to-day supervision of a group of well-informed, independent-minded people.
Autocratic style also works with new employees who don't know how, or can't think for themselves and don't know enough about the job to do it without explicit direction.
The autocratic style doesn't work at all for day-to-day supervision of a group of well-informed, independent-minded people.
There have several posts alluding to autocratic leadership being appropriate in "emergencies". But the examples given are not necessarily autocratic, they are just examples of someone being in charge and making things happen. That's not autocratic. Autocratic leadership means what I say goes; I'm not interested in your opinion, your expertise, your background, or anything, just do what I say.
A good manager, like a good worker, knows the tools they have on hand and how to utilize them to get the most out of them. I have people working for me where I have to outline the steps of what I want them to do because they are inexperienced; I have others I can just say, "handle this please, let me know if you have questions" and things get done.
Autocratic never works because it treats people with no respect for the individual and with no regard. There are however, as situational leadership tells you, times when employees require more guidance than usual or definitive instructions. That's not autocratic; rather, when used properly it is assuring success for the organization, the manager, and the individual and ensuring competent, independent employees down the line.
A good manager, like a good worker, knows the tools they have on hand and how to utilize them to get the most out of them. I have people working for me where I have to outline the steps of what I want them to do because they are inexperienced; I have others I can just say, "handle this please, let me know if you have questions" and things get done.
Autocratic never works because it treats people with no respect for the individual and with no regard. There are however, as situational leadership tells you, times when employees require more guidance than usual or definitive instructions. That's not autocratic; rather, when used properly it is assuring success for the organization, the manager, and the individual and ensuring competent, independent employees down the line.
Thanks Paul!
I just put out a second rejoinder. I think it would serve our professional interests better if we tried to first understand both the semantics and contextual meaning of concept before making lapidary conclusions.
J-P
I just put out a second rejoinder. I think it would serve our professional interests better if we tried to first understand both the semantics and contextual meaning of concept before making lapidary conclusions.
J-P
Or any other medical venue where lives are at stake. In such situations, the doctor in charge just wants you to do he says without argument or discussion. If your feelings get hurt that's tough; he's trying to save a life.
You can have the manager. If I ever wind up in an ER with life-threatening injuries, I want my doctor to be an autocrat for that situation.
You can have the manager. If I ever wind up in an ER with life-threatening injuries, I want my doctor to be an autocrat for that situation.
I was involved at the tail end of Katrina pretty heavily and I can tell you that there were a number of problems that came together to create a perfect storm:
1. New Orleans was completely unprepared and the state of Louisana was also woefully unprepared. That does not excuse FEMA--Brown was a complete and bumbling idiot and after being involved with disaster relief under the leadership of James Lee Witt, a complete disappointment. One has to remember, however, that it is the responsibility of the locals to handle emergencies. Then the state authorites and THEN the federal government. ..NOT the other way around.
2. At the time of Katrina, all requests for what was known as Military Support to Civilian Authorities (MSCA)resources had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense--Rumsfeld. So in the good old days, I could easily arrange to have the military deliver water, food, medical assistance, etc. But while Bush was in office, the simplest request had to be funneled all the way up and then all the way down the chain.
3. Finally--and this is going to be a very unpopular viewpoint--the citizens of New Orleans themselves are also somewhat culpable. Not for the storm and the incompetent management of the aftermath, but for failing to prepare for the EVENTUALITY of the situation. Everyone I know in this field and everyone I know that lives in that area, knew that the levees were, and continue to be, ticking time bombs. This is a city that is under sea level and which is surrounded by various bodies of water: Lakes Pontchartrain, Catouatche, Salvador, Borgne as well as that little thing called the Gulf. Other than the French Quarter and a few other areas in and around New Orleans, people build as if they have no worries that a hurricane is going to hit. It is just plain stupidity to build a house in an environment that is not suited for long term human occupation. Further, FEMA?s insurance program just exacerbates this situation (not only here but in other disaster-prone areas).
In my opinion there was a lot of blame to be tossed around. Unfortunately for all involved there wasn't enough leadership to pick up the ball quick enough.
1. New Orleans was completely unprepared and the state of Louisana was also woefully unprepared. That does not excuse FEMA--Brown was a complete and bumbling idiot and after being involved with disaster relief under the leadership of James Lee Witt, a complete disappointment. One has to remember, however, that it is the responsibility of the locals to handle emergencies. Then the state authorites and THEN the federal government. ..NOT the other way around.
2. At the time of Katrina, all requests for what was known as Military Support to Civilian Authorities (MSCA)resources had to be approved by the Secretary of Defense--Rumsfeld. So in the good old days, I could easily arrange to have the military deliver water, food, medical assistance, etc. But while Bush was in office, the simplest request had to be funneled all the way up and then all the way down the chain.
3. Finally--and this is going to be a very unpopular viewpoint--the citizens of New Orleans themselves are also somewhat culpable. Not for the storm and the incompetent management of the aftermath, but for failing to prepare for the EVENTUALITY of the situation. Everyone I know in this field and everyone I know that lives in that area, knew that the levees were, and continue to be, ticking time bombs. This is a city that is under sea level and which is surrounded by various bodies of water: Lakes Pontchartrain, Catouatche, Salvador, Borgne as well as that little thing called the Gulf. Other than the French Quarter and a few other areas in and around New Orleans, people build as if they have no worries that a hurricane is going to hit. It is just plain stupidity to build a house in an environment that is not suited for long term human occupation. Further, FEMA?s insurance program just exacerbates this situation (not only here but in other disaster-prone areas).
In my opinion there was a lot of blame to be tossed around. Unfortunately for all involved there wasn't enough leadership to pick up the ball quick enough.
I agree with this posting 100%. In emergency situations, one individual MUST be in charge. It is not the time to govern by committee and employees must be made to understand that. They WILL follow the instructions given without question. There is no time to explain when the house of cards is falling in around you.
As far as new employees are concerned, this style of management can be useful in the first months. They do need to be instructed as to exactly how things should be done HERE; how it was done somewhere else is not relevant. When I hear "We did it this way at ??????" from a new hire, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. I hate having to say "That's not how we do it here." I always tell new hires on the first day to never say those words, they will only get you into trouble.
As the new person settles into the daily routines of this company, the autocratic style of management can backoff. Soon, they will be a apart of the TEAM or they will be looking for a job.
In these tight economic times, companies, and the management of those companies, can not afford to play NICE. These are hard times that require hard choices and hard work. I wish it were different. I wish I could be the nice guy once more.
As far as new employees are concerned, this style of management can be useful in the first months. They do need to be instructed as to exactly how things should be done HERE; how it was done somewhere else is not relevant. When I hear "We did it this way at ??????" from a new hire, the hair on the back of my neck stands up. I hate having to say "That's not how we do it here." I always tell new hires on the first day to never say those words, they will only get you into trouble.
As the new person settles into the daily routines of this company, the autocratic style of management can backoff. Soon, they will be a apart of the TEAM or they will be looking for a job.
In these tight economic times, companies, and the management of those companies, can not afford to play NICE. These are hard times that require hard choices and hard work. I wish it were different. I wish I could be the nice guy once more.
If the Management team cannot become pro-active they will always be Autocratic/re-active.
In an emergency situation, yes Autocratic must be used, but for 90% of daily business, that philosophy will fail; thus some of what we are seeing in today's economy + Management greed/corruption beyond belief!
If a company is always in Autocratic/Emergency mode that update your resume and put a fork in them.. the company has failed.
In an emergency situation, yes Autocratic must be used, but for 90% of daily business, that philosophy will fail; thus some of what we are seeing in today's economy + Management greed/corruption beyond belief!
If a company is always in Autocratic/Emergency mode that update your resume and put a fork in them.. the company has failed.
Some years ago a new director was hired who had "credentials" (read, MBA) and was described to us, the staff, that he was a team builder and collaborator. Well . . . it turns out that he was indeed a collaborator but his collaboration style was to the extreme where decisions were not made until exasperation by the team was expressed. Then he would autocratically say, "Just do it.", we said, "Why?" and he would reply, "Because I said so.". Not much of a management or leadership style to be proud of would you say?
There is a good dose of EQ (emotional quotient) that is required by a leader/manager. You need to know when to lead and when to manage. You need to "read" your people, to "feel" what the flavor of the day is. You need to employ all levels of leadership/management in the best time and place for all manner of known and unknown issues.
In these difficult economic times, being autocratic may save the day. But to employ this method 100% of the time is done only by a manager/leader insecure with their own situation. This also applies to the overly inclusive collaborator.
There is a good dose of EQ (emotional quotient) that is required by a leader/manager. You need to know when to lead and when to manage. You need to "read" your people, to "feel" what the flavor of the day is. You need to employ all levels of leadership/management in the best time and place for all manner of known and unknown issues.
In these difficult economic times, being autocratic may save the day. But to employ this method 100% of the time is done only by a manager/leader insecure with their own situation. This also applies to the overly inclusive collaborator.
The article doesn't pose that a leader should be 'all autocratic all the time', but rather that they be 'directive' at the appropriate times. Leaders set goals and standards, then make sure they are met. Because good employees and cohesive teams are valuable assets, you DO want to use more 'democratic' techniques when you can - doing so tends to preserve those assets in most cultures. However, if a team or an individual appears to be in danger of failing to meet a goal or a standard, the leader has to get more directly involved and become more directive. This can be appropriate if a failure has happened multiple times (Developer or team 'breaks the build' regularly) or if a single imminent failure is going to be important (project roll out delay with significant cost impact to the company.) At some points, 'negative reinforcement' (is that the current euphemism?) is even necessary. The leader can try to repair any damage done later, AFTER the goals have been met.
The real talent is knowing WHEN to modify your leadership style, HOW, and to WHAT DEGREE. Screaming at the lookout AFTER the ship has hit the iceberg is useless, giving him or her a quiet, but sharp 'Stand to, Mister' when he or she is dozing off might help avoid that iceberg completely in the future.
The real talent is knowing WHEN to modify your leadership style, HOW, and to WHAT DEGREE. Screaming at the lookout AFTER the ship has hit the iceberg is useless, giving him or her a quiet, but sharp 'Stand to, Mister' when he or she is dozing off might help avoid that iceberg completely in the future.
telling the lookout to stand to and pay attention is not the same as standing there telling them how to watch for icebergs even when they know how.
I think we are in basic agreement, yet still persists that definition of "autocratic" and the difference between that and "guiding" leadership.
I think we are in basic agreement, yet still persists that definition of "autocratic" and the difference between that and "guiding" leadership.
There are indeed some who, like me, are not big-picture people. Those who are, and I will admit they are the majority, in my experience tend to look down on those of us who are not, as if we are a little on the dumb side. I may not be Einstein, but I'm no fool. The reality is that my brain just isn't wired for seeing The Big Picture. That doesn't make me stupid, just 'specialized'. I really appreciate a manager who makes clear to me what he expects, and tracks progress with me--and doesn't expect me to do *his* job: dealing with the politics and 'squishy' aspects of the work; who fronts that stuff for me, so I can concentrate on what I'm paid to do: Get the job done. I'm not a politician; my brain just doesn't work that way, and frankly, I don't want it to. That's just distraction, as far as I'm concerned, and it's what a manager is paid to deal with.
I understand and accept that there is a place for the leadership/mentoring style. You can't manage effectively if your people don't respect you, and part of that respect comes from watching him deal with the bozos above him. Just don't ask me to handle what should be management tasks, like applying amorphous priorities, and understanding the thought processes that go into setting them.
That's what business minds are for.
I understand and accept that there is a place for the leadership/mentoring style. You can't manage effectively if your people don't respect you, and part of that respect comes from watching him deal with the bozos above him. Just don't ask me to handle what should be management tasks, like applying amorphous priorities, and understanding the thought processes that go into setting them.
That's what business minds are for.
First, glenstorm_98, I congratulate you on self-awareness. Knowing what you are and are not good at is not an awareness a lot of people have or want to have.
But seeing the big picture is not the same as leadership. While that can be a factor, it's not a requirement. A good leader should be self-aware enough to know when they don't have good "vision" or don't get the "big picture" and they gather people around them who do.
Ulysses S. Grant was an excellent military leader. He had no vision or skill for strategy, so he made sure he had people around him who were masters at that. Grant could get up on the horse and say, "men, let's go this way!" and everyone would cheer and follow; but first someone had to tell him which way to face.
To summarize it best, which incidentally summarizes situational leadership as well: A good leader knows how to use the resources he has to get the best out of each individual to accomplish the goals of the group or organization.
But seeing the big picture is not the same as leadership. While that can be a factor, it's not a requirement. A good leader should be self-aware enough to know when they don't have good "vision" or don't get the "big picture" and they gather people around them who do.
Ulysses S. Grant was an excellent military leader. He had no vision or skill for strategy, so he made sure he had people around him who were masters at that. Grant could get up on the horse and say, "men, let's go this way!" and everyone would cheer and follow; but first someone had to tell him which way to face.
To summarize it best, which incidentally summarizes situational leadership as well: A good leader knows how to use the resources he has to get the best out of each individual to accomplish the goals of the group or organization.
Didn't mean to imply in any sense that one size fits all. Despite comments in this forum opposing it, I agree that a truly good manager knows how to get the most out of each staff member--recognizing that each brings something unique to the party, cognitively and in talent complement.
Give it "situational leadership" or whatever other label you like, it's about making the most of what you do have, not wishing you were dealt a different hand. That applies to more of your circumstances than just your complement of staff. I would say it includes the whole picture, because each situation is a "package deal".
Thanks for your perspective and encouragement.
-David
Give it "situational leadership" or whatever other label you like, it's about making the most of what you do have, not wishing you were dealt a different hand. That applies to more of your circumstances than just your complement of staff. I would say it includes the whole picture, because each situation is a "package deal".
Thanks for your perspective and encouragement.
-David
...on the people one has. I have an experienced Master's in Computer Science guy working for me. There's not a whole lot I have to say except to give general direction and specific projects I need done. Once I specify, he takes care of the project/job with minimal supervision. When I has younger, more inexperienced workers, a more directive, autocratic style worked best. If I didn't give them specific projects and work to do, they would hang out, play games and surf the web. So, it depends...
Going on the basic definition of "autocratic leadership" I would like to report that a form of it is alive and well, striving daily and has been for a few centuries right here under our noses. It is a preferred and implemented managing process used by none other than your local military. While it is not practiced so much in the main stream of the military while you are at your permanent duty station it is very abundantly implemented in both deployed environments such as Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in boot camp and most AIT schools. (AIT schools are the classes that teach the skills needed for your specific jobs) While I am not certain if the civilian job market is ready for this process, it is an effective method for the military.
Apparently the MBA didn't teach how to use MS Word for grammar... JK
It's Friday, thank you for the laugh!
It's Friday, thank you for the laugh!
most of the leadership training I have received over 14 years in the military (10 of which in a leadership position), preaches situational leadership (well, the Navy at least, I can't speak for other services). Absolutely, the autocratic style is used, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you mention, because failure to follow directions can GET A PERSON KILLED! Most of my military brethren on this forum have stated basically that when the **** hits the fan, you do what you are told. Is that your experience in the military?
Now, I don't have direct combat experience, but I did spend a year in a combat zone... there were times when autocratic leadership was definitely called for, and other times when it was unnecessary and caused significant hate and discontent (read: even when the **** was not hitting the fan). We had a leader that decided because we were in a combat zone it was necessary all the time, despite a high level of unit competence and motivation. This had a significant impact on morale and cohesiveness and ultimately was a poor reflection on said leader.
Now, I don't have direct combat experience, but I did spend a year in a combat zone... there were times when autocratic leadership was definitely called for, and other times when it was unnecessary and caused significant hate and discontent (read: even when the **** was not hitting the fan). We had a leader that decided because we were in a combat zone it was necessary all the time, despite a high level of unit competence and motivation. This had a significant impact on morale and cohesiveness and ultimately was a poor reflection on said leader.
From reading through the various responses on this thread, I would say that most people who do not agree with the autocratic management style share the same basic issue - namely, that this style can be useful only if certain conditions exist. Otherwise, autocratic management can be a powerfully destructive weapon. Unfortunately, the majority of management that I have experienced use the autocratic management style nearly 100% of the time. It is only (partially) relaxed for those who behave in a way that implies agreement with whatever management directs. Any difference in opinion - let alone actual dissent - is viewed as a form of disloyalty, a bent towards being a loose cannon, and being a subversive malcontent.
Do I think that autocratic methods are sometimes necessary? Yes. But as a knowledge worker, I feel that having to rely on that method a majority of the time indicates that something is wrong. Either staff have been misallocated, or management is insufficiently skilled in leadership.
Do I think that autocratic methods are sometimes necessary? Yes. But as a knowledge worker, I feel that having to rely on that method a majority of the time indicates that something is wrong. Either staff have been misallocated, or management is insufficiently skilled in leadership.
One of the reasons I am uncomfortable with support from nations like India and the Philipines is that when I talk to our colleagues from there I am under the impression that they are under extreme pressure from management. I get the impression that they have good jobs and they know it and managers take advantage of the fact to bully them. Seriously, take the time to ask one of these techs if they watch cricket or something. Its like they can't do anything but follow the script.
There are some notable exceptions, I don't get that feeling when talking to enterprise support for Backup Exec, for example.
There are some notable exceptions, I don't get that feeling when talking to enterprise support for Backup Exec, for example.
If you wade through the top part of this link
http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html
you will come to an interesting part about the correlation between leadershp style and PDI - and how PDI varies by country.
http://www.skagitwatershed.org/~donclark/leader/leadstl.html
you will come to an interesting part about the correlation between leadershp style and PDI - and how PDI varies by country.
The best style is autocratic, but with fairness and respect. Work flows from the top down. Once an assignment is given it should be done. It's the manager's responsibility to make sure of that by checking progress and making sure things are on course. Management is a different job category than people who do the work. When I'm a manager I consult with staff, but my decisions are my decisions. When I'm a subordinate I want a manager who keeps things moving. A manager should delegate when necessary, but responsibility is retained.
A good word for manager is "gatekeeper". Staff can manage their own tasks or sub tasks, but the manager should monitor communication, protect staff from invalid criticism, and insure staff are meeting standards.
A good word for manager is "gatekeeper". Staff can manage their own tasks or sub tasks, but the manager should monitor communication, protect staff from invalid criticism, and insure staff are meeting standards.
After 20 years in the military I can say that I have had both the autocratic and democratic styles used on me and I have used both of them on various people. Neither is better then the other except in the context of what the job (mission) is and the type of people assigned to do it. For a quick ?gotta make it happen? with people who are unfamiliar with the job and or each other then step on toes (feelings) and push it through. Better results might have been achieved if done democratically but it would take longer. If the mission is a complex long term project with competent personnel then democratic management can be used and the results can be spectacular. However; frequently managers get confused as to what is needed by thinking that only one style can be used at a time. Some people need to be directed and that can be done with panache and respect. Some need to be given space to think and try. And in every case they need know what is expected, what the mission is and how the qualities of the ?success? are defined.
I completely agree with Toni's assessment. As organizations have gotten flatter and teams leaner, companies have switched to a collaborative/consultative approach to create solutions. Unfortunately, not every programmer has what it takes to be a systems engineer/architect. Many folks in IT are terrified at the prospect of meeting end users and eliciting feedback for requirements. These folks want requirements handed to them so the can focus on coding. While I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to only code, Corporate America will thin out the herd of such folks because the pressure is to do more with less (less people in this case).
Well - it might seem it does, but in the end (=longer term) it does not. However, the question is who cares about the long term? HP/EDS is a good example. Mark Hurd knows best, but is ruining the company so that he can show good figures for the short time he will be CEO. "Apr?s moi le d?luge" is typically what an autocratic maganament style in the end leads to.
Subtle authority is particularly suited to the temperaments of those who would be led. When leaders become overbearing and interfere with the lives of their people, the task of leading becomes unnatural. But when leaders hold back and establish goals indirectly - through trusting and carefully worded commands - people find satisfaction with their work and become more productive.
I don't think autocratic leadership, in this context, necessarily means what you describe. Your suggested style will certainly work in some situations, but what about an employee that is inexperienced and needs specific, detailed direction in order to succeed and learn the job? Will "holding back and establishing goals indirectly - through trusting and carefully worded commands" work for this employee?
As mentioned in a previous Tech Republic post under the project management banner, leadership and management are two very different things. That being said, management style is, oddly enough, mostly a function of the manager's personality style as it plays out in the dynamics of the organization.
Strong leadership at the top is sometimes necessary, but always desirable. Nothing is worse than a situation ground down into a committee. For higher-level careers it is nice to be given the space to do the job correctly, but the focus of the job is still really an issue coming from above.
Pitfall -- maybe oragnizational preference (and even your own) is more of a democratic style, but the specific team your working with works more effectly under an autocratic style, "just tell me what to do and I'll do it". How do you satisfy the organization needs and still represent yourself as a good leader/manager? This is more hypothetical, but the post got me thinking.
Isn't the measure of good leadership success in meeting organizational objectives while ensuring growth and development of subordinates? That is also hypothetical, I'm not assuming I know the answer. My gut tells me that whatever the "organizational preference" may be, if one can get the job done (read: achieve organizational objectives) while facilitating the success of your team members, then one can be truly called a LEADER
I think this is how you "represent" yourself as a good leader--by leading effectively.
I think this is how you "represent" yourself as a good leader--by leading effectively.
I can speak only from the standpoint of my own experience in the language business. Leadership, like the ability to marshal facts, is an elusive goal, and an intuitive art. I find when I am asked to act as a language lead (a polite way of referring to a "linguistic agony uncle") I have to consciously change gear and move down to a lead-from-behind position. In any case, I find it more fun, and get more from people, if I can provide leadership by suggesting leads, respecting the fact that each of the freelance linguists is master in his / her own shop. Obviously, one must adjust, intuitively as before, to situations where clear leadership is called for. The key is courtesy: the courtesy not to be overbearing and equally, the courtesy not to leave people dangling on a quandary when they are depending for their living on getting results, and need the input.
A French government publication, "?crire pour ?tre compris", put it in a nutshell when its author wrote that it was important to have "de la consid?ration pour son lecteur". Considerateness is as vital as clarity and punctuality, and should be factored in the whole way through: people matter, and so do their concerns.
With kind regards, and have a good weekend,
Adam Warren.
A French government publication, "?crire pour ?tre compris", put it in a nutshell when its author wrote that it was important to have "de la consid?ration pour son lecteur". Considerateness is as vital as clarity and punctuality, and should be factored in the whole way through: people matter, and so do their concerns.
With kind regards, and have a good weekend,
Adam Warren.
A structured system of rewards and punishments works best when adequate metrics are in place to reward and punish objectively. A democratic leadership style deprives measurable excellence of rewards and forces upon it political opposition. The organization should stick to its articles of incorporation and mission statement. If it aims to perform measurably better it should do so, if it aims to molly coddle slackers and punish dilligence then it should do so and let competition in the market place decide which organization prevails, historically and into the future. Next time around touchy feely will lower barriers to entry again and prevent clumsy and costly de-monopolization. period.
MANAGEMENT OR LEADERSHIP? In a seminal study done by Warren Bennis on LEADERS, the only thing successful LEADERS had in common was that they ignored the weaknesses of the people who worked for them and concentrated on effectively utilizing their strengths. This was regardless of any conisderation of style. The larger answer for management is IT DEPENDS and it depends on primarily whether a person is being authentic....an authentic obnoxious, pushy, overbearing manager will be more effective and better thought of than anyone who is trying to be someone they are not...same goes for the most sensitive and "connected" manager who tries to be perceived as someone else to be effective.
While other types of leadership styles have been trumpeted, in reality you can have only one boss.
If "Autocratic" is used as "centralized" for the urposes of these discussion, yes there is room for that in the circumstances mentioned in other posts (Emergencies), AND some people DO prefer to be directed rather than "INSPIRED".
From my personal experience, the more a manager or high level exec talk about leadership, coaching and blah blah blah (btw if you listen the word "spiritual", run, don't walk to the nearest exit) the more petty, dictatorial and shortsighted they are
From my personal experience, the more a manager or high level exec talk about leadership, coaching and blah blah blah (btw if you listen the word "spiritual", run, don't walk to the nearest exit) the more petty, dictatorial and shortsighted they are
A somewhere in the middle style of management. Tough when necessary works best and coach when required.
The old school mentality of autocratic management is just an ego trip out of control and everybody knows it.
It is also overcompensating by poorly skilled and ineffective managers.
The old school mentality of autocratic management is just an ego trip out of control and everybody knows it.
It is also overcompensating by poorly skilled and ineffective managers.
The question is based on an ephemeral premise, that being that the leader is competent. In cases where the leader actually knows the task and the processes for accomplishment, a strong leader may be the most successful approach.
However, in many cases, the leader or manager rose to a position by means independent of competence. Indeed, a high percentage of managers achieved their status by politics, familial relationships, or crude strategy. The "my way or the highway" approach is fatal in those cases.
Whenever the manager is actually the most competent, then a soft "my way or the highway" approach works, as long as input and advice are permitted to contribute to growth of processes and techniques. Knowledge is king in any work environment, and those who bring new and better ideas should always be welcome.
But, when the manager got the position by means other than worth or suitability, then the management will fail if input from the team members is ignored. And, that is the scenario which will most likely avoid team involvement.
Odd, isn't it? Competent leaders will encourage team ..involvement, while incompetent ones will discourage it.
However, in many cases, the leader or manager rose to a position by means independent of competence. Indeed, a high percentage of managers achieved their status by politics, familial relationships, or crude strategy. The "my way or the highway" approach is fatal in those cases.
Whenever the manager is actually the most competent, then a soft "my way or the highway" approach works, as long as input and advice are permitted to contribute to growth of processes and techniques. Knowledge is king in any work environment, and those who bring new and better ideas should always be welcome.
But, when the manager got the position by means other than worth or suitability, then the management will fail if input from the team members is ignored. And, that is the scenario which will most likely avoid team involvement.
Odd, isn't it? Competent leaders will encourage team ..involvement, while incompetent ones will discourage it.
As the CEO of a small company, I find that I'm generally doing a good job when I can get people to argue with me and contribute to the solution (the "democratic" process you mention). This works well for most things but when there is a time of crisis, I find that most people want you to give them a reasonable top level plan and their respective assignments to help the team pull through. They do not want to spend time debating but just getting the job done and they'd prefer to be given what to do rather than expected to figure it out and make the right decision when the stakes are high.
all that's required. It's the carrot and stick approach; some require more stick than carrot and vice versa. As long as all concerned recognize the chain of command and the consequences of violating that chain through unfulfilled duties and/or expectations then there are few problems. One must or should consider the risk:reward ratio if and when they challenge the lines of authority or chain of command. If one is in the right, then the rewards may prove worth it however, if in the wrong one should consider the old adage, "It's the protruding nail, with its head up, that gets hammered down."
Dawg
Dawg
Lets take away the word autocratic and leave the word Leadership. If one is a good leader (of which there are so few) where I work, then your staff will follow you to the ends of the earth. By feeling empowered they will be more willing to take pride in their work, and seek to move the company as a whole forward. They know that they are valued, and exactly how they contribute to the strategic outcomes. Sure there are times when you come across 'a loser', as a Leader you need to deal with these people on a case by case basis. Being bullied or threatened does not motivate people, you will get just the bear minimum in order for them to stay under the radar, and no more.
Lets take away the word autocratic and leave the word Leadership. If one is a good leader (of which there are so few) where I work, then your staff will follow you to the ends of the earth. By feeling empowered they will be more willing to take pride in their work, and seek to move the company as a whole, forward. They know that they are valued, and exactly how they contribute to the strategic outcomes. Sure there are times when you come across 'a loser', as a Leader you need to deal with these people on a case by case basis. Being bullied or threatened does not motivate people, you will get just the bear minimum in order for them to stay under the radar, and no more. Unfortunately these is a perception that anyone can lead. This is untrue. Leaders are born, not made. One cannot learn to be a manager or leader; although almost anyone can be an autocratic leader as this requires no skills, rather than the ability to swing a good bat. You either have it or don't.
Leaders are born, not made. One cannot learn to be a manager or leader...
You are probably correct about the great leaders from history, but armies and the military have been training leaders for millennia.
What do you know that nobody else does?
You are probably correct about the great leaders from history, but armies and the military have been training leaders for millennia.
What do you know that nobody else does?
you have to be WILLING to learn. I know some people in the military that get the training whether they like it or not--but with all the training in the world, you can choose NOT to use what you are taught. I've been in many professional development courses, and a lot of people just sit around and grumble "what a waste of my time!" and miss some good stuff. Leadership can certainly be learned, and some choose NOT to learn--its a shame and that's why there are so many bad leaders out there.
But it's absolutely necessary for those who make the military a career. Career NCOs understand that applying the leadership and management techniques taught in professional development courses (the USAF NCO Leadership School and NCO Academy for example) is absolutely essential to job success and career advancement. It's usually only in the introductory courses first-termers must complete that you see the rolling of the eyes and hear the grumbling.
For my part, I understand the concepts quite well but have trouble applying them. I'm aware that this makes me a poor supervisor or manager and am quite happy working as a senior tech.
edit: clarify
For my part, I understand the concepts quite well but have trouble applying them. I'm aware that this makes me a poor supervisor or manager and am quite happy working as a senior tech.
edit: clarify
Hi Derek!
You ask very pertinent questions, indeed. Do bad leaders know that they are bad? I doubt they do. A person who is sick will not seek treatment. To seek treatment--at least on our own, one must first recognize and accept the current condition, i.e., illness. However, it is possible that some bad leaders know that they are bad. And those who cross this stage (i.e., recognition of once poor management), tend to improve. They attend training. They even talk to friends, or peers to seek advice.
There is a difference between becoming a manager and being a manager. One analogy is becoming a parent and being--a good-parent. Many become parents accidentally. But to say that one is a good parent just because the person has a child would be too daring. While becoming a parent can happen accidentally--and we all know that it does happen--being a parent, on the other hand, is a long process.
The foregoing observation applies to management. I have seen managers and wondered how they happened to become "managers." Have you worked under a manager who has no no basic supervisory, let alone coaching skills? if you took resumes of 10 managers, I doubt you'll find three would described how they helped at least one of their employees grow/mature into a new manager, or transition to management. Most of the time, we see accomplishments that focus on money, and non-human resources. Do managers ever realize that people are the foundation of any business and, therefore, the primary asset of any corporation or organization? So, why don't managers list their accomplishments in this critical area, i.e., the human capital? One explanation to this unfortunate state of managerial affairs might be that a good number of managers view employees are human doings, not human beings. The other possible explanation is that given the prevailing culture in Corporate America, managers are constantly busy trying to save their job. In this context, rather than spend the time improving effective management and leadership skills, this type of managers are busy developing "unamanagerial" skills (I call these "tricks") that help them keep the job.
Another observation worth making is that, there is a great number of managers who are really good as humans, but who do master the fundamentals of management.
Bottom line is that management is both an art and science. Some have studied he science, but don't love it, and never or seldom practice it. Other may never have studied it, yet are just as good as a painter who never studied painting, a singer who never studied music, yet has become--and is- a great painter/singer. Why can it be so? They love it!
Jean-Pierre E. Mbei (MBA, MS)
Information Assurance Analyst
Virginia
You ask very pertinent questions, indeed. Do bad leaders know that they are bad? I doubt they do. A person who is sick will not seek treatment. To seek treatment--at least on our own, one must first recognize and accept the current condition, i.e., illness. However, it is possible that some bad leaders know that they are bad. And those who cross this stage (i.e., recognition of once poor management), tend to improve. They attend training. They even talk to friends, or peers to seek advice.
There is a difference between becoming a manager and being a manager. One analogy is becoming a parent and being--a good-parent. Many become parents accidentally. But to say that one is a good parent just because the person has a child would be too daring. While becoming a parent can happen accidentally--and we all know that it does happen--being a parent, on the other hand, is a long process.
The foregoing observation applies to management. I have seen managers and wondered how they happened to become "managers." Have you worked under a manager who has no no basic supervisory, let alone coaching skills? if you took resumes of 10 managers, I doubt you'll find three would described how they helped at least one of their employees grow/mature into a new manager, or transition to management. Most of the time, we see accomplishments that focus on money, and non-human resources. Do managers ever realize that people are the foundation of any business and, therefore, the primary asset of any corporation or organization? So, why don't managers list their accomplishments in this critical area, i.e., the human capital? One explanation to this unfortunate state of managerial affairs might be that a good number of managers view employees are human doings, not human beings. The other possible explanation is that given the prevailing culture in Corporate America, managers are constantly busy trying to save their job. In this context, rather than spend the time improving effective management and leadership skills, this type of managers are busy developing "unamanagerial" skills (I call these "tricks") that help them keep the job.
Another observation worth making is that, there is a great number of managers who are really good as humans, but who do master the fundamentals of management.
Bottom line is that management is both an art and science. Some have studied he science, but don't love it, and never or seldom practice it. Other may never have studied it, yet are just as good as a painter who never studied painting, a singer who never studied music, yet has become--and is- a great painter/singer. Why can it be so? They love it!
Jean-Pierre E. Mbei (MBA, MS)
Information Assurance Analyst
Virginia
Thank you, Jean-Pierre, for verbalizing my thoughts so eloquently.
Case in point - I currently work for an individual who has (I guess) studied many of the mechanics of management, but who (by way of his behavior) has internalized virtually nothing of the essence of management. He tends to think that most of his staff simply don't "get" him, and that many of us have problems. It never occurs to him that perhaps he may be the source of some of his problems. He also doesn't seem to understand why many of his staff are reluctant - or refuse outright - to give anything more than just the bare minimum to get by. He is an obstacle to be endured. While he does deliver the numbers that make his boss happy, he doesn't seem to place any value on engendering the respect and benevolent regard of his minions.
I hope that he never suffers a serious setback professionally. He has generated such ill will towards himself that many would actually relish seeing him fail. Which I find to be quite sad, actually.
Case in point - I currently work for an individual who has (I guess) studied many of the mechanics of management, but who (by way of his behavior) has internalized virtually nothing of the essence of management. He tends to think that most of his staff simply don't "get" him, and that many of us have problems. It never occurs to him that perhaps he may be the source of some of his problems. He also doesn't seem to understand why many of his staff are reluctant - or refuse outright - to give anything more than just the bare minimum to get by. He is an obstacle to be endured. While he does deliver the numbers that make his boss happy, he doesn't seem to place any value on engendering the respect and benevolent regard of his minions.
I hope that he never suffers a serious setback professionally. He has generated such ill will towards himself that many would actually relish seeing him fail. Which I find to be quite sad, actually.
I agree some people are born either introverted or extroverted (and an introvert may not make a strong leader--not to say they can't change), but otherwise, there's no reason someone can't learn leadership through experience. Most people don't come out of the gate as a leader, and they learn through experience what kind of leader they want to be... we've all experienced good and bad leaders in our lives--hopefully, each of us has taken the positives and negatives into consideration when building our own leadership style. Emulating those that inspire us, finding a mentor, seeking out leadership education, are all things that can make everyone better leaders. Even the best leaders make mistakes, hopefully we all learn from our mistakes to enhance our leadership effectiveness.
I wonder, do bad leaders (I'm sure we all know at least one) know that they are bad leaders? Do bad leaders think about how they can be a better leader, or is there some reason that they think they are doing it the "only" or "right" way?
I wonder, do bad leaders (I'm sure we all know at least one) know that they are bad leaders? Do bad leaders think about how they can be a better leader, or is there some reason that they think they are doing it the "only" or "right" way?
I still recall in the early 90s, my boss asking me where I wanted to be in a couple of years. I was a rising star in the desktop support world, doing support and projects around desktop software. I told her point blank, I didn't want her job. She was a little startled, and I explained that I didn't want the administrative and political aspects of the job.
She rewarded my candor by making me fill in for her while she took a 3 week vacation. I learned alot from her boss, and I eventually took on a management position of my own.
James
She rewarded my candor by making me fill in for her while she took a 3 week vacation. I learned alot from her boss, and I eventually took on a management position of my own.
James
The idea that someone is "born a leader" is pretty much bull.
Yes, there are those who, through a combination of genetics AND early life experiences and learning, seem to be "natural" leaders. That is they become good leaders without formal training in the subject. And who, if given formal training, can become OUTSTANDING leaders, with skills above that obtainable by most who do not start out with the same early advantages.
Much the same as there are those athletes who are born with just the right genetic characteristics so as to have a natural ability (above average) to excel at certain types of physical activity.
However, if said "natural born" athlete does not actually train, practice, and learn his/her sport well. He or she may well lose in a competition to someone without as much genetic advantage, but who has trained very hard and well, and spent the time to learn all the aspects of the sport.
The point is, that genetics alone is not a final determining factor. Maybe not even the most important one.
We are humans, not simple animals. And the human brain is capable of learning to be pretty darned good at learning to do something which does not "come naturally".
Even a person not particularly inclined, by genetics and early learned behavior, to be a good leader can LEARN to be a good leader. If so motivated and presented with good training and education. Maybe not as good as a so-called "born leader" who has precisely the same training and motivation to learn. But good, nonetheless.
FWIW, as to your comments as to whether or not bad leaders know that they're bad.
In my experience, some do, some don't.
Hard to change or improve the ones that don't. For instance, I am reminded of one particular individual who was a bad leader. Oh, he got things done by his people. By threats, intimidation, trickery, and so forth. Which was the problem. He did get things done. Even if the methods sucked.
So even tho he was sent through a couple leadership courses, he pretty much mentally dismissed 90% of everything taught, barely paid attention to the remaining 10%. In his mind, and I know from having discussed this with him ... he didn't give a r*t's a** about all that stuff. Since his methods WORKED. Got stuff done. That was enough to make him happy. He didn't care if those he lead liked him or not. Didn't care if they applied for transfers at every opportunity. Etc. He simply didn't care about anything except achieving his own personal goals and advancement.
I did admire him for that. At least he was honest.
Not that this made me any happier with him.
And in fact, before I left the job where I worked for him I set certain things up so that he later experienced a catastrophic fall, so to speak. Events happened that guaranteed he'd never see another promotion. And in fact he was reassigned to duties that kept him at of the way, and out of mischief for the next couple years. At which time he was eligible for retirement, and in fact HIS bosses insisted he do so. Or else.
Yes, there are those who, through a combination of genetics AND early life experiences and learning, seem to be "natural" leaders. That is they become good leaders without formal training in the subject. And who, if given formal training, can become OUTSTANDING leaders, with skills above that obtainable by most who do not start out with the same early advantages.
Much the same as there are those athletes who are born with just the right genetic characteristics so as to have a natural ability (above average) to excel at certain types of physical activity.
However, if said "natural born" athlete does not actually train, practice, and learn his/her sport well. He or she may well lose in a competition to someone without as much genetic advantage, but who has trained very hard and well, and spent the time to learn all the aspects of the sport.
The point is, that genetics alone is not a final determining factor. Maybe not even the most important one.
We are humans, not simple animals. And the human brain is capable of learning to be pretty darned good at learning to do something which does not "come naturally".
Even a person not particularly inclined, by genetics and early learned behavior, to be a good leader can LEARN to be a good leader. If so motivated and presented with good training and education. Maybe not as good as a so-called "born leader" who has precisely the same training and motivation to learn. But good, nonetheless.
FWIW, as to your comments as to whether or not bad leaders know that they're bad.
In my experience, some do, some don't.
Hard to change or improve the ones that don't. For instance, I am reminded of one particular individual who was a bad leader. Oh, he got things done by his people. By threats, intimidation, trickery, and so forth. Which was the problem. He did get things done. Even if the methods sucked.
So even tho he was sent through a couple leadership courses, he pretty much mentally dismissed 90% of everything taught, barely paid attention to the remaining 10%. In his mind, and I know from having discussed this with him ... he didn't give a r*t's a** about all that stuff. Since his methods WORKED. Got stuff done. That was enough to make him happy. He didn't care if those he lead liked him or not. Didn't care if they applied for transfers at every opportunity. Etc. He simply didn't care about anything except achieving his own personal goals and advancement.
I did admire him for that. At least he was honest.
Not that this made me any happier with him.
And in fact, before I left the job where I worked for him I set certain things up so that he later experienced a catastrophic fall, so to speak. Events happened that guaranteed he'd never see another promotion. And in fact he was reassigned to duties that kept him at of the way, and out of mischief for the next couple years. At which time he was eligible for retirement, and in fact HIS bosses insisted he do so. Or else.
Why do I make that assertion? Because only those who are confident in their ability to grow and adapt are willing to try to look at a situation and determine if maybe they need to modify something about themselves in order to achieve a mutually beneficial goal.
Almost all the bad managers I have endured are all inward focused. Their sense of worth comes from others (ususally their boss) affirming that they have done a fine job. Their focus is literally on forwarding their own careers. Promoting others is the last thing on their mind, especially if others do not see the world exactly as they do. Ultimately, they usually aren't even that concerned about the company that they sacrifice their staff to. The goal is to feather their own nest, and to heck with anyone else.
Since the opinions of others - especially staff - do not come into play with managers like this, any considerations about how they can become better at the job typically do not include dialogue with the "enemy" (which is how employees who don't hold similar opinions to theirs are treated). I have heard from such managers the common question "What do these people want from me?!" It never occurs to them to ask the people in question. Or if they do ask, they are mightily angered when less than complimentary feedback is the result.
I have worked for several egoists who declared that their way was the only correct way. And in one extreme case, the manager stated that if others would only open their minds, they would see just how right he was (and, by extension, how wrong they were). For another, he saw the right way as delivering *exactly* whatever his boss dictated, regardless of the terms, the deadlines, the consequences. In his case, staff were mere chess pieces to be reactively played, sacrificed or cast aside as needed to fulfill the latest dictates. It never occurred to him that perhaps his people needed representation, support and advocacy from the company. And the idea that perhaps his staff could even assist him with the goal of being more responsive if their needs were considered as well was totally foreign for him. Both were terrors to work for, even though their motivations were fairly different from each other.
Almost all the bad managers I have endured are all inward focused. Their sense of worth comes from others (ususally their boss) affirming that they have done a fine job. Their focus is literally on forwarding their own careers. Promoting others is the last thing on their mind, especially if others do not see the world exactly as they do. Ultimately, they usually aren't even that concerned about the company that they sacrifice their staff to. The goal is to feather their own nest, and to heck with anyone else.
Since the opinions of others - especially staff - do not come into play with managers like this, any considerations about how they can become better at the job typically do not include dialogue with the "enemy" (which is how employees who don't hold similar opinions to theirs are treated). I have heard from such managers the common question "What do these people want from me?!" It never occurs to them to ask the people in question. Or if they do ask, they are mightily angered when less than complimentary feedback is the result.
I have worked for several egoists who declared that their way was the only correct way. And in one extreme case, the manager stated that if others would only open their minds, they would see just how right he was (and, by extension, how wrong they were). For another, he saw the right way as delivering *exactly* whatever his boss dictated, regardless of the terms, the deadlines, the consequences. In his case, staff were mere chess pieces to be reactively played, sacrificed or cast aside as needed to fulfill the latest dictates. It never occurred to him that perhaps his people needed representation, support and advocacy from the company. And the idea that perhaps his staff could even assist him with the goal of being more responsive if their needs were considered as well was totally foreign for him. Both were terrors to work for, even though their motivations were fairly different from each other.
The environment you describe is scary. I think that this kind of managers is a huge barrier to organizational innovation. They fit into what is known as mechanistic organization. In most cases, you'd see that such individuals are intrinsically incompetent. They use this autocratic approach to shield their incompetence. I honestly think that good to great managers first value their people because good to great organizations consider people as their primary capital.
I would suggest anyone to read "Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't" (Jim Collins) and "The Customer Comes Second: Put Your People First and Watch 'em Kick Butt" by Hal Rosenbluth and Diane Mcferrin Peters. No human work is perfect. However, these two books provide excellent insight that can help both organizational leaders and the people they lead.
Have a great weekend!
J-P
I would suggest anyone to read "Why Some Companies Make the Leap... and Others Don't" (Jim Collins) and "The Customer Comes Second: Put Your People First and Watch 'em Kick Butt" by Hal Rosenbluth and Diane Mcferrin Peters. No human work is perfect. However, these two books provide excellent insight that can help both organizational leaders and the people they lead.
Have a great weekend!
J-P
Seriously, when was this style(?) ever popular?
As a leader I think our foremost responsibility is to ensure that as a team we are successful in our projects. There may be some team members who need a little more direction than others - we need to provide that. There may be others, who just need the spec and a clear vision on what the client expects and they will deliver.
Others will just take the hint from calls and notes and just hit the bulls eye.
The most important responsibility of the manager is to RECOGNIZE and appreciate these wide variety of talent in the team and tap the full potential of the team members to reach success.
If we were the only ones who ever gave the directions in the project, how can we ever hope to create a back up for overselves so that we can move on when we get other opportunities?
Or on the otehr hand, if we gave a free rein, all that is needed in a project is the security guard and the CEO of the company.
As a leader I think our foremost responsibility is to ensure that as a team we are successful in our projects. There may be some team members who need a little more direction than others - we need to provide that. There may be others, who just need the spec and a clear vision on what the client expects and they will deliver.
Others will just take the hint from calls and notes and just hit the bulls eye.
The most important responsibility of the manager is to RECOGNIZE and appreciate these wide variety of talent in the team and tap the full potential of the team members to reach success.
If we were the only ones who ever gave the directions in the project, how can we ever hope to create a back up for overselves so that we can move on when we get other opportunities?
Or on the otehr hand, if we gave a free rein, all that is needed in a project is the security guard and the CEO of the company.
Personally, I have worked in both environments--where most every decision was top down, conflict among IS teams was fostered, most every manager made decisions based on how good they would look or how bad they could make another manager look, and rarely was any input from any peons considered even when the evidence was overwhelmingly contrary to the decision being made; and where it was my job to know what I should be doing, and my manager was an enabler and we partnered on the objectives we needed to accomplish to align with information filtering through the management chain. It was my responsibility to determine the best approach to accomplish those goals.
In the autocratic environment:
- The staff eventually ceased to offer their opinions
- New ideas were rare; "teamwork", "innovation", and "creativity" were only words in the dictionary
- "Every man for himself" was the operational mode
- The "keep your head down in the fox hole" mentality was pervasive
- Managers knew better ways of doing things existed, but remained silent for fear of starting an internal war and possibly losing their job.
- The goal of each employee was to survive the day and keep their job
- Decisions were pragmatic and almost never considered strategy
- Projects were driven by date without regard to quality or strategic positioning and with few exceptions was the target date moved.
- Employee moral was pathetic.
- Employees found no purpose in their job (other than to pay the bills), had no incentive for quality or excellence.
- Career paths were limited at best.
- Failure was not an option and risk avoided like the plague.
- If a project had 100 tasks and one went slightly wrong, but the project was successful and on time, the focus was not on the 99 that went without a hitch, but staffers were bludgeoned for the one that went slightly astray, even though the team had gone far beyond the call of duty to ensure success.
- Projects were 20% plan and 80% execution because so little planning was done with the long-term success rate being dismal.
- Any activity above obtaining a pen from the supply closet took forever to go up and down the management chain for approval.
In contrast in the democratic environment:
- Recommendations, decisions and opinions carried considerable weight and often set direction
- Teamwork, innovation and creativity was fostered and expected. Thinking outside the box was in the back of staffers mind.
- Overall everyone was focused on doing what was in the best interest of the business.
- Speaking out and presentation of ideas to improve IS were the operational modes.
- Managers would take new ideas up the management chain when the foundational elements were solid.
- Respectively conveying to your boss that they were wrong and having a intellectual discussion on the matter was appreciated. Often the manager could be convinced that the other direction was the better decision. The management realized that they didn't possess god-like knowledge of every IS related area, but relied on the people they employed to be the experts. The philosophy was, "If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is unnecessary."
- Projects were driven by date, quality and cost, but because all scenarios cannot be anticipated, sliding a date for a legitimate reason was not the end of the world.
- Employee moral was for the most part very high and most employees came to work seeking to make a difference.
- Staffers could see how they were contributing to the overall success of the organization, had a drive for quality and excellence.
- Career paths were varied and desirable.
- Reasonable risk was encouraged and failure was expected; not as the norm but that failure would occur. Thomas Edison, I believe, when asked about his many attempts before developing a working light bulb said, "I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work."
- Mistakes were expected. The employees were human after all.
- Project success was celebrated and "lessons learned" was viewed as a means to improve.
- Most projects were 80% plan and 20% execute and the success rate reflected that approach.
- Employees could make decisions collaborating with their piers or on their own depending on the impact of the decision.
The contrast depicted above was the norm in those work environments. Sometimes the other style did come into play, but rarely.
I'm not sure where you would rather be employed, but for me, it is a no brainer.
A significant number of companies view their employees as a commodity rather than individuals with talents and abilities that given an opportunity could influence the business for the better. Many of them operated under the "We've been doing it that way for 20 years, why change now?" mentality when the very thing that could push them past the competition is in some talented person's head, but unfortunately, that idea will never see the light of day.
Autocratic work environments tend to make some very brave assumptions: all the expertise is held by management, among staffers no intelligent life forms exist, any project that fails is a result of poor implementation, and a conflicting idea is obviously wrong. In most autocratic environments, the organization rarely realizes the potential of talented employees, viewing employees as a body that fills a position rather than an asset.
Management style is more of an art than science as many dynamics are in play. However, personally, I prefer a democratic environment with autocratic methods sprinkled where necessary, but with the goal of growing the individual toward functioning within a democratic environment. One hundred percent success is not realistic, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. No doubt some employees in an organization need definitive direction, but for those folks that show potential, empower them and encourage them to work independently. A team of 80% self-starters that wanted to work for their manager and believed they were making a difference would seem from a management perspective preferable to the inverse.
In the autocratic environment:
- The staff eventually ceased to offer their opinions
- New ideas were rare; "teamwork", "innovation", and "creativity" were only words in the dictionary
- "Every man for himself" was the operational mode
- The "keep your head down in the fox hole" mentality was pervasive
- Managers knew better ways of doing things existed, but remained silent for fear of starting an internal war and possibly losing their job.
- The goal of each employee was to survive the day and keep their job
- Decisions were pragmatic and almost never considered strategy
- Projects were driven by date without regard to quality or strategic positioning and with few exceptions was the target date moved.
- Employee moral was pathetic.
- Employees found no purpose in their job (other than to pay the bills), had no incentive for quality or excellence.
- Career paths were limited at best.
- Failure was not an option and risk avoided like the plague.
- If a project had 100 tasks and one went slightly wrong, but the project was successful and on time, the focus was not on the 99 that went without a hitch, but staffers were bludgeoned for the one that went slightly astray, even though the team had gone far beyond the call of duty to ensure success.
- Projects were 20% plan and 80% execution because so little planning was done with the long-term success rate being dismal.
- Any activity above obtaining a pen from the supply closet took forever to go up and down the management chain for approval.
In contrast in the democratic environment:
- Recommendations, decisions and opinions carried considerable weight and often set direction
- Teamwork, innovation and creativity was fostered and expected. Thinking outside the box was in the back of staffers mind.
- Overall everyone was focused on doing what was in the best interest of the business.
- Speaking out and presentation of ideas to improve IS were the operational modes.
- Managers would take new ideas up the management chain when the foundational elements were solid.
- Respectively conveying to your boss that they were wrong and having a intellectual discussion on the matter was appreciated. Often the manager could be convinced that the other direction was the better decision. The management realized that they didn't possess god-like knowledge of every IS related area, but relied on the people they employed to be the experts. The philosophy was, "If you and I are always in agreement, one of us is unnecessary."
- Projects were driven by date, quality and cost, but because all scenarios cannot be anticipated, sliding a date for a legitimate reason was not the end of the world.
- Employee moral was for the most part very high and most employees came to work seeking to make a difference.
- Staffers could see how they were contributing to the overall success of the organization, had a drive for quality and excellence.
- Career paths were varied and desirable.
- Reasonable risk was encouraged and failure was expected; not as the norm but that failure would occur. Thomas Edison, I believe, when asked about his many attempts before developing a working light bulb said, "I have not failed 700 times. I have not failed once. I have succeeded in proving that those 700 ways will not work."
- Mistakes were expected. The employees were human after all.
- Project success was celebrated and "lessons learned" was viewed as a means to improve.
- Most projects were 80% plan and 20% execute and the success rate reflected that approach.
- Employees could make decisions collaborating with their piers or on their own depending on the impact of the decision.
The contrast depicted above was the norm in those work environments. Sometimes the other style did come into play, but rarely.
I'm not sure where you would rather be employed, but for me, it is a no brainer.
A significant number of companies view their employees as a commodity rather than individuals with talents and abilities that given an opportunity could influence the business for the better. Many of them operated under the "We've been doing it that way for 20 years, why change now?" mentality when the very thing that could push them past the competition is in some talented person's head, but unfortunately, that idea will never see the light of day.
Autocratic work environments tend to make some very brave assumptions: all the expertise is held by management, among staffers no intelligent life forms exist, any project that fails is a result of poor implementation, and a conflicting idea is obviously wrong. In most autocratic environments, the organization rarely realizes the potential of talented employees, viewing employees as a body that fills a position rather than an asset.
Management style is more of an art than science as many dynamics are in play. However, personally, I prefer a democratic environment with autocratic methods sprinkled where necessary, but with the goal of growing the individual toward functioning within a democratic environment. One hundred percent success is not realistic, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. No doubt some employees in an organization need definitive direction, but for those folks that show potential, empower them and encourage them to work independently. A team of 80% self-starters that wanted to work for their manager and believed they were making a difference would seem from a management perspective preferable to the inverse.
I think it's very interesting such a topic should arise during the current economic conditions!
As part of a former communist country, I witnessed how the management style has gone through autocratic to semi-consultative to democratic over the last 20 years. It was a mentality change our leaders (or managers if you prefer this appellation) had to go through, and they did so especially after working together with managers from different countries or after attending western management schools.
But the change was very slow, painfully slow for the ones who were young enough to begin their work life under the new economic order.
Now when the times are tough again I am sadly witnessing a new rise of the autocratic style, usually from the very same people who actually never changed on the inside, but who borrowed a mask and worn it willy-nilly. It's quite a favorable environment for such kind of people, when employment options are scarce and people are afraid of what comes tomorrow that they are lowering their heads and obeying. It seems that the ones who resort back to this leadership style are the entrepreneurs in the initial stages of their business, or the ones who behaved like this years ago and who were forced to change with the times.
It's so sad this is happening again. I am not sure if it's happening only in the ex-communist countries or if this is a hot topic for western societies as well.
As part of a former communist country, I witnessed how the management style has gone through autocratic to semi-consultative to democratic over the last 20 years. It was a mentality change our leaders (or managers if you prefer this appellation) had to go through, and they did so especially after working together with managers from different countries or after attending western management schools.
But the change was very slow, painfully slow for the ones who were young enough to begin their work life under the new economic order.
Now when the times are tough again I am sadly witnessing a new rise of the autocratic style, usually from the very same people who actually never changed on the inside, but who borrowed a mask and worn it willy-nilly. It's quite a favorable environment for such kind of people, when employment options are scarce and people are afraid of what comes tomorrow that they are lowering their heads and obeying. It seems that the ones who resort back to this leadership style are the entrepreneurs in the initial stages of their business, or the ones who behaved like this years ago and who were forced to change with the times.
It's so sad this is happening again. I am not sure if it's happening only in the ex-communist countries or if this is a hot topic for western societies as well.
I can understand your point Mihnea.
When managers, not leaders backs are against the wall they will go back to what they are comfortable with; which may be the "do it my way because I said so" style.
When managers, not leaders backs are against the wall they will go back to what they are comfortable with; which may be the "do it my way because I said so" style.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
