Wagon Masters and Lesser Managers

Over the past several years, I’ve seen more and more books and articles about managerial effectiveness and how it can increase productivity. I’ve also seen more and more companies try to improve executive skills through education programs, sensitivity training, and participatory management. Yet at the same time I see businesses continuing to promote people into administrative ranks with apparently little consideration for their ability to manage others, their willingness to include subordinates in decision making, or their suitability as teachers and role models for a coming generation of supervisors. Many of these newly promoted managers perform in the managerial styles of a past era, characterized by self-serving attitudes, empire building, and autocratic methods. Eventually they too need sensitivity training and remedial seminars to try to correct their ineffective behavior. In short, too many companies are making the same mistake with managers that the auto industry used to make with quality: build it now, fix it later. We’ve finally started building automobiles right in the first place. Now we need to do the same with managers: hire and promote the right men and women to begin with instead of trying to “fix” them years later after they’ve done their damage. I am neither a social scientist nor a management consultant. For the last 20 years, I’ve worked at middle management jobs in the auto industry, where I have supervised many people and worked for many supervisors. In addition, I worked on a research team in the 1970s that took me into the offices of colleagues in the oil and auto industries, and there, for weeks at a time, I was able to watch managerial behavior in other companies from a fly-on-the-wall perspective. In my experience, it is rare that managers are selected for their supervisory ability. Indeed, most of those I’ve known lacked what I consider the most basic requirements for effective management—an understanding of the human condition and an appreciation of people. Most managers today are still selected solely on the basis of business expertise or success in nonsupervisory positions, and the styles they develop are inadequate, to say the least. It may help to describe some of these styles. Here are seven I meet regularly: The Godfather. Despite the current emphasis on teamwork and participatory management, the Godfather style still prevails. Godfathers typically demand complete control of their organizations and total loyalty from their employees. Subordinates are given freedom in their routine duties, but their goals are dictated from above. A Godfather’s image and ego require frequent nurturing, usually in the form of successful confrontations with outsiders. To be recognized as good employees, subordinates need only stand at ringside and root for the boss. The Godfather’s heavyweight ego puts him in the center of the ring. People who have been subjected to this style for many years rarely become good managers themselves. Most often they become new Godfathers. At the opposite extreme, they become submissive and ineffectual. Groups led by Godfathers are normally goal oriented and known for getting things done. Outsiders see them as well-oiled machines. Superiors depend on them. Because they rely on one person for nearly all decisions, however, the goals of Godfather groups are often self-serving and not always in the best interests of the organization as a whole. The Ostrich. Ostriches love the status quo and fear discord. They always hope problems will simply go away and would rather stick their heads in the sand than face unpleasantness of any kind. The Ostrich’s fear of discord leaves conflict unresolved. Ostriches believe firmly in nonconfrontational approaches to problem solving, and they avoid issues and debate. They are often capable and knowledgeable in their own areas of expertise, but they are usually better suited to serve as assistants than as managers. The fact is, progress cannot be achieved without conflict, and a preference for the status quo stifles growth and can weaken morale. Ostriches are more concerned with a superior’s opinion of their job performance than with the morale of their subordinates, who often lack initiative, imagination, and productivity, especially if they’ve had their Ostrich managers for a long time. The Do-It-Yourselfer. Do-It-Yourselfers want to handle everything themselves, especially the more challenging assignments. The only tasks they ordinarily delegate are the ones that they find trivial or that require special skills. They are often capable individuals; many are workaholics. All live by the motto: “If you want a job done well, do it yourself!” They spend long hours at their jobs and are seen by upper management as candidates for promotion. Unfortunately, they often make themselves indispensable. In several cases I know, a Do-It-Yourselfer’s sudden illness has brought an entire department to a standstill. In addition, people who work for them often react like the people who work for Ostriches. Unable to get recognition and challenging assignments, they turn into mere hired hands. If the goals of an organization include productivity improvement and personnel development, then Godfathers, Ostriches, and Do-It-Yourselfers make poor managers. The Detailer. Detailers want to know everything their subordinates do “in detail.” In larger organizations, Detailers are so busy trying to keep up with their employees that they are virtually incapable of managing groups of any size. As they see it, their task is to be wiser and know more than their subordinates, so that they can make correct decisions by themselves. Detailers don’t like group decisions and find delegating difficult. When they do delegate, they stay constantly in touch to make sure that subordinates do not arrive at independent decisions. Detailers generally lack confidence in others and make subordinates redo assignments again and again. The decisions made by Detailers are often good ones, but they are rarely prompt. Since the usefulness of a decision is seldom a function of the time it takes to make it, a good but leisurely decision is often too late to be useful. Detailers are best suited for supervising small groups that can afford to work slowly. The Politician. Many of us like to work for Politicians because they tell us what we want to hear. Their superiors like having them around for the same reason. One of the drawbacks to this style is that Politicians tend to overdo it. A colleague of mine received 37 notes of commendation in one year, though the boss who sent them rated his overall performance average. Praise of this kind produces nothing but frustration and resentment. No one looks forward to the 38th insincere note from the boss. The Politician’s relentless insincerity wears subordinates down. Another drawback is that Politicians tend to stratify employees and management. On hearing objections from his or her own boss, for example, the Politician may abruptly overturn a decision previously approved by subordinates. What passes for managerial skill is nothing more than a talent for dodging bullets. Politicians with fast reflexes may succeed for a while, but few manage to dodge forever. The Arbitrator. Arbitrators are often very successful at dealing with large groups because they possess a deep understanding of people and human conflict. They believe in teamwork and team decisions. If an organization’s goal is to promote harmony and increase productivity, then this style is effective, especially in mid-management ranks. On the other hand, if what the organization needs is a vocal spokesperson and a competitive leader, then the Arbitrator may not meet the need. Arbitrators are usually personable and well liked, but they do have a weakness for compromise at the wrong moment, and they tend to be so friendly with subordinates that they find it hard to crack down when the going gets tough. The Eager Beaver. In the same way that beavers build ever larger dams to interrupt the flow of water, so Eager Beavers create ever greater workloads and eventually interrupt the smooth functioning of their organizations. These managers measure their worth by the number of letters and reports they generate and by how hard their subordinates work. They are seldom content unless their subordinates put in overtime and work weekends at least occasionally. In many cases, even those who don’t need to put in overtime are pressured into it. In my experience, unnecessary work demoralizes employees, and constant work pressure wears them down. The Eager Beaver’s gnawing ambition dams up the company works. Many managers of the past were Eager Beavers and Godfathers who rationalized hiring more and more employees on the grounds of minimizing overtime expenditures. But the fact is, these empire builders don’t change their habits even when their departments double in size. Eager Beavers and Godfathers did so much empire building at Ford between 1979 and 1982 that new management was able to cut back the number of employees by more than one-third without affecting productivity. On the positive side, Eager Beavers are thorough. On the negative side, they produce a mass of useless information that often gets filed in wastebaskets. A catalog of management styles could go on and on, but these seven styles, singly or in combination, describe more than three-quarters of all the managers I’ve known and many I have worked for. Every one of them meets some of the needs of an organization some of the time, but not one of them is what I would call an effective manager. Six of the seven types have more weaknesses than strengths, and they all train subordinates in their own inadequate image. The effective manager is more difficult to describe, for the very reason that he or she refuses to be typecast. The trouble with most of us is not that we sometimes act like, say, Godfathers, but that we act like Godfathers all the time. An effective manager is sometimes a Godfather and sometimes a Do-It-Yourselfer, often an Arbitrator and occasionally even an Ostrich. After 27 years, I think I know good managers when I see them, and I think I know what it is they do. I even think I know how to find them. Let me illustrate with one of my favorite examples. Some of the most effective managers this country has ever seen were the wagon masters of the westward movement in the last century. A wagon master had two jobs. He had to keep the wagons moving toward their destination day after day despite all obstacles. He also had to maintain harmony and a spirit of teamwork among the members of his party and to resolve daily problems before they became divisive. A wagon master’s worth was measured by his ability to reach the destination safely and to keep spirits high along the way. He had to do both in order to do either. I see the skills of effective managers as essentially the same, and I can sum them up in the roles they play: Decision Maker. To begin with, effective managers are decisive. Despite all our newfound emphasis on teamwork and consensus, decision-making ability is by far the most important tool a manager needs on a daily basis. Teamwork is right for many decisions. Managers alone must make many others, including most of those involving job assignments, people, and interorganizational disputes. But here as elsewhere, an executive’s responsibility is twofold—to make the right decision but also to encourage subordinate participation. In my experience the best policy is to involve as many employees as practical, to present them with the whole issue to be resolved (not just pieces of it), to sincerely seek and appreciate their suggestions, and throughout the process, to display the kind of decisiveness it would take to act alone. Listener and Communicator. Many managers hear their subordinates but do not “listen.” It takes enormous effort to get to know employees individually and to learn how to sense the group dynamics in an organization. A supervisor, like the leader of a wagon train, must be sensitive to moods and attitudes. By listening and communicating well, managers can fulfill the basic human need employees have to be recognized and appreciated. Good listening is also part of an effective style in meetings. The successful managers I’ve known never dominate the table but let everyone express his or her views. Teacher. One of the responsibilities of a good manager is to train subordinates to become managers. This does not mean having one or two favorites who are seen as anointed successors. It means training everyone who has potential. There are many ways to help people learn to make decisions: delegate responsibility, even to the lowest ranks; include subordinates where feasible in every project; hold regular discussion sessions; let employees represent the company with outside contacts. The effective managers I’ve known use all these ways of building positive self-images in their employees. Indeed, good managers all seem to have one thing in common: they delegate well, and trusting people to do the right thing, give minimal direction. They don’t reprimand subordinates who fail but encourage them to try again and to seek the help of coworkers and their own subordinates whenever possible. Good supervisors rarely find themselves burdened with unimaginative staff work because they constantly challenge the limits of their subordinates’ creativity. Peacemaker. Effective managers know how to minimize conflict. Some supervisors simply ignore its existence or become abusive and threaten to dismiss everyone involved. But managers who want their organizations to function productively face day-to-day problems directly. One way is to confront employees in order to determine the causes of conflict. Another is to encourage work groups like quality circles; a third is to rotate jobs and reassign people. Every workplace has conflicts. Effective managers sense them early and deal with them head-on. Visionary. Wagon masters pushed their wagons toward specific destinations—Oregon, the California gold fields. Effective managers set goals that are just as firm and meaningful. Identifying goals is no less important than creating the means to achieve them. We have all looked for a car in a crowded parking lot. We trudge up one aisle and down the next, growing increasingly frustrated and embarrassed. Any clear sense of where we had left the car would have saved us enormous time and energy. In an effective organization, collective as well as individual goals are well defined and understood. Good managers never let themselves or their subordinates lose sight of them. Self-Critic. How many times have you heard the expression “The boss is always right” or “The boss is the boss”? Not many managers are self-confident enough to admit their mistakes. Most believe that making mistakes is the worst corporate offense, and they don’t allow the notion of human error to enter their philosophies. In fact, some insist on having their way even when they know they’re wrong. Worse yet, subordinates who recognize the boss’s mistakes can’t correct them for fear of reprisal. Employees lose respect for their supervisors, and blunders achieve the status of doctrine. Effective managers are quick to admit their own mistakes and don’t dwell on the mistakes of others. They want to learn from mistakes so as not to repeat them. They know that while assessing damage and causes is often important, assigning blame is not. Team Captain. Consensus decision making is one of the most powerful tools at a manager’s disposal. Working alone, executives may find it difficult to make decisions affecting the whole organization—retooling a plant, reorganizing departments, even remodeling office space—because they are so often limited by the self-serving and conflicting information arriving from different departments. Teamwork decisions can minimize mistakes in such situations and ward off much dissatisfaction among employees whose voices would not otherwise be heard. Leader. An executive’s attitude toward subordinates is perhaps the most important trait of all. Effective managers have drive and determination, but they also have qualities like trust, modesty, politeness, patience, and sensitivity. Good managers genuinely like and appreciate people. They don’t just manipulate or command; they lead. And they understand their dual function. Getting the wagons to Oregon without the passengers is no achievement. Keeping everyone in high spirits right up to the moment they perish in the desert is not success. The need for good managers is growing. Many companies are downsizing in an effort to operate more efficiently. They are combining departments and cutting the work force but creating larger groups to be supervised. If we have fewer managers, we need them to be even more effective, which means that the ability to manage people is becoming more and more important. Yet the way we select managers hasn’t changed much, and the managers we find are not much better than they ever were. One short-term approach to the problem is to retrain today’s executives. I’ve seen numerous efforts to introduce participatory management, promote teamwork, alter managerial attitudes, even change the so-called corporate culture. These are all moves in the right direction, but the results are often disappointing. Many people simply cannot see their own shortcomings. Others pay only lip service to such programs. Most disappointing of all, many seem to overestimate how much they’ve learned and changed in the course of retraining. After some recent participatory management workshops at Ford, for example, managers and their employees were asked to rate the benefits: nearly two-thirds of the executives felt they had become better supervisors, but only a quarter of the subordinates shared that view. We must be careful not to fool ourselves with rosy self-assessments, or to believe we have solved a problem when we have really only talked about it. For the long term, we need to make changes in the way we hire, reward, and evaluate managers. We need to improve the methods we already use—better personality profiles, better interviewing techniques, a better environment for people to work in once they’ve been hired. In addition, I have three unconventional suggestions: First, abandon excessive perks. I believe effective managers always treat subordinates as people first and employees second. I know one such manager who left thank-you notes on his desk for the evening cleaning crew (who, as you might guess, kept his office immaculate). I know executives who take turns with their subordinates cleaning the office coffee maker and others who automatically pick up trash on their plants’ floors instead of stepping over it. The people who work for such managers can be vehement in their unwillingness to work for anyone else. On the other hand, I’ve met managers who think they are cast in a different mold from their employees—even when they all come from similar backgrounds. These executives consider themselves members of an elite and take pride in the symbols of their status, which they believe will increase their authority and make them more effective. In fact, perks and status symbols often act as obstacles to good management. After many years of enjoying these rewards, some managers develop such a sense of privilege that they begin to look on employee concerns and complaints as encroachments on their prerogatives. Demonstrations of rank have nothing to do with good management; yet in the United States the practice of granting special privileges is almost universal. I recently discussed this subject with a vice president of one of the country’s largest companies. He maintained that management perks were needed to inspire people to achieve corporate goals. Without them, he felt, people would have no incentive to work harder. I agreed that perks can be useful in some cases to reward achievements. But what about the rewards of approval and self-satisfaction? He was puzzled. Who would work harder for nothing but self-satisfaction? I asked then how he justified rewarding his executives but not his workers since, in his own view, people will not perform without the prospect of rewards. He said he could not reward everyone or his company would face bankruptcy. I suspect that this man’s view—the carrot for executives, the stick, presumably, for others—is shared by many in top management. There are other industrial countries, however, where such privilege is rare, yet productivity remains high. Several years ago, a friend of mine—an American executive at a large U.S. corporation—went to work for a Japanese company in the United States. Previously, he had been a profit-oriented manager with short-term goals and had enjoyed a wide range of perks and privileges. The last time I saw him I was astonished at the change in his outlook. He had become a respected manager of people, with long-term goals and a vision for his company’s future. He no longer had all the accustomed perks. He was no longer isolated in his executive suite but spent much of his time on the factory floor. I am not suggesting that all managers adopt the Japanese style and abandon traditional American values. I cannot say that all perks are bad business practice. Many successful companies use them, some as a means of projecting company images to outsiders. Still, the thought of doing without them is attractive. Managers need to mix with subordinates to promote a spirit of teamwork, to nurture commitment to the job, to monitor the heartbeat of the company, and to remind themselves how well and how quickly many of their subordinates could fill their shoes. Second, ignore narrow expertise. Common sense tells us to hire supervisors with expertise in the field they’re expected to manage, but there are several drawbacks to this practice. To begin with, one of the most frequent complaints of managers themselves is that they become typecast in their particular expertise and have little opportunity to grow into other areas of business. Their promotional paths are similarly limited. But the man or woman who feels stifled by typecasting is not likely to be a truly effective manager, stimulated by new challenges, open to new ideas, creative, enthusiastic, optimistic. Moreover, expertise tends to become outdated, and in my experience this phenomenon presents two very real dangers. One is that entrenched managers will suppress innovation. Another, more dangerous possibility is that a manager with fossilized expertise may give subordinates too little room to grow. Managers whose technical expertise is in another area will take a broader view of organizational goals, will depend more on subordinates, and will insist on teamwork, thus freeing themselves to manage people—the task for which they were hired. In my view, the same considerations ought to apply to the old question of whether to promote from within or hire from without. Most people dislike the idea of bringing in outsiders from other companies or even transferring them from other departments. This is probably because most people fear for their own chances of promotion. But what matters is to broaden the perspectives of the organization and to find executives who can manage people. Inside or outside is irrelevant. Third, get references from a candidate’s old subordinates. This may sound radical. It is certainly unorthodox. I know of only one organization that contacted the candidate’s former subordinates. Why should the references of past subordinates be less important than the references of past employers? When we hire someone to manage people, we need to know what previous employees thought. Unlike old bosses, who often write complimentary letters in behalf of people they were happy to see go, old subordinates are likely to say what they mean. There is no better judge of a supervisor’s character than the people who depend on him or her to hear their complaints, arbitrate their differences, sharpen their skills, and lead them to the fulfillment of their goals. I am convinced that the key to all our business goals—better quality, bigger sales, increased profits—is this emphasis on people. Like wagon masters, effective managers understand that their own success is inseparable from the success of their fellow travelers. Good managers get things done by caring about the people who do them.

Wagon Masters and Lesser Managers

Partner Center