by William Barclay | Dec 21, 2023 | Management
What Makes a Good Manager Good? Management Field Theory Explains
Good managers get results. But why is it often unclear how they have done it? What makes a good manager good? Why is it difficult for someone else to copy what a good manager does? Why is selecting people for management posts problematic? When we contemplate management we seem to encounter dimensions of the mysterious.
The answers are connected with the complexity of managers’ work and the variety of attributes that are required for success. Real-World Management have developed a model termed Management Field Theory© to address these issues. The model provides a scheme directed towards an understanding of the deep mechanics of management.
The general concept of a Field Theory was introduced by the American social psychologist Kurt Lewin. He defined a field as the sum of the external forces and influences that interact with people’s traits to cause their behaviour. He said ‘to understand behaviour, the person and his environment have to be considered as one constellation of interdependent factors’. This interdependency gives rise to an organisation’s culture and emotional tone.
Management Field Theory regards managers as working in a field of forces and influences that vary with time. They derive from a variety of sources including the priorities of leaders, the needs of clients, the attitudes of staff, the views of stakeholders, the impact of past organisational events and the wider social and economic environment. They give rise to obligations for managers and workgroups which may include levels of achievement in respect of outputs, profits, turnover, costs, timeliness, client satisfaction, client retention, staff satisfaction, staff retention, and societal contributions.
Good managers and their workgroups meet these obligations. A variety of personal qualities enable managers to do it, and crucially they usually include, alongside direct knowledge and skills, their values and behaviours. Good managers are rare because of the complexity of management fields and the range of attributes needed to fit with them. Particular strengths may enable a manager to engage sufficiently strongly: organisational skills, planning abilities, motivational abilities, the capacity to communicate a vision, an understanding of people, political skills, and the ability to engender trust. Different limited sets of these attributes may be enough for managers to be effective: they can be effective for different reasons.
It is because fits with the field are often highly characteristic of individual managers and because the values and behaviours of managers are often significant ─ attributes that may be recognisable only over long periods of time ─ that attempts to copy their approach often fail. Furthermore it means that some effective managers may not outwardly present characteristics conforming to an ‘authoritative norm’. Managers may succeed in some organisations and situations but not others because of the difference in the fields they encounter. And the dynamic nature of the field means that managers can lose effectiveness over time when their attributes are no longer so well adapted. Field complexity may also mean that managers themselves may not always fully understand how their achievements are derived and so may not be able to fully explain their success to others.
The theory has implications for the selection and personal development of managers. Person specifications should be based around all the predominant qualities needed to achieve a fit with the field. Personal development plans need a correspondingly wide scope.
An understanding of their underlying mechanics is required to allow management roles to be effectively deployed. Such understandings do not widely exist. It is why so many different answers are heard to the question ‘what is a good manager?’. Management Field Theory can help illuminate the management panorama. For managers, every day is a Field Day!
by William Barclay | Oct 21, 2023 | Management, management inspection
When an Inspector Calls
Anthropologists tell us that a major reason for the success of the human race is our ability to communicate with and learn from each other. So what’s not to like about workplace inspections? It is hard to avoid them: process compliance; public service delivery; health and safety; fair trading; facilities; IT security; hygiene. We can surely learn from the experience and wisdom of others who look at the way we are doing things. And certainly some inspections do result in improvements or even transformations. But sadly in many others a shadow falls between the idea and the act – a shadow dark enough to produce climates of fear and deep foreboding.
Effective inspection requires a depth of knowledge and experience on the part of the inspector which includes the constraints and exigencies of the working environment as well as the direct organisational processes. Inspectors with such a breadth of skill can be difficult to find. Unawareness may mean that an inspection is shallow and confined to comparing work centres, devoid of more fundamental scrutiny. It can also lead to the absence of proposals about paths to improvement – a major missed opportunity.
The inspector-inspectee relationship often has a major power imbalance. Psychologists tell us that power diminishes a person’s capacity to take the perspective of others and perceive emotions accurately. It may also cause those possessing power to have stricter standards for others than for themselves and even to dehumanise those down-power to them. Inspectors require maturity: they face the considerable challenge of working with power compassionately and skilfully.
On some occasions, inspectors can be under external political pressures that favour negative outcomes – for example when leaders perceive a need to demonstrate to stakeholders a confrontational internal management approach or to respond to apparent reputational difficulties. This can seriously skew an inspector’s approach and can increase the likelihood that headlines of reports will be based on a small unrepresentative number of outcomes presented in a manner designed to create impact.
Here is a Real-World Management instrument for judging an inspection. The TT rating is a continuous scale, ranging from (i) transformative for highly beneficial to (ii) tragic for highly damaging.
Start on the basis that the inspection could be 100% transformative. Then consider each of the features below. They may or may not apply to your inspection. If a feature does apply, subtract a proportion of effectiveness from 100% that you judge to be appropriate. Possible ranges for these factors based on the experiences of Real-World Management are indicated.
Driven by higher political imperatives 20-100%
Inspector lacks knowledge or experience or exigence-awarness 20-80%
Inspector lacks capability to deal with inspector-inspectee power imbalance 20-80%
Headline outcome based on unrepresentative features 20-100%
No reference to means of improvement 20-100%
A positive final rating means the inspection has some degree of effectiveness; above 80% could be transformative. A negative rating indicates a tragic inspection. Ratings of different minus magnitude may be obtained – measures of the extent of the tragedy.
Disquiet about inspection is not new. The famous words of the American president Theodore Roosevelt in a 1910 speech are worth remembering:
‘It is not the critic who counts: not the person who points out how the strong person stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the person who is actually in the arena….’
by William Barclay | Sep 9, 2023 | Management, talent management
Managers – are you talent miners and talent champions? The talents of staff are a principal business resource. Identifying, developing and deploying them are accomplished management skills that can make a major contribution to top-line performance.
Two key aspects of talent management lie outside formal performance and personal development processes. One of them, often neglected, is the recognition of potential capabilities of staff and the putting in place of measures allowing them to be expressed. As the management writer Marcus Buckingham identified, it is often more beneficial to bring out capabilities that exist rather than trying to put in those that are absent. Recruitment alone is unlikely to result in a complete complement of necessary skills. Capabilities mean any attribute that can benefit the organisation whether in direct operational work or support functions. Individuals may directly demonstrate their potential. But they may not do so prominently– and a special ability of skilled managers is to recognise potential that may be evinced only by small signs. What aspect of the work does an individual enjoy? What are they most interested in? What pleases them? What are their self-management skills like? What aspects of the business do they complain (and therefore care) about? Do their outside interests provide a pointer? The recognition of such indicators is a continuous management responsibility: performance management should not be made up solely of isolated management-staff interactions. Crucially there may be opportunities, once potential capabilities are identified, to modify the duties of job roles – or even to create new roles – to allow the capabilities to be developed and fully expressed. The result: better operational efficiency and likely wider benefits to teamwork, motivation and morale. Crackerjack management!
The second aspect is the management of star performers. They are often a vital contributor to business success. Possessing high skills alongside self-starter and innovation abilities, they consistently get results. In mainstream tasks their contributions may often be more than three times higher than the mean level. In demanding and special circumstances, it may be comparatively off the scale. It is the manager’s responsibility to keep these individuals in roles where they can make the most telling contribution. But maintaining their performance levels may be a distinct test of management skill. Pragmatism and effective navigation through group dynamics are likely to be required. The accustomed principle of treating individuals in the same way may have to be put aside to a degree. Star performers must be told by management that their contribution is recognised and valued. They should be provided with unswerving support even when they make good-faith mistakes. Understanding their motivations may not be straightforward. Stars are very likely to value autonomy and novel opportunities. Some like formal recognition and outward signs of status. But it is unwise to believe they are all unconcerned with direct material rewards. Limited tolerance towards staff with lesser skills may be evidenced by them which may generate tension. Their peers may be jealous of their abilities and treat them disrespectfully. Repeated and carefully weighted interventions by managers may be required.
So managers – make sure that those staff capabilities are expressed! Emperor Nero had some wisdom- he said ‘hidden talent counts for nothing’.
by William Barclay | Jul 28, 2023 | Management, self-management
Efficiency and productivity – we love them. But where does the responsibility lie for their achievement? Managers have a responsibility to put in place effective processes and workflows, to innovate, and to train staff and motivate them. Important – yes of course, but the self-management capabilities of staff are also a key determinant and are generally assigned far too little importance.
A good self-management capability is an inherent predisposition to work efficiently. It is a person’s ability to manage their behaviours in a productive way. There is a wide variation in the levels to which it is possessed by different individuals. Staff are not tabulae rasae, nor pluripotent hives of capability. The actions of each individual are governed by a unique set of previous influences and experiences. And limited self-efficacy – their belief in their ability to reach goals – may be a major constraint on their capacity to improve.
Employees can demonstrate good self-management in a number of major and minor ways. Manifestations may include: good timekeeping; minimising distractions; effective organisation of own workspace; setting priorities and using to-do lists; regular self-monitoring of progress; acceptance of objectives; and a preparedness to innovate. My personal experience has been that around 30% of staff had good or very good self-management, 40% a reasonable level, and 30% a poor level.
An employee with strong self-management skills can be said to be ‘low maintenance’ and a real asset. But those with weaker skills may damage teamwork and morale as well as impairing productivity. Of course formal performance management processes can be directed towards personal improvement. But the behaviour patterns of poor self-managers, often with a significant psychological component, may be hard to change; quick wins are infrequent. Surveys of underperformance have found that up to a quarter of staff in some areas of employment are not coachable. If dismissal becomes necessary it is likely to be expensive: the replacement costs of an employee can be up to nine months’ salary.
It is understandable if managers come to believe that more consistent recruitment of good self-managers is a better solution. The business writer Mark Murphy proposed the maxim ‘hire an attitude, train the skill’. It is very wise. Selection in favour of individuals with good self-management skills can be a strong driver of effective teamwork and high productivity. It is rare that through proper training and development such individuals cannot develop the skills required. So why is recruitment often regarded as misdirected? The two main reasons are that self-management is ignored altogether because it is believed that direct technical skills are more important; or that an attitude is hired but it’s the wrong one – often a preference given to outgoing extrovert characteristics.
Assessing conscientiousness and diligence during interviews is difficult. Recruitment is a developed skill requiring extensive experience of working with people. Job descriptions and person specifications should describe required attitudes as strongly as they describe skills. The existing best performers should be used as models. Behavioural Event Interviewing is a revealing methodology: candidates are asked to describe how they have planned and organised a challenging task, and how success was achieved, and their responses probed in detail.
Establishing high-productivity workgroups of self-reliant, well-organised individuals is a real accomplishment. As Socrates almost said, ‘know your self-management’!
Comments welcome. More about real-world management in Targets and Terror: England’s Public Services Management Revolution https://www.amazon.co.uk/Targets-Terror-Englands-Management-Revolution/dp/1916035388
by William Barclay | May 8, 2023 | Luck, Management
A Manager Looks at Luck
Managers can easily make excuses for alleged underperformance. Inadequate resourcing, a lack of support from above, unrealistic expectations, and inadequate staff capabilities are some of the explanations most often advanced. But can achievement sometimes be beyond the control of managers? Can failures be down to bad luck? Many managers would give a resounding yes to the question, even the most excuse-averse of them.
Theorists about luck tend to fall into two schools of thought: the prevailist and the opportunist. Prevailists believe that success or failure is frequently due to good or bad luck. They think luck often prevails over talent and effort, and is blind to all levels of self-belief. Opportunists hold that what people regard as good luck is actually following through on opportunities that arise. In their view it depends on how people regard their own lives and how much they retain a positivity of attitude. It is fair to say that prevailist theories have gained much the greater acceptance, overwhelming so amongst experienced managers.
Bad luck in a career can be thought of as three main types: personal; decisional; and occupational. Personal bad luck can include the social and economic circumstances into which one is born. Nationality, gender and ethnicity can all amplify or diminish a person’s potential. Decisional bad luck occurs when a manager’s workplace decisions turn out to have unpredicted negative consequences. Even when made properly and in good faith, decisions can be undermined by events beyond a manager’s control, sometimes with major negative consequences. Occupational bad luck occurs when factors outside a manager’s control preclude success. They could include: the values and personality of the boss; the organisational culture; the nature of objectives and targets; the behaviour of peers; and the inherent capabilities of staff.
So how can the extent of occupational bad luck be assessed so as to guard against excuse fall-back? Try the Real-World Management 7-point Occupational Luck instrument. Rate your current occupational luck against the following. Give each factor a rating of between 1 and 5. A 5 rating means yes, completely; 1 means completely not.
- The nature of your work is inherently interesting to you
- All that is being asked of you is achievable
- The work environment has little or no favouritism
- You have a good working relationship with your line manager
- You find your work colleagues on the whole to be good to work with
- The staff working for you have inherent capabilities appropriate for what is asked of them
- The pace of change does not impose high levels of stress on you.
Score your occupational luck like this:
30 -35 plenty of luck
25 -30 reasonable amount of luck
15 -25 deficient in luck
0 – 15 seriously deficient in luck
So what can be done? To be clear: bad luck can override everything and be beyond your control. But luck can be managed so to minimise the negative impacts and accentuate the positive. Here is a luck management scheme:
1. Recognise that luck exists and develop a real-world mental model of it. Visualise your future career and the almost certain occurrence of good and bad luck episodes. See yourself making the most of the good and being resilient through the bad
2. Increase the likelihood of having good luck by being proactive in your work. Show initiative. Seek a positive differentiation from others
3. Further increase the likelihood by developing personal work networks through professional acquaintanceship
4. Try not to let your thoughts be dominated by personal bad luck. Difficult as it may be, try to use any such factors as motivators
5. Recognise that decisional bad luck happens. Avoid self-blame. Seek to understand why your decisions had negative consequences. Don’t let them be a route to timidity
6. Assess your occupational luck carefully. Consider the likelihood of bad luck changing. In bad luck situations, do not shy away from considering a role or job change
7. Make the most of good luck by using it as a strong motivator. Put in a special effort. Be modest about your resulting achievements but don’t slip into imposter syndrome. Ignore detractors.
Look luck in the face!
