Personal Managerial Philosophy
A managerial philosophy serves as the framework for one’s implementation and operational strategy. The philosophy used by the leader is not a theory that worked for someone else. It is not the plan that is implemented, though it serves as the foundation for the plan. A managerial philosophy does not change based on the operation or the number of people involved in the operation. Managerial philosophies are consistent, recognizable, and unique to the individual. My personal managerial philosophy includes a focus on leadership, from the front, surrounded by brilliant specialists, on whose strengths I capitalize. I demonstrate my respect to them by explaining my vision up front and encouraging them to take the time to provide quality output, while encouraging them to have a sense of ownership.
Management or Leadership?
I learned early in life that there was a significant difference between management and leadership. Many of my teachers in school and all of my bosses and supervisors seemed to operate exclusively in the management mode. They first laid out the requirements for the job or assignment, then made sure they were heard, and then backed away, returning only to make an adjustment to the process or to explain why something attempted without their direct input and oversight would not work properly. This style of management seemed to work in some situations, but for the most part, I think it created nothing more than a huge pause while those expected to continue the work wondered how the application of hastily transferred directions with limited opportunity for explanation or feedback should proceed. Management in application seemed to be cold, calculated, and tremendously ineffective.
A manager is someone who plans, organizes, leads, and controls human, material, or financial systems for an organization (Hellriegal, Jackson, & Slocum, 2005). Management involves the tasks and activities used in directing an organization (Hellriegal, et al., 2005). According to Hellriegal, et al. (2005), managers should have several basic competencies: communication, planning and administration, teamwork, strategic action, global awareness, and self-management.
It was not until I started a self-study on leadership and success several years ago that I realized there was a huge chasm of difference between management and leadership. Stephen Covey is known for distinguishing between the two by clarifying the roles of each: You manage things. You lead people (Covey, 1990, & 2004). Hellriegal, et al. (2005) considered leading to be the process of getting others to perform necessary tasks by motivating them to achieve organizational goals. Covey (2004) explained that leadership was having a broader and deeper vision of the operation than that possessed by management, and that managing is for those things without freedom to choose, like costs, information, time, systems and processes. Presumably, according to the Covey interpretation, true leaders serve the organization by being the best they can be at whatever they are doing, and encouraging others to do the same.
Accordingly, I will describe my leadership philosophy with the statement, “I lead people the way they demonstrate their need to be led.” I call it the “as necessary philosophy.” I do not per se ascribe to any specific mainstream management style or philosophy. I have found bits and pieces of various management fads to be helpful, especially after they have received widespread acceptance and have begun to morph into something different than the original, usually out of necessity based on the need for application in a different situation than the one for which they were originally designed (Goeke & Offodile, 2005). This philosophy has progressively served me well – the more I understand it, the better it serves! I recognize that I need to improve first on my understanding of it and second on my method of conveying it to those for whom I fill a leadership role.
Lead From the Front
Although there is less protection from the environment, harsh elements, and adversaries, I am convinced that the best leaders are leading from the forward, out-front position, at least most of the time. There will be times that leading can be accomplished from the middle (Maxwell, 2006), and some leadership can be accomplished from the rear, but unless the leader is in the mentoring mode and is monitoring another in their leadership role, the front is the place where the leader needs to be. This position shows that the leader knows where he or she is going, is confident in his or her ability to identify and defend against danger, and trusts those behind (following) him.
Caution must be the watchword in this position, as there is a deeply rooted industrial age belief that leadership is best demonstrated when the leader is the central and most visible figure (Parks, 2005). Rost (1990) described the twentieth century’s myth of leadership: “leadership as good management” (cited in Parks, 2005, p. 203). This present-day myth is reminiscent of and reflects the mindset of the dominant role managers held in the industrial age of a century ago, when Frederick Taylor’s scientific management dominated efficiency-seeking, bureaucratic organizations and human rights and environmental concerns were often ignored (Weymes, 2004).
In Rost’s interpretation of the myth, good management is the “apex of industrial organization and an industrial economy is unthinkable without it” (Parks, 2005, p. 203). The focus was on managerial leadership based on dominance, efficiency, and productivity, not people (Parks, 2005). Though appropriate during the industrial age, this philosophy has little value in most workplaces today and no value in the workplace of tomorrow.
Hellriegal, et al. (2005) discussed different responsibilities for managers in different positions in and layers of the organization. They described first-line managers as those with direct responsibility for production, while middle managers were responsible for setting goals, based on the goals of top management, for the first line managers to produce (Hellriegal, et al., 2005). They indicate that the vast majority of the top line managers’ time was spent planning and leading, with little time left to devote to managing (Hellriegal, et al., 2005). Of the competencies mentioned previously, they noted that communication, both formal and informal, was the most fundamental of all (Hellriegal, et al., 2005). That indicated the high importance of relationships between managers and others, both within and outside their organization, but seemed to conflict with their use of the term “management” to describe three very different roles.
Inherent in the front-of-the-ranks leader is the need to lead by example. When a leader leads from the front, everyone being led can see every move, every turn, and every hesitation. If the leader is trusted, the followers will move when they move, turn when they turn, and hesitate when they hesitate. The led cannot always see every thought or emotion, however. Communication allows leaders to convey the thought process guiding their moves. Followers need their leaders to turn around periodically so they can see and here what the leader is feeling and thinking. It is imperative that leaders, as much as they are able, take the time to explain why and how they decide what they decide. That requires face-to-face time and a devotion to communication.
Leaders that lead by example may not have much of their own original material. In those cases, leaders can still lead by example – they just have to use (temporarily) someone else’s example. Following in another’s footsteps can be done even if the placement of those footsteps is a memory. Some of my best challenges in leadership were met with actions I felt a previous leadership mentor would have made had they been there by my side, looking over my shoulder. As I began my venture into more significant leadership roles, I compiled a list of all the memorable leaders I had (not just the “good” ones). I then examined the qualities I felt made them memorable, and compiled a list of foundational principles on which to build. I was only able to build that list because those leaders were visible and took the time to communicate their logic and rationale while (or shortly after) they were making decisions that affected our organization.
Surround yourself with brilliant specialists
It was not long before I realized that I neither could nor should be expected to know everything about everything. That was initially a very humbling revelation, and required an immediate response (after I got over the pride crash). I was in the middle of a situation that required several small steps to be completed in preparation for a larger operation, and I first noted that in order to make the whole thing work using my traditional methods, I would have to be in several places at the same time. I approached my subordinates with a somewhat toned-down version of this revelation and asked for their suggestions. Their responses reflected nothing in the way of panic, and I noticed a group movement toward problem-solving. I immediately realized that each of them had expertise in a variety of areas, but primary interest in only a few, and they all seemed to know what each others strengths were (or at least those tasks the others knew better than they did).
It was not long before the small assignments had all been chosen for completion and a timeline had been set. I was pleased to see that the assignments were carried out to the letter, in most cases without any oversight on my part, and in all cases better than I could have done myself. It was comforting to see that in many cases the leader in each of these subgroups also had an assistant who was learning from them while assisting with the task. This was my first revelation that “managing means making it possible for others to work easily and productively, while at the same time bringing out the best in them” (Senguder, 2002). I was able to provide an easy and productive work environment in most cases by staying out of their way.
Surrounding yourself with specialists does not always mean surrounding yourself with those who agree with you. This practice should be avoided, as it often results in uninformed decisions and few in the leadership roles that are willing to take responsibility. Leaders should seek out those with whom they can work, not those with whom they usually agree. It is important to balance competence with candor, and all on the team should recognize who possesses the ultimate decision-making power. It is not necessary (or advisable) for all to agree on everything.
Capitalize on strengths
Capitalizing on strengths is important for both the individual and their team. Capitalizing on individual strengths means finding what one is good at and spending most of one’s time doing that thing. It means determining where one’s strengths, gifts, interests, and abilities intersect and spending the majority of one’s productive time in that activity.
From a team perspective, capitalizing on strengths means delegating tasks to those who have identified the above intersection in such as a way as to capitalize on the synergy of multiple team players. Each shares a collective responsibility while holding individual responsibility for their chosen task. There may be times when one who is not the “best” at completing a task would be the one chosen to complete it. Those times should be reserved for non-critical opportunities.
Aristotle has been quoted as saying "Where your talents and the needs of the world cross, there lies your vocation." Having spent a fair amount of time in my life operating outside of my talents and, often times, outside the needs of the world, I personally appreciate this revelation. From a leadership perspective, I think the challenge is found when there are several team members with similar talents. The solution appears to be creating a work environment where those with overlapping strengths can showcase their strengths while complementing the strengths of others.
Stephen Covey (2004) identified a concept that was similar to that defined by Aristotle, which he called the 8th Habit. He identified the 8th Habit as finding one’s voice, and inspiring others to do the same. Covey (2004) explained that one’s voice was that thing or thing(s) one does so well that it appears no one else has any business doing it if you are available. Voice is the “unique personal significance” that is “revealed when we face our greatest challenges and which makes us equal to them” (Covey, 2004, p.5). Covey (2004) explained that one’s voice is found at the nexus of talent, passion, need, and conscience, and that each of us has an insatiable need to find it, though some live their whole life without doing so. In order to complete the 8th Habit, one needs to demonstrate leadership, in order to be able to inspire others to find (an exercise) their voice.
The second part of the 8th Habit is inspiring others to find their voice (Covey, 2004). Inspiring others to find their voice takes place in the action mode. It does not occur simply by being a good role model or by demonstrating leadership. It is based on a concerted and strategic effort to demonstrate leadership at every opportunity. It is proactive. It entails combining many leadership traits with opportunities to demonstrate them in the results of your efforts. It results in the development of leaders.
Spend time explaining up front
Leadership is not about providing a list of tasks and requiring others to complete them. It is not about running everything or getting recognition for the work of others. It is about guiding a team of people to a mutual goal and sharing your experience with others along the way. It is about building up the capability of others by helping them experience the process, with you there, available for questions, clarification, and discussion. It is about taking the time with others to ensure they could make wise decisions in your absence.
Explaining up front does not refer to the position of the leader in relation to the led. The focus here is on the time chosen to explain the vision, plan, and desired activity. The theme underlying the need for explanation is perspective. It is often one’s perspective that guides how one sees the world. That perspective could be from a micro view, related to the self-management and team competencies identified in Hellriegal, et al. (2005) or from a macro view, as explained in the strategic action and global awareness competencies (Hellriegal, et al., 2005). The perspective of the leader may never be completely shared by the led, but it must be understood.
Large-scale perspectives are fueled by change catalysts with a vision for growth beyond just the organization. Senge (2006) describes the forgotten leadership role as the one who designs the organization. In the design role, vision is important. If the captain on a ship wants to turn the ship within a set space and the one who designed the ship did not provide for such a turn, the perceived leader (the captain) cannot accomplish his desires. His inabilities do not reflect negatively on his leadership, but he is limited nonetheless. Avoiding this type of dilemma requires the use of systems thinking by all leaders, including the designer. Senge (2006) describes the process of systems thinking as The Fifth Discipline, following the disciplines of Personal Mastery, using Mental Models, Building Shared Vision, and Team Learning (Senge, 2006). Systems thinking involves understanding the system by contemplating the whole, not any individual part (Senge, 2006). Senge’s focus on systems thinking encourages leaders to take a step back, to consider what may not appear directly in front of them, to attempt to understand how smaller contributions can change the larger collection.
Do it once, do it right, never have to do it again
Do it once, do it right, never have to do it again is not about the perfectionist perspective. It is about putting your best foot forward, taking your best shot in the beginning, and doing what you can to avoid duplicating your efforts. Leaders owe it to those they lead to do the best possible job the first time. An organization that operates using this principle has a focus on quality, efficiency, and preservation of the organization’s reputation for both.
This principle is often confused with the myth that the leader is always right. I have seen this practiced often in higher education, where leadership is seen more as a duty than as a calling or an honor (Askling & Stensaker, 2002). The captain of a ship can be right in his order to turn the ship in a specific direction, but if the order is not conveyed to and understood by the individual responsible for the turning, the ship continues in the original direction. That means that the captain was right in his desire to execute, but wrong in his trust that the crew was prepare and that he was aware of the limitations.
Take ownership and make sure it is taken by others
The responsibilities of leaders are varied, and many might suggest that ownership of a plan is inherently delegated to the leader. It is important to note that in the traditional management role, ownership is counterintuitive to the role of those managed. Consequently, this observation may erroneously be limited to leaders. The error lies in the perception that only leaders can and do care enough about the organization or its operation to find a sense of ownership. Those within the organization (as was determined with the scientific management theory) are deemed to have little concern for the organization.
The challenge here is often the second part of the equation -- make sure ownership is taken by others, not just given to them. Think of the relay race where both team members are running (briefly) at the same speed and the one with the baton stretches out an arm. The second one grasps at the baton and takes off at lightning speed . . . with nothing in hand, and the baton falls to the ground. What does the first team member do? Turn around and walk back to the coach to complain about the ineffective handoff? Do they trust that the second will grab the baton and just stand there waiting patiently? No, the first oversees the situation to ensure the baton has been properly retrieved. The handoff is not complete without a transfer. It is the same with taking ownership!
People are most inspired when they believe in their mutual cause, sharing an organizational dream that promotes a better society with others (Weymes, 2004). However, dreams are not the solution to leadership challenges – feeling a sense of ownership in the organization is. This does not mean that one must own part of the organization or that the profits of the organization must result in profit to the individual. The ownership need can be fulfilled with the feeling that each person is an integral, yet separate part of the team. This may be accomplished by an entrepreneurial flavor, where each person feels and acts like a business partner, with a requisite demonstration of integrity and responsibility to their co-workers and their customers (Hakim, 2003).
Organizations that operate with this collective mindset are focused on providing a positive experience for everyone who is exposed to the organization. This mindset, then, is demonstrated to those with whom the organization has agreements, provides services, or produces supplies. Andros Consultants, a Canadian business-consulting firm specializing in assessment and coaching, strategy development, and program design and implementation provides the following guidelines for development of a personal management strategy:
1. Shift from managing people to managing a process
2. Develop and implement strategy, driven by Objectives, to produce satisfaction
3. Define the process in value-added and ‘real contribution’ terms
4. Manage the Changes
5. Measurement is critical
6. Focus on the Environment
7. Encourage Self-Management
8. Communication is the Life Blood
9. Processes require Balance
As I further consider what part of my personal managerial philosophy needs improvement, I will use each of these guidelines to strengthen my foundation.
References
Andros Consultants (2002). A Managerial Philosophy / Strategy. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from http://www.andros.org/intouch/mgmnt_philo.pdf
Askling, B. & Stensaker, B. (2002). Academic Leadership: Prescriptions, Practices and Paradoxes.
Tertiary Education and Management. 8(2), 113.
Covey, S. D. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York: Franklin Covey Company/Free Press
Covey, S. D. (2004). The 8th Habit: From effectiveness to greatness. New York: Franklin Covey Company/Free Press
Goeke, R. J. & Offodile, O. F. (2005). Forecasting management philosophy life cycles: A comparative
study of Six Sigma and TQM. The Quality Management Journal. 12(2), 34.
Hakim, C. (2003). We are all self-employed: Coaching for success and satisfaction. The journal for
Quality and Participation. 26(1), 23.
Hellriegel, D., Jackson, S. E., & Slocum Jr., J. W. (2005). Management: A competency-based approach (10th ed.). Mason, Ohio: Thomson Learning.
Maxwell, J. C. (2006). The 360 Degree Leader: Developing Your Influence from Anywhere in the Organization. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Parks, S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Rost, 1990; cited in Parks, S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Boston: Harvard Business School Press
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday
Senguder, T. (2002). An Examination of Management Philosophy. Journal of American Academy of
Business 1(2) 348.
Weymes, E. (2004). A challenge to traditional management theory. Foresight: the Journal of Futures
Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 6(6), 338.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Personal Managerial Philosophy
Saturday, August 08, 2009
Experienced Criminal Justice Professor looking for trend-setting police departments in need of free social media assistance
(not for me -- for my students)
Despite the economic challenges we are facing (or perhaps because of them), the growth of social media use by businesses and organizations continues. Many a company executive is being educated on why they need to blog, what good having a Facebook or LinkedIn account is, and what Tweeting (not Twittering) is.
The problem is, even if they do get it, most don't have the time.
If the marketing or public relations folks are able to convince the executive that having a social media strategy is important, there are two main options -- pay for it or get it for nothing.
Option 1 (paying) will likely start with adding responsibilities to someone who is already on the payroll. In a different economy, this position might be more likely to go to someone with training, but we have to make the ends meet, don't we?
Option 2 would entail finding an intern and trusting them with the reputation of the company. Not many executives are likely to be excited about this option -- even if the intern is in their bloodline.
In most cases, you get what you pay for, or at least you won't get more than what you pay for. Everyone on Facebook or Twitter is not an expert, and everyone who uses these tools successfully for their personal benefit is not necessarily qualified to do so for their company.
So what about the police? We've advocated the use of social media by police organizations to interact with the public before, and there have been some great examples of forward-thinking departments implementing strategies that admittedly don't clearly impact the community reputation of the department.
But there may be a solution.
I have, in any given month, a couple of hundred students in need of exposure to the workforce in the outside world in the profession they are interested in. Many of these are interested in criminal justice, yet almost all have a hard time getting internships. I think most criminal justice departments encounter the same problems.
So I am proposing that each criminal justice department contact each police department within a 500 mile radius of the university. I would suggest a 50 mile radius, but that would not adequately demonstrate the reach of the Internet, now would it?
Offer the police departments a chance to beta-test your 10 hand-picked social media police intern strategists. Set up a Facebook (or Ning) group and set strict guidelines for communication policy, to include a 2 month probationary period where posts have to be screened by a criminal justice professor on the collaboration site prior to presenting them to a department representative for approval. Once the probationary period is completed, the intern will still need to get department approval, but only needs to post a snapshot after the fact, along with a short summary of the logic and rationale if outside the established guidelines.
This process will serve as a test bed for more active departments in the social media space, and allow departments to see the benefits of interaction in the social space with minimal investment.
The primary responsibility of the Social Media Police Intern will be to promote the police department using a variety of social media such as Twitter, FaceBook, MySpace (if they are still around), Blogs, Yahoo!Groups, and related spaces as agreed by the faculty mentor and department representative.
The Intern will be responsible for maintaining the Twitter account with posts reflecting arrest trends, wanted persons, Amber Alerts, and other police information needing immediate public assistance. Approvals for following the department will be made according to pre-established guidelines and approved by the department representative.
The intern should maintain the department's Facebook Fan page, to include promoting events and monitoring communications, and informing the department representative of any problems exposed in the social media domain so the department can determine how to respond appropriately.
Monitoring of police-related communications (comments regarding the department or criminal activity in the jurisdiction) may also be included.
Intern Qualifications: The candidate should be someone with a mix of:
- Strong interpersonal skills
- Effective written and oral communication skills
- Able to work alone, while operating as an integral team member
- Experience using social media in a non-business, personal setting
For more posts addressing the need for social media strategies for police departments, click here.
What do you think?
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Secure Social Networking -- sounds a little like a hurdle that many won't want to jump -- Nixle?
I've posted before about the use of social networking site by government agencies -- especially the police. There's another entry (besides Facebook and Twitter) that appears to be set on making this a secure reality.
Nixle is a free service that allows you to receive trusted, up-to-the-minute, neighborhood information for where you live, work, visit – or for where your family and friends are located throughout the country.
Hmm, so trusted means secure? I guess we'll see how that goes over.
Police can send you information about car accidents or crime that's going on in your neighborhood—either by email, text messages to your cell phone, or both.
For now, I must admit there seems to be a decent movement underway. Apparently, more than 1,000 agencies have joined Nixle so far, and over 40,000 people have signed up. That's not a real good show of interest. I'm concerned especially since it requires both a learning curve for using the site (both the department representatives and the citizens) and a marketing push to get them to the site.
They do have a pretty impressive list of partners.
What do you think?
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Texting 911 -- imagine the reply "you texted to 911, if this is not an emergency . . .
please text to the local police text number -- 555-0911 -- or post your non-emergency to our Facebook or MySpace wall or send us a message on Twitter to @yourpolicedepartment."
We noted in Can we text to 911, too? there aren't too many police departments on Facebook, MySpace, or Twitter yet (though there has been some improvement), but . . . I can text the local PD to report a crime via text. We couldn't . . . text to 911 and have Google Latitude (My Location) share your current location with the police (if we choose).
Well now it's possible! (at least texting to 911, in Des Moines)
Black Hawk's dispatch center is believed to be the first in the nation capable of communicating with 911 "callers" via standard text-messaging, a big breakthrough as the country's emergency responders race to keep up with the rapid evolution of human communication.
In the understatement of the year, Barbara Vos, the state's 911 program manager, said:
"A lot of people want to text 911 - we know that"
I just wonder why this wasn't considered early on . . . must not have involved a government bureaucrat -- they know everything about business!
What do you think?
Monday, June 01, 2009
I expect that the police departments across our nation will need to consider funding alternatives soon
. . . so imagine the local government has reached the end of their economic rope and can no longer find adequate funding for the police department.
Dispatcher: "911 emergency, what's your emergency?"
Caller: "Someone stole my television."
Dispatcher: "No problem, ma'am, we'll have someone stop by between 8-12 this morning, or would 1-5 this afternoon be better?"
Caller: "8-12 is good, what will this cost me?"
Dispatcher: "That depends, ma'am. If all we do is take a report for your insurance company, we can do that for a flat rate of $50. If you want us to investigate the crime then it would cost you the initial $50 plus $50 an hour. We usually put about 6 hours into an investigation."
Caller: "Oh, I thought my tax dollars took care of that. What happens if I choose the flat rate and then you identify the person who stole my television while investigating another crime?"
Dispatcher: "Your tax dollars haven't covered the law enforcement we provide for almost 10 years, ma'am. If we identify the thief while conducting another investigation, you would be responsible for a cost-sharing with the other victim from the point where we identify your property. We would, of course, call you to notify you should that occur. We can do split billing, for an additional $25 each, or you can agree on the amount and get one bill."
Caller: "Oh, well thank you."
Dispatcher: "Did you want us to send someone out?"
Caller: "Uh, no. The television only cost $400 and was over 5 years old anyway, and I've been eying a new flat screen."
Dispatcher: "OK, well tell the store clerk that your television was stolen -- many stores will give you a 10% discount if you file a report."
Caller: "But I'm not."
Dispatcher: "Your loss, ma'am."
Caller: OK, thanks."
What do you think?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Here's a real quick look at what's going on with this blog.
according to a scan by wordle.net -- check it out yourself!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Do you agree that Twitter is the telegraph of the 21st Century?
For those of us who have been using Twitter for some time now (whatever that means, since it's only a few years old), we generally take the limitations for granted. It's no big deal that there's a limit on characters for posts (though shouldn't the limit be the same as for text messages, since that's how many of us get our Tweets?). We develop a routine of acknowledging or ignoring those who follow us, sometimes following them back, and we all go through the new period, where we make a determination regarding the level of Twitter we are able to squeeze into our lives (and still have a life).
But the biggest adjustment for me has been the new language. Why is it that we don't hesitate to tailor our messages to the delivery method? Are we so accustomed to flexibility that we will alter our mode of communication even when there is not a clear reason why?
Do you remember those? The remnants are still around - just go to your local grocery store and look for the yellow Western Union sign. That company (that now owns the lion's share of bankless cash transfers) used to be where we went to get a message across the state, across the country, and even around the world.
If you have always wanted to write a how-to manual for Twitterspeak, you might be able to use this booklet as a template. The Telegraph Office published "HOW TO WRITE TELEGRAMS PROPERLY" A Small Booklet by Nelson E. Ross, in 1928.
So did anyone talk that way? No, and we don't (yet) talk like we Twitter. I will admit that I use some of the generally accepted text abbreviations in my presentations (especially ROTFL) but I've yet to smile and wink with my face in a horizontal position, and neither of these are unique to Twitter.
So, when do we start talking In Twitterspeak?
What do you think?
(see the Daily Telegraph on Twitter)
