A lot of people in management continually struggle concerning the best style to use to produce the best results.
I came across an individual that wrote his concerns about not encountering very many good managers.
a
Here is what he has to say:
“Being a good manager is hard. Being a good manager means recognizing the strengths of each of your employees and letting them work on those projects that can benefit from their expertise. It also means identifying their weaknesses and placing them on projects where you can determine whether they can improve those skills or not. After identifying the boundaries of their abilities, you then have a pseudo-matrix of how you can schedule those people. This, in itself, is extremely difficult and time-consuming.”
“But on top of that, a good manager must also keep on top of their field. The easiest way for a manager to become simple paper-pushing desk-fodder is to lose relevance by not being aware. A good manager always needs to have some clue about what is going on around them. Whether or not they are able to ‘fix’ the problem themselves, they should always have the availability of the necessary resources at hand.”
a
The reason I included it in this post is I think it shows, whether it is completely accurate or not, the way many employees think concerning managers today; this is their perception. One thing to take away from it is employees are looking for leadership. And also expect that you care enough about them that you will help lead them to the place that they can best contribute to the company.
a
After all, that is part of being a quality manager, do this and your employees will respond beyond your expectations.
Sponsored link: The outsourcing every manager requires - Tampa Locksmith
Thank you for linking to my article. However, I believe you may have taken it a bit out of context.
Since the most frequent visitors to it are people who know me (and have known me and my friend who co-authors articles there) for quite a while.
Some of the (Apparently) important information you're not privvy to is 1) I am, in addition to being an employee of a company, a manager. 2) I study management as a research interest in graduate school. 3) That was not an article in favor of employees, nor was it in favor of managers. It is simply a trend that I observe.
I'm also not sure what you mean by "whether it is completely accurate or not." Boiled down to its simplest elements, the function of a manager is "to Plan, Lead, Organize, and Control." Directing the actions of your (for lack of a better term) underlings is one of those requirements. This lack of direction should be coming from the top down. Employees should not need to seek it. It should be there, forced on them. Each level of organization has its eyes on the function of those below it. And the end-employee, being the nodes of the giant tree of beaurocrasy, gets to do what it's told to do. Is this a cynical view of it? Absolutely. That doesn't mean there's no bottoms-up chain of decision-making. It simply means that there is most definitely a trickle-down of decision-making. If the immediate manager is not there supplying the authority and direction, then the employees will either wander directionless, or find it elsewhere.
But I suppose it's possible that's an academian's view of matters.
Posted by: Captain Love Pirate | January 19, 2006 3:28 PM | Permalink to Comment