How To Make YOUR Management Style More Effective

ABC Amber ePub Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcepub.
html
Page 1
ABC Amber ePub Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcepub.html
SIM MEMBERSHIP PUBLICATION
How to Make Your Management Style More Effective

by William J. Reddin W. J. Reddin & Associates England
SINGAPORE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
Page 2
ABC Amber ePub Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcepub.html This edition is published by the Singapore Institute of Management Management House, 41 Namly Avenue Singapore 1026
This membership publication has been distributed free to members of the Singapore Institute of Management
Reprinted by special arrangement with the author: Bill Reddin
Copyright W.J. Reddin, 1990
ISBN 981-001-575-5
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
P rinted by Continental P ress
Page 3
Dedicated to my mother, Granny Reddin, who taught me all I really know
Page 4
3-D MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS SEMINAR WORLD CLIENT LIST

A partial list of our world clients all of whom have nominated at least 25 and up to 1750 managers to attend our full one week residential 3-D Managerial Effectiveness Seminar. AUSTRALIA Unilever Westpac AUSTRIA Siemens BRAZIL Acesita Centrais Electricals de S. Paulo Copesul Embratel Idergs Scala DOro CANADA Canada Permanent Trust Fahramet Falconbridge Nickelmines First City Trust (Fidelity) Indusmin Mining Manitoba Provincial Govt. Dept. of Mines & Resources Moosehead Breweries National Sea Products New Brunswick Electric Power Commission Nova Scotia Power Corporation Otis Elevators Philips Petroleum Truck Engineering Westinghouse ETHIOPIA
Page 5
Ethiopian Airlines FINLAND Arctia Gustav Paulig Helsingin Kaupunki (City of Helsinki) Institute Municipal Administration Institute of Occupation Health Service Government Kemira Pohjanmaa Rautakonttori Saab Valmet Tampella Tukkukauppojen Tukkumanni Wihuri Oy Autola GERMANY Otis Elevators Siemens MEXICO Ciba-Giegy Mexicana Grupo Roussel Multibanco Commermex Procter & Gamble de Mexico Sperry Rand Mexicana NETHERLANDS Amsterdam Rotterdam Bank Ballast Nedam Dutch State Mines Edah Eternit Hudig Langeveldt Johnson Wax Koninklyke Nederlandse Papierfabrieken Rabobank Nederland Rank Xerox
Page 6
Smit Weld Thomassen & Drijver Verblifa NEW ZEALAND Westpac NORWAY Forsikring Thorn EMI SOUTH AFRICA Anglovaal Boart Epol Lindsay Saker Metal Box MRT Bartons Nedbank A.C. Nielsen Noristan SWEDEN Mo Och Domsjo Philips Elektronikindustrier Philips Norrkoping Rank Xerox Scandia Sockerbolaget SSA Svenska Esso Volvo TRINIDAD Amoco Iscott Lever Brothers Metal Box Republic Bank Telco
Page 7
U.K. Boart Hard Metals (Europe) Bowater Scott Coventry Churches Housing Association Davy McKee Oil & Chemicals Ford Motors ICL Inbucon John Player & Sons Metal Box Pedigree Petfood Westpac U.S.A. Civil Service Commission Department of the Treasury Eastman Kodak General Motors Kal-Kan Martin Marietta Arthur Young & Co W.J. REDDIN & ASSOCIATES (UK) LIMITED Registered Office: 538 KINGSTON ROAD, RAYNES PARK, LONDON SW20 8DT. ENGLAND Tel: National 01-543 9919 International: 441 543 9919 Fax: 01 543 9782 Telex: 8953434 WRAG
Page 8
Contents
Preface Acknowledgement Section AINTRODUCTION 1. How This Book will Make You More Effective 2. Ideas on which This Book is Based 3. Management Style Diagnosis Test Section BEFFECTIVENESS, SITUATION AND STYLE 4. You and Your Managerial Effectiveness 5. You and Your Managerial Situation 6. You and Your Managerial Style Section CYOUR EIGHT MANAGERIAL STYLES 7. Are You a Deserter? 8. Are You a Missionary? 9. Are You an Autocrat? 10. Are You a Compromiser? 11. Are You a Bureaucrat? 12. Are You a Developer? 13. Are You a Benevolent Autocrat? 14. Are You an Executive? 15. Your Dominant Style Combinations 16. What is Your Style Profile? 17. Research on Managerial Styles Section DYOUR THREE MANAGERIAL SKILLS 18. You and Your Situational Sensitivity 19. You and Your Style Flexibility 20. You and Your Situational Management Section EIMPROVING YOUR EFFECTIVENESS 21. How to Improve Your Managerial EffectivenessOn Your Own
Page 9
22. How to Improve Your Managerial Effectivenessthrough Training Glossary
Page 10
Preface
The aim of this book is to help you become more effective. While this will lead naturally to your organisation becoming more effective the main focus is on you. This planned increase in effectiveness will arise naturally from better understanding of the real nature of managerial effectiveness. The increase in effectiveness will also give greater insight into your own strengths and weaknesses and an increased knowledge of the proven guidelines concerning improving managerial effectiveness through either changing situations or using the right style in them. This book will be useful to you to use alone. It is also designed to be used on a team basis or in the context of some kind of developmental or training exercise. It is fair to say that all the ideas in this book have been well tested. I have been working for over twenty-five years in the area of managerial styles and managerial effectiveness and have had these ideas tested on hundreds of thousands of managers in many countries including Argentina, Austria, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Eire, Ethiopia, Finland, Guyana, India, Kenya, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad, Venezuela, United Kingdom, United States of America and West Germany. The book stresses application. It gives direct guidelines on how to change ones own style, to understand better what gives rise to it, to analyse situations in more detail and to be far more precise about how to measure ones own effectiveness. There is little point in changing ones style if one is not clear what ones true effectiveness outputs should be. Effectiveness is the central issue in management. It is the managers job to be effective. It is the only job. The manager may be a supervisor of a production line or of an office pool, a newly-appointed manager, a middle manager or the managing director. For that matter, these ideas apply as well to government officers, military generals and bishops. There is an enormous confusion about effectiveness. Some writers go so far as to claim that it cannot be measured. Some managers measure themselves on what they do rather than what they achieve. Some people think that effectiveness has something to do with trying hard. Effectiveness is not efficiency. Effectiveness is doing the right things, not doing things right. I am totally committed to the idea of common sense in management. The only problem with common sense in management is that it is not common. Sometimes, I must admit, I introduce a bit of jargon here and there but the jargon is intended to clarify rather than confuse. As an example, there is a dimension in much psychological management literature which is silly. It proposes that there are two types of people, the rigid and the flexible. The argument runs that the rigid are the bad ones and the flexible are the good ones. That has not been my observation. I know many flexible managers who change their minds to keep the peace and therefore are less effective. I call this style drift. I also know many rigid managers who maintain a single style appropriately and are highly effective. I call this style resilience. So with the addition of some jargon, style drift and style resilience can clarify that style flexibility and style drift are not the same things and that style rigidity and style resilience are not the same thing either. In the very early 60s I cut my teeth on managerial styles in Canada and the USA. Styles were all the
Page 11
rage then, with an emphasis on relationships orientation. We all believed that democracy was inevitable in organisations. A few theories, all from the USA, proposed a single ideal style as the best style. When I first heard this proposed about 25 years ago I did not accept it. It did not fit things I knew to be true. I base my understanding on my experience and not on a trumped-up set of footnotes which can usually prove anything. I have had no reason to change my mind since. The ideal style myth simply has to go away, though it apparently will not in the USA at least. There will always be those around who prefer hope to reality. That is why In Search of Excellence was so well received. For background, I left school at fourteen, worked for seven years and saved enough money to go to university in Canada. For three years I worked on my university entrance on a barrack-room bed. I am not particularly proud of this but I thought it might be worth mentioning. Then I went through about seven years of various university scenes including Harvard and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology and ended up teaching full time at a single university in Canada for 17 years. Around 15 years ago I decided to leave the university scene and become a consultant and writer. My hope was that I could first build up my consultancy practice and later move back to writing. I have now achieved this. I plan to write many more books. However, I will never stop being a change agent as I feel a great need to observe, diagnose, and to help organisations change. While this book, like many books, may be dipped into at any point, I think there is some merit, with this book, in starting at the front and working ones way through. For instance, one must understand what effectiveness is before even thinking about changing ones style. If one does not know about effectiveness one has no idea what style one should use. In a similar way one needs to be able to make a better assessment of the situations before deciding how one should change ones style. The whole thrust in this book is effecting change in yourself, or you helping others to change, in order to improve effectiveness. All of this book was written in a remote part of Canada in a log cabin built in 1904. The cabin overlooks a lake. It seems to me that I do most of my writing overlooking water. I think the remoteness and the serenity, and the absence of Business Week and the Wall Street Journal, helps me reflect more on how one might truly help using a longer than usual time perspective. The cabin is, essentially, in the middle of the woods. Along the way, about 70 deer are now resting up during the winter. They are in what we call a deer yard. I snowshoe over to see them sometimes. Deer tend to be skittish at first but later will take food from you. The only real problem I have in living in this cabin is a woodpecker. The chimney from the fireplace is made of metal. A crazy woodpecker has, for some reason, decided that the metal chimney is really a tree. So, every morning at about 6 AM I hear this thunderous sound reverberating down the chimney. I can assure readers that if they find any errors in this book they occurred solely because I was writing at the point when the woodpecker decided to peck. W J REDDIN Station Road, Motspur Park, New Maiden, Surrey KT3 6JH,
Page 12
UK
Page 13
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge the help of many people. Valerie Richardson and John Fry who became book czars to make sure we met the various production schedules. Joan Wilson provided great help with the earlier drafts and Angela Wood and Val Barratt the later ones. As usual, Claudia Maconick was hypersensitive to use of language. Keith Stewart and Charlie Chambre were helpful in sorting, storing, collating and retrieving various items. Too many organisations in too many countries have used the ideas in this book that one cannot even begin to mention them. One company recently arranged a series of one-week seminars for their top 1,750 managers, starting with the CEO, based on the ideas in this book. Many individual managers have also benefitted. If the book is practical it is because practical people have helped me make it that way.
Page 14
Section A INTRODUCTION
1 How This Book will Make You More Effective 2 Ideas on Which This Book is Based 3 Management Style Diagnosis Test This section contains three chapters. The objective of the section is to introduce you to how the book can make you more effective, to give you an overview of the model on which the book is based and to give you an opportunity to complete a test which will measure your managerial style.
Page 15
1. How This Book will Make You More Effective
One of the great differences between the amateur and the professional is that the latter has the capacity to progress. W. SOMERSET MAUGHAM Life is not long, and too much of it must not pass in idle deliberation of how it shall be spent. SAMUEL JOHNSON
THIS BOOK will provide many opportunities for you to learn to improve your effectiveness. As we are all different, and all learn differently, you will obviously get more value from some parts of the book than from other parts. The essential point is, though, that the book is so written that it covers a fairly wide range of things to do. It may be that you will improve your effectiveness by an improved understanding of what managerial effectiveness really is; it may be that you will understand better how to analyse situations, to adapt to them and to change them; or it may be that you will become more effective by increasing the use of your more effective styles and decreasing your use of less effective styles. Here is an outline of ways in which the book may help you. Again, some of these ways you will find more helpful than others.
An understanding of managerial effectiveness

Reading this book will provide you with a greatly increased understanding of managerial effectiveness. It can be clearly defined in any job that is needed and it is always measurable. This point is not understood by many. Too many managers think that their jobs consist of activities such as planning, scheduling and staffing. No managerial job is created to achieve these things. These are simply inputs to the job, not the outputs. Chapter Four in this book makes it possible for you to see your job in output terms. There is little point in raising the issue of how you might change your style unless you understand clearly how you should measure your effectiveness. It is like trying to create change in a vacuum. All of the examples in the You and Your Managerial Effectiveness chapter are taken from real life. Little attention is given to easily clarified jobs such as those in production and marketing and sales. The more difficult examples chosen, indicate that the idea of managerial effectiveness is applicable to all managerial jobs.
Self awareness
Self change, and change in others, must start with self awareness. If you do not know where you stand, how can you truly evaluate where others are? If you think you are a heavily relationships manager when in fact you are a heavily task manager this will cause you many confusions and lead you to do the wrong things and to interpret things incorrectly. We do not have to go back to Socrates who wrote Know
Page 16
thyself but it is not a bad place to start. In this book your self awareness will be increased fairly sharply through a variety of means. The first is by the test you are asked to complete in Chapter Three. This test measures the relative strength of your eight managerial styles. The later chapters go into the styles in some detail so that you will get a clear understanding of what the styles mean and your use of them. Effective managers need to be able to clearly recognise their own style and the style of others. Some managers are absolutely shocked when they suddenly realise that one of their subordinates moved to desertion some years ago and has stayed there. They had not thought about it that way. Some managers are astonished when they find that they are basically bureaucrats and this accounts for most of their problems.
Increasing your situational sensitivity

Once you have a better idea of where you are you can easily improve your ability to read situations for what they really contain. Some people distort. They bring a lot of ideas to every situation and recite these ideas rather than read the situation. People are different and situations are different. There are many popular forms of distortions and you may see yourself in one or more of them as they are described in this book.
Situations
There are four quite different types of situations each of which requires one of four quite different styles if the situation is to be managed effectively. You will obtain a clear understanding of these. In addition, situations contain up to twenty quite distinct elements. These elements are such things as superior, subordinates, planning, need for creativity, need for change introduction and concern for errors. In some situations one element is by far the most dominant and should be given the most attention. In other situations there will be several elements which must be balanced if the situation is to be understood and managed.
Increasing your style flexibility

In some situations style flexibility can be a key. You may have to change your style to meet the many different elements in the situation. This is not always true. In some situations style resilience is the key. In others the trick in managing the situation effectively is to choose a single style and stick with it. Obviously style awareness and situational sensitivity must precede the decision as to how flexible you should be and with respect to which situational elements. It must be clear that an effective manager must adapt to the situation which exists, or change it. Managerial style is an essential ingredient in effective management. The style you use with your coworkers, subordinates or superior, or the style by which your organisation is run, is very important indeed. We all know the popular style terms such as autocrat and bureaucrat and many others; what is needed is a clear definition of what styles are effective and what styles are not. As
Page 17
always it depends upon the situation.
Increasing your situational management skills

While managers must sometimes adapt to the situation, in other cases the opposite is true. They must instead change the situation in which they find themselves. This may be by changing subordinate expectations about the way they should behave. It may be by a change in work technology. It may be by changing the measurement method. New brooms do not always sweep clean but sometimes they do. This is situational management in action. Some managers use too much of it unnecessarily and some use too little. Situational management is often no more than overcoming resistance to change to achieve a certain objective the manager has. Many hints in this book will provide guidelines for identifying resistance and choosing the best methods to overcome it. Situational management in action.
Increasing your knowledge of managerial styles

Clearly, an important focus of this book, which will be achieved, is to help you to become much more aware about your managerial style, which style should be used in a particular situation and how to change your style. There are many other uses, however, to which style theory may be put. You may not be in a position at this moment to use them in these ways though some of you are in that position now. Those of you who are not, will presumably, be in such a position later. Apart from helping you directly as an individual, management style theory may be used in several ways: How style theory is used

To train, provide insights, unfreeze. To aid diagnosis of individuals, teams, situations and organisations. To aid selection. To aid job specification. To direct planned change efforts. To direct corporate policy.
To train, provide insights, unfreeze

Style theory is very helpful in management development. It is a relatively simple matter to help managers become much more aware of the style they are usingit may not be the style they thought they were usingand to decide on a style which best suits the situation. Self insight, self knowledge and a recognition of reality must be the mark of the professional manager who wants to be effective. Style theory can help this and thus lead to an unfreezing of behaviour which is less effective.
Page 18
To aid diagnosis of individuals, teams, situations, and organisations

It is perfectly reasonable to talk about the bureaucratic personality, the bureaucratic style of the manager, the situation where bureaucracy is needed, the team that has got into bureaucratic habits and the organisation which is designed as a bureaucracy. In short, style theory is useful in a very wide variety of ways. It is very helpful, for instance, to ask senior managers a question along these lines, What style did we have, what style are we now and what style will we be in a couple of years time? Also, What is holding us to elements of our current less effective style and what is driving us to elements of what we hope is a new more effective style? Obviously, this can be done on a team basis as well as an individual basis and, of course, applies to the individual just as much.
To aid selection
A knowledge of managerial styles can help the selection process. It certainly should not be used as the sole criterion but should be used to a degree. If you have a bureaucratic job it is best to hire a bureaucrat. If you have a non-bureaucratic job do not hire a natural born bureaucrat because the bureaucrat will make the job bureaucratic when it is not supposed to be. In short, the bureaucrat will create a lot of paper and a lot of systems when the situation simply does not demand it for effectiveness.
To aid job specification

Jobs have to be specified by the output requirements of the position, the measurement methods and the authority. An excellent addition to job specification is the style that would most probably work. Managing a research and development department is quite different from managing an iron foundry with a one per cent return on investment. Believe it or not, some managers do not see this simple point. They carry in their hip pocket a style that they think is useable everywhere. It is true, of course, that some jobs, particularly where the manager has high authority and therefore situational management and change is relatively easy, the situation can be changed so that almost any style can be used. This is much more true at senior management level than at middle management level.
To direct planned change efforts

It is perfectly legitimate and helpful for a team to discuss the question of What style would we like to move to? One bank of 25,000 employees merged with another bank of 8,000 employees. The two banks had radically different styles. One bank was basically bureaucratic and related and the other bank was dedicated to the task. The two top teams sat down for a day and discussed their differences in an open way and discussed to what degree it was possible to change the styles, the time scale, the effort needed and the best finishing point in terms of style.
To direct corporate policy

One of the big three automobile companies used style theory to produce their world corporate policy
Page 19
statement on managerial effectiveness. In essence, this statement made it clear that in some situations a highly task oriented, dedicated style was important, in other situations a more related style was important, and in other situations an integration of task and relationships was important. In short, style theory is very useful in a variety of ways and it is worth understanding it.
Page 20
2. Ideas on Which This Book is Based
There is nothing so practical as a good theory. K. LEWIN Managerial effectiveness can be defined and measured. It is a useful idea any manager can embrace. It is not personality, but performance.
THIS BOOK is based on some straightforward ideas. Some might call it a model, some might call it a theory, but lets just call it ideas. They are all outlined here so that you know where the book stands and where the book goes. Clearly managers must be concerned first with effectiveness, then with the situation in which this effectiveness must occur and then with the style they must use as an input to the situation to create the effectiveness. This idea is shown in Exhibit 2.1. EXHIBIT 2.1
The route to effectiveness The exhibit can be read in two directions, right or left. If read from the right, managerial behaviour can be seen as an input to a situation that exists. Depending on whether the style is appropriate or not, effectiveness will or will not occur. It is equally well read in the other direction. Everything starts with effectiveness. When you settle that, you then analyse the situation and then you decide the most appropriate style of behaviour. So, let us look at these three elements starting in Exhibit 2.2 as an overview for this book.
Effectiveness
This is covered in detail in Chapter Four but here is an outline. There is only one definition of managerial effectiveness and that is the extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of the position. This definition hinges only on how well one can define outputs. This can be completely defined for all needed jobs, but here is the general idea to start with. EXHIBIT 2.2
Page 21
Effectiveness Inputs vs. Outputs Maintain machines Teach skills Church attendance Customer satisfaction to Machine availability to Skills usage to Values and behaviour change to Repeat sales
Maintaining machines is an input. But why do it? Obviously for machine availability, which is the output. Why will we teach any skill? Not for the fun of it. Only if the skill is used; in short, behaviour change. Why would you go to church? For the sake of it, or for improved values and behaviour change? Similarly, the output is not customer satisfaction but repeat sales. So, the definition of managerial effectiveness will be based upon outputs not inputs. We need to learn just exactly how to specify an output. It is essential to improving your effectiveness.
Situation
We are now moving to the second element, situation. How does one define a situation? Some situations demand a highly related type of behaviour. Some require a highly dedicated kind of behaviour which focuses on the job to be done in a short term. Some jobs, while managers find it hard to accept at times, require highly bureaucratic behaviour. That is, maintain the system as it is. Quite the opposite, some situations require an integrated type of behaviour which involves a high level of interaction between managers, subordinates and work. EXHIBIT 2.3
Situation All managerial situations can be easily broken down into 20 elements. Some concern people, some concern the process to achieve productivity and some concern the interaction between people and
Page 22
productivity. Certainly, not all of them are important in all situations. Some are clearly more important in some situations than others. In some situations only one is important. Some managers could quite easily say that the central element in their situation is their superior. Others might say that it is controlling errors. Here are the 20 situational elements which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Five. Role Set 1 Superior 2 Coworkers 3 Subordinates 4 Staff Advisers 5 Unions 6 Customers 7 General Public Productivity Set 8 Creativity 9 Objectives 10 Planning 11 Change Introduction 12 Implementation 13 Controls 14 Evaluation 15 Productivity Interaction Set 16 Communication 17 Conflict 18 Errors 19 Meetings 20 Teamwork Situations are analysed by deciding which elements are important so that you know with which elements it is important to be relatively effective. You cannot be absolutely effective with everything and sometimes one thing must be balanced against the other. You need to appraise the style demands being made in each of these elements. If your superior wants you to act in a bureaucratic fashion and has one hundred per cent power over you then it seems fairly obvious that to be effective in the superiors eyes, if not yours, you know what you must do. There is more on this in Chapter Five.
Page 23
Style
The third major item to think about is behaviour, sometimes called management style. EXHIBIT 2.4
Style It is fairly well established in academic and management circles that there are two basic orientations towards the style a manager might use. One is either a high or low task orientation and the other is a high or low relationships orientation. These are independent of each other so one can be high on both, low on both or high on one or the other. This leads to the notion of four basic styles as shown in Exhibit 2.5 based on task orientation (TO) as the horizontal dimension and relationships orientation (RO) as the vertical dimension. EXHIBIT 2.5
Four basic styles of behaviour Obviously these four basic styles match the four basic situations. The logic is that the style used must match the situation in order for effectiveness to be produced. If you are in a separated situation, one which demands a separated style, then use the separated style to be effective. This leads to the notion of eight managerial styles, four less effective versions of the basic styles and four more effective versions of the basic styles. This is introduced in Chapter Six and each style is the subject of Chapters Seven to Fourteen. The logic of this basic argument leads to the knowledge that there are three basic managerial skills as shown in Exhibit 2.6. The first skill which must precede the other two is the ability to read the situation
Page 24
for what it really contains, situational sensitivity. This leads to two choices. One is to change the situation, situational management. The other is to change yourself which is style flexibility. EXHIBIT 2.6
Three managerial skills So this is the overview of the book. This overview is purely conceptual and does not give hints. The rest of the book will. In summary, the following Exhibit 2.7 can be read both ways and is the basis of the book. EXHIBIT 2.7
The route to effectiveness
Page 25
3. Management Style Diagnosis Test
Know thyself. SOCRATES One measure of my success is that managers whistle on their way to work rather than on the way home.
THE MANAGEMENT Style Diagnosis Test is designed solely for use by managers such as yourself. It enables you to look closely at your unique style of on-the-job behaviour and will provide you with valuable insights about it. The test is directly related to the eight styles of the 3-D Theory of Managerial Effectiveness and has been widely tested in business, government and universities in many countries. Over 500,000 managers have taken it. The test will take you about 30 minutes, or less, to answer.
Instructions
1. The Individual Score Sheet, Exhibit 3.1, has 56 boxes numbered from one to 56. These boxes are used to record your choice from each pair of statements also numbered from one to 56, in the Questionnaire. Look at the 56 pairs of statements in the Questionnaire. If you think the first statement of a pair is the one that best applies to you, put an A in the appropriate box. If you think the second statement is the one that best applies to you, put a B in the appropriate box. When you have finished, all the boxes will have either an A or a B in them. Notice that the boxes are numbered in sequence across the page, therefore, you should fill in the top line first, the second line next and so on. Example The first pair of statements is: A I do not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships with those above me. B I overlook violations of any kind if it helps to make things run more smoothly. If you think that statement A is a better description of your behaviour than B, write in A in the first box. If you think that statement B applies, put a B in the first box. To decide which statement best applies, ask yourself: OF THE TWO STATEMENTS GIVEN, WHICH BEST DESCRIBES WHAT I ACTUALLY DO ON THE JOB I NOW HAVE? It may be helpful, in difficult cases, to answer as someone would who really knew and understood your present approach to your job. Some statements you may find a little ambiguous, sometimes both will apply, often, neither will seem to apply. However, in
Page 26
every case pick the one statement that best describes you at present if you were faced with the circumstances described. EXHIBIT 3.1
INDIVIDUAL SCORE SHEET
Questionnaire Read Across A1. I do not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships with those above me. B1. I do not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships with those above me. I overlook violations of any kind if it helps to make things run more smoothly. A2. I do not always show a lot of interest in my subordinates. B2. I evaluate individuals personally. I frequently point out their good and bad points and criticise where necessary. A3. I believe the value of creativity, change, and innovation is often overemphasised B3. I have some interest in high productivity but it is not always apparent and thus productivity sometimes suffers. A4. I think that the idea of setting overall objectives can be overdone.
Page 27
B4. I prefer to write out communications with others. A5. I think that planning can be overemphasised. B5. When conflict arises I always help those involved to find a basis for agreement. A6. I think that the actual introduction of a change imposed from outside should require an only moderate effort on my part. B6. I am certain that the best way to eliminate errors is for those making them to have their errors explained to them in detail. A7. I do not seem as interested as I might be in the actual implementation of decisions. B7. I actively support and promote the team approach to management. A8. I try to avoid disagreements with higher management even though this may lower my own or my subordinates productivity. B8. I believe that evaluation and review are often overstressed. A9. I treat subordinates with great kindness and consideration. B9. I seem more interested in day-to-day productivity than in long-run productivity. A10. I think that some new ideas lead to disagreement and friction. B10. While I do try to keep an open channel of communication with others, I am sometimes unsuccessful in doing so. A11. I allow subordinates to set their own objectives according to their needs and accept them even if somewhat unsatisfactory. B11. I respond to disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and procedures. A12. I prefer to let each individual make their own plans as long as they are clear. B12. I think that most errors arise for a good reason and it is always better to look for the reason than at the error itself. A13. I prefer to introduce change slowly rather than rapidly. B13. I believe a strong team needs a strong leader who knows what to do. A14. I tolerate deviations in implementing plans if this will avert unpleasantness. B14. If a procedure or control is violated I make sure I concentrate on finding out why. A15. I prefer to do my job with no interference from those above. B15. I am not too interested in improving productivity just for its own sake. A16. I direct the work of my subordinates and discourage deviations from my plans. B16. I communicate with others so as to maintain a good relationship above all else. A17. I think new ideas from below are sometimes less useful than those from above. B17. When conflict arises I am always fair and firm. A18. Deviations from the specific objectives I set for others are discouraged.
Page 28
B18. I believe that errors would be minimal if people simply followed established rules and procedures. A19. I see planning as a one-person job. B19. I believe in the team approach to the extent that I think all problems are best solved that way. A20. I think a good way to introduce change is to make an announcement and then let people get on with it. B20. I show that I think tough control techniques are among the most important aids to high productivity. A21. I watch implementation of plans closely, point out errors and criticise where necessary. B21. I have both methods and output under constant review and changes in them are regularly implemented as needed. A22. I want to improve my relationships with superiors but do not always take the action necessary. B22. I could supply more useful information to others than I do. A23. When dealing with subordinates I attempt to combine both task and relationships considerations but one or the other often suffers. B23. At the first sign of conflict I attempt to smooth things over. A24. I sometimes encourage new ideas but do not always follow up on too many of them. B24. I believe that when an error occurs the person responsible should be reprimanded. A25. While my objectives are usually fairly clear, I allow them to be quite loose so that they are not always a good guide. B25. I think that the team approach is of use at times but that formal meetings accomplish as much or even more. A26. I make an effort at planning but the plans do not always work out. B26. I believe that performance data is best fed back to the individual concerned rather than to a superior or a staff unit. A27. I sometimes talk about the problems of introducing change but do not always attempt to deal with these problems. B27. I keep methods and output under constant review and make changes to ensure high output. A28. I keep an eye on the implementation of plans but do not always take action when it is most needed. B28. I set high standards for myself and encourage others to set high output standards. A29. I believe that there will be few problems between myself and higher management if proper procedures and channels are followed. B29. I avoid conflict even when facing it could be useful.
Page 29
A30. I think that things go best when subordinates understand and follow the duties in their job descriptions. B30. I believe that if an error occurs it should be corrected in such a way that no one will be upset. A31. I believe that formal meetings are a perfectly sound way to produce new ideas. B31. I believe in One Person, One Job, Well Done. A32. The objectives I set are usually fairly clear though somewhat inflexible, B32. I say that I believe control techniques are useful but I establish few and violate some. A33. I plan with a fine attention to detail. B33. I encourage others to evaluate their own and my own performance. A34. I introduce changes formally and follow closely any established procedures. B34. I personally set high output standards for myself and others and work hard to see that they are met. A35. Once plans are made I try to ensure their implementation follows the original plan. B35. I have an open communication channel with everyone on any matter and others have it with me. A36. I understand and cooperate well with higher level management. B36. I show little concern about errors and usually do little to correct or reduce them. A37. My relationship with subordinates is excellent and is characterised by mutual trust and respect. B37. I believe that team meetings are good primarily because they get people to talk together more. A38. I always seek out new and good ideas and motivate others to be as creative as possible. B38. I sometimes object to what I believe are unnecessary procedures. A39. I successfully motivate others to set their own clear objectives. B39. I talk, about the importance of evaluation and review but do not always get involved with it myself as much as I might. A40. When I am responsible for planning I involve many others. B40. I believe that the best measure of output is a comparison based on norms previously established. A41. I prepare those affected by change by talking with them well in advance. B41. I keep everyone fully informed of what I think they need to know in order to do their job better. A42. I am responsive to sound proposals for modifying plans, am open to suggestions, and am always willing to help. B42. I try to resolve conflict as quickly as possible by uncovering its underlying causes. A43. I work well with higher level management and ensure that they know exactly how I see my
Page 30
job. B43. I think control procedures can be overdone. A44. I make it quite clear to subordinates what I expect of them. I show that I value efficiency and productivity. B44. I believe that the proper treatment of people is the best way to get productivity. A45. I both develop and propose many new ideas. B45. When disagreement arises I usually take a firm but understanding stand. A46. I personally set clear objectives that are understood by all those involved. B46. I like the idea of team work but often am not able to find ways to apply it. A47. I plan well and concentrate primarily on my own good ideas and assign individual responsibilities. B47. I emphasise regular evaluation, measurement and review of performance. A48. I inform all concerned of the reason for a change. B48. I maintain open trusting communication channels with everyone. A49. I watch the implementation of plans by individuals and give direct assistance and guidance where needed. B49. I treat errors primarily as opportunities for everyone to learn and am prepared to look openly at my own errors. A50. I believe higher management is simply another team that should cooperate effectively with teams lower down. B50. I have a few doubts about the team approach to management but would give it a trial if the situation was appropriate. A51. I consistently obtain high output from my subordinates. B51. I believe it is sometimes necessary to say that a satisfactory job has been done when it was not really all that was expected. A52. I am constantly on the watch for new, useful and productive ideas from any source and develop many new ideas myself. B52. I sometimes shoot down the ideas of others. A53. I set objectives with others which are clear and fully agreed to by all those directly involved. B53. I believe that one can learn from errors and that I should show it more in my behaviour. A54. When I am involved the plans made represent the best thinking of all concerned. B54. I believe that controls are an important element in obtaining productivity. A55. I inform all concerned well in advance of any possible changes and give them an opportunity to influence the proposed change. B55. I motivate others to set high output standards and encourage and support them so that these
Page 31
high standards are met. A56. I keep an eye on the implementation of plans and respond quickly to, and solve, any blockages. B56. When facing disagreement I try to be as persuasive as possible. 2. Total your As in each horizontal row and write the number alongside the row. 3. Total your Bs in each vertical column. Write the total below its column. Transfer the total of the As from step 2 just above the letters A-H. 4. Add the two numbers. 5. This addition should equal 56. These eight numbers are your raw scores for the eight styles. 6. Then add or subtract the numbers indicated beneath, the adjustment factors, to get a new total indicated. This is your adjusted score. Each will be interpreted when the eight styles are discussed.
Note to trainers
At the moment the same adjustment factors are used worldwide. However, we are considering making adjustment factors on a country by country basis so that managers in any one country are comparing themselves to others in that country rather than to a group of countries. What we will probably do, in fact, is to supply both sets of norms. We would value it if you could regularly simply send us the eight numbers for as many managers as possible from the first line where the total reaches 56, before the adjustments are made. What we need is a simple list of eight numbers for as many managers as possible. This will not be identified as to source in any way. We just want to build up a sample to prepare a country-specific set of norms.
Page 32
Section B EFFECTIVENESS, SITUATION AND STYLE

4 You and Your Managerial Effectiveness 5 You and Your Managerial Situation 6 You and Your Managerial Style This section consists of three chapters which go into detail on the basic elements underlying this book. EXHIBIT B.1
The route to effectiveness We start where we must start. Obviously, effectiveness must come first. Knowing that we can then think about other things. Effectiveness occurs in a situation. We need to be able to make a better analysis of situations. Managers behave in situations in order to improve effectiveness. So then we look at style.
Page 33
4. You and Your Managerial Effectiveness
Duties constrain managers, results liberate them. The manager in society is solely responsible for creating wealth by combining resources in new and useful ways. If managers are not effective the country is less competitive and old age pensions must be smaller.
THE OBJECTIVE of this chapter is to help you to think about how you should measure your effectiveness. You may already have a very clear idea and again you may not. Obviously we start with effectiveness as shown in Exhibit 4.1 because if you are confused about how to measure your effectiveness and outputs generally, then, by definition, you have to be confused about everything else. If you do not know what your outputs are, how ever can you decide how to improve your managerial style? EXHIBIT 4.1
Effectiveness There really is only one realistic and unambiguous definition of managerial effectiveness. Managerial effectiveness is the extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of the position; this definition hinges on a clear understanding of what output means. Once this definition is understood and accepted it can easily lead directly to you deciding to change your behaviour. It is quite possible that you are focusing on inputs and activities, thus driving you to act more like a bureaucrat, when in fact you should act more like a benevolent autocrat or some other more effective style.
Three types of effectiveness

There are three types of effectiveness. To understand what managerial effectiveness really is it is necessary to differentiate it clearly from the other two kinds, apparent effectiveness and personal effectiveness. Some managers have narrow views of their jobs. What they do they may do well, but they leave an enormous amount undone. Some managers let the in-basket define the nature of their potential
Page 34
contribution and the clock its limit. Some managers might view their contribution as simply that of managing a going concern and keeping it on an even keel, while others might see the same job as having large components of subordinate development and creative problem solving in it. Still others might see their position primarily as a linking pin connecting with other parts of the firm, and thus might take a wide view of their responsibilities.
Managerial effectiveness
Managerial effectiveness is not an aspect of personality. It is not something a manager has. To see it as something a manager has is nothing more or less than a return to the now discarded trait theory of leadership. This theory suggested that more effective leaders had special qualities not possessed by less effective leaders. Effectiveness is best seen as something a manager produces in a situation by behaving in it appropriately. In current terminology it represents output, not input. The manager must think in terms of performance, not personality. It is not so much what managers do, but what they achieve. As an extreme but valid example: The true worth of most managers to their organisations may be measured by the amount of time they could remain dead in their offices without anyone noticing. The longer the time, the more likely it is that they make long run policy decisions rather than short run administrative decisions. The key decisions in a company are long run and may refer to key appointments, market entry, new product introduction or new plant location. The person making these decisions should not get involved, as can happen, with short run issues. If they do, they have not decided on the output measures of their job, nor have they the skill or opportunity to create conditions where only policy issues reach them.
Apparent effectiveness
It is quite important for you to be able to distinguish managerial effectiveness from apparent effectiveness. Apparent effectiveness is the extent to which a manager looks effective. Some things that make people simply look effective include:

Usually on time Answers promptly Makes quick decisions Liked by subordinates Good communicator Good at public relations Writes clearly
While these qualities may be useful in some jobs at some times they give absolutely no indication of level of managerial effectiveness. They simply point to a level of apparent effectiveness, to the naive observer. Behaviour must be evaluated in terms of whether or not it is appropriate to the output
Page 35
requirements of the job. In short, apparent effectiveness may or may not lead to managerial effectiveness. There may be little wrong with the items listed above but they do not necessarily point to managerial effectiveness. Consider the case of Charles Smith, an independent consultant with four employees. He was the first one in and the last one out each day. He virtually ran everything and ran everywhere. In a business which usually makes low demands for immediate decisions, he always made them on the spot. Do it now was his catch phrase. He was very intelligent, active, optimistic, aggressive, and his job input was enormous. His staff turnover, however, was 100 per cent in one year, and he sometimes signed contracts which he had no possibility of meeting. If his business failed, the casual observer might well say, It wasnt because of Charlie, thus showing the confusion that exists over the important differences between apparent effectiveness and managerial effectiveness. Conventional job descriptions often lead to an emphasis on what could be called managerial efficiency, the ratio of output to input. The problem is that if both input and output are low, efficiency could still be one hundred per cent. In fact, a manager or department could easily be one hundred per cent efficient and zero per cent effective. Efficient managers are easily identified. They prefer to:

Do things right Solve problems Safeguard resources Discharge duties
rather than
do right things
rather than produce creative alternatives rather than rather than optimise resource utilisation obtain results
Conventional job descriptions lead to the apparent effectiveness of the behaviour as listed in the left column; a job effectiveness description which emphasised managerial effectiveness would lead to performance as listed in the column on the right. The distinction between managerial effectiveness and apparent effectiveness can be further illustrated by what really happens when a steamroller manager brings what appears to be chaos to an organisation but the situation clearly begins to improve. Unless outputs are the focus of attention, the result can be a serious distortion of what is really going on.
Personal effectiveness
Personal effectiveness is related to achieving your own personal objectives. This may include keeping your job, a preferred career route, larger office, larger desk, bigger budget, feeling good and winning arguments. All these are in the service of personal needs. As with the indicators of apparent effectiveness they may or may not contribute to managerial effectiveness. Some organisations promote on the basis of apparent effectiveness. Some promote on the basis of personal effectiveness. This is particularly likely to occur with ambitious people in an organisation having only a few closely defined management output measures. Meetings with these people are riddled with hidden agendas which operate below the surface
Page 36
and lead to poor decision making. In a three-day meeting to set corporate objectives for a Toronto consumer goods firm, one of the four assistant CEOs in attendance initiated a series of proposals for reorganisation and argued for them with great force. While all had some merit, it became clear, as they were outlined, that most would not lead to greatly improved team effectiveness. Other team members saw quickly that all these proposals were aimed, to some extent unconsciously, at improving the assistant CEOs power and prestige. This issue was confronted for several hours and the team members, many of whom had previously had intentions similar to those of the assistant CEO, finally decided to turn their attention away from improving their personal effectiveness to improving their managerial effectiveness, and therefore, their total team effectiveness. The top management structure was modified but in keeping with market, consumer, competitive, and organisation needs; not with personal needs. There is nothing necessarily wrong with cither personal effectiveness or apparent effectiveness. We all like to make it in our own terms and we all like to appear effective. The problem arises only when either condition is confused with managerial effectiveness and substituted for it. It is important to note that in a well-designed firm all three kinds of effectiveness can occur simultaneously for any particular manager. This would mean that managers who are in fact effective (managerial effectiveness), look as if they are effective (apparent effectiveness), and are rewarded for it in their own terms (personal effectiveness). We should try to design more organisations that way but first always must come managerial effectiveness.
The deadly sin of inputs

The first step in you becoming more effective is to think even more about your job in output terms. These outputs of jobs are generally referred to as effectiveness areas. Jobs tend to have five or ten of them. They must all be outputs. The problem is however that too many jobs are described in terms of inputs not outputs; in terms of input areas and not in terms of effectiveness areas. The source of some of the problems which surrounds effectiveness is found in the way job descriptions are written. Lengthy job descriptions or even crash programmes to write or update them, usually have little actual usefulness. As C. Northcote Parkinson has pointed out, the last act of a dying organisation is to issue a revised and greatly enlarged rule book. This observation may hold as well for crash programmes to write job descriptions. Many, if not most, managerial jobs are defined in terms of their input and behaviour requirements by such phrases as: administers... maintains ... organises... plans... schedules. Naturally enough, managers never refer to job descriptions like these; once made, they are not very useful as an operating guide. They are often proposed initially by those who want to use a seemingly scientific technique to justify a widespread change in salary differentials or a change in the organisation structure. They are often a negative influence, as they focus on input and behaviour, the less important aspect of the managers job. The most common error in setting effectiveness areas is in producing input areas instead. An input
Page 37
area is an incorrect statement of an effectiveness area which is based on activities or inputs rather than results or outputs. Most inputs can be converted to outputs if the position is needed at all. Some examples were given in Chapter Two and here are a few more:

Insurance Coach subordinates Train Farmer education Speed reading
to to to to to
Asset protection Subordinate effectiveness Change behaviour High value crop acreage Speed learning
One should beware of such areas as communication, relationships, liaison, coordination and staffing: these areas usually suggest inputs.
Authority
Your outputs must be based on the authority you have. If you do not have the authority to achieve an output then you cannot take responsibility for it. Virtually no one in any situation has control over all the variance in an output. The key question to ask is do you have control of most of the variance in your organisation? Sometimes when brand managers get promoted to marketing managers the person that replaces them finds the recently promoted manager has taken some authority upwards. So the new brand manager, so called, really becomes a brand planner because the position does not give the opportunity to make changes in the product or change prices. The main output could be simply producing plans while the title suggests it is producing profits. Producing plans, in this case, may be the output because the manager does not have the authority to go further. In this chapter we are quite deliberately avoiding easy examples such as in production and marketing and sales. Far more difficult ones are chosen. Surely, if the point can be made with the difficult ones then it should be reasonably straightforward to do it with the easy ones. Finding effectiveness areas is better done on a team basis, we all need a little help from our friends.
The training officer

While many initial attempts to set effectiveness areas turn out instead to be a list of activities, many attempts can go in the other direction. Sometimes everyone appears to think they are heading a profit centre. Of any proposed effectiveness area the question should be asked, Why is this being done? or Why is this important? For example, training managers might go through this kind of process. They are first asked what their most important area is. To which they might reply, To design a management development programme. When asked, Why? they reply, To put on courses for managers. When again asked, Why? they reply, To improve the quality of managerial decisions. To yet another Why? the reply is, To improve profit performance. The correct area for these training managers would probably be To increase managerial skill in problem solving. It cannot be To improve the
Page 38
quality of managerial decisions or To improve profit performance as these are both influenced by many factors over which the training managers have no control. They have no authority. On the other hand, the areas cannot be simply programme design or putting on courses, which are clearly inputs. So, in short, the way you find your outputs is to keep asking Why? until you fall off the limit of your authority and cannot take responsibility for variance in the output that you have arrived at. If we all keep asking Why? beyond this point, we all end up with improving gross national product. Things have to stop somewhere. They stop at the limit of your authority.
University director of physical education

A newly appointed university director of physical education with a staff of about ten produced the following as first and second attempts. First attempt: 1 2 3 4 5 6 character building health sports activity maintenance staffing future programmes
Second attempt: 7 utilisation of facilities 8 readiness of facilities 9 quality of facilities 10 programme innovation rate 11 growth of facilities This director came to see that there could be only partial influence on areas 1 (character building) and 2 (health) and that there was no practical measuring device for the former (character building) that 3 (sports activity) and 4 (maintenance) were best expressed as 7 (utilisation of facilities) and 8 (readiness of facilities), and that 5 (staffing) was an input and that 6 (future programmes) could be more clearly worded as 10 (programme innovationrate). Unlike some such managers, there was some control over the growth of facilities and it was thought appropriate to include 11 (growth of facilities).
Director of agricultural extensions

One director of agricultural extension working with a staff of about 40, initially established the following effectiveness areas: 1 filling of staff positions adequately 2 competence of staff
Page 39
3 4 5 6 7
turnover of professional staff organising and developing an extension programme promoting activity in farm youth clubs conducting studies and preparing reports supervising loan grants to farmers (These areas were covered in the first attempt).
After becoming acquainted with the managerial effectiveness concept, and particularly with methods of establishing effectiveness areas, the director decided that this first attempt needed improvements. In particular, no responsibility was being taken for change, and the focus was on inputs, not outputs. The proposed effectiveness areas indicated a low-level bureaucratic view of the job. Like many of those employed by government, staffing, programmes and report writing were greatly over-emphasised. All of these are important, of course, but they do not relate directly to the basic function of the position. The director made a second attempt at setting effectiveness areas, concentrating this time on the areas of: 8 net farm income 9 percentage of commercial farmers 10 high-value crop acreage 11 the average number of livestock. This second attempt very clearly focuses on an end result based on output, not input. In discussion, however, this director found that to some extent things had gone too far the other way. Net farm income could not be an effectiveness area because so many factors affected it over which there was no control, including such things as government policy and farm board decisions. The third attempt was somewhere between the first and second attempts. In the third attempt the director became involved with the areas of: 12 13 14 15 16 average farm acreage secure farm loans high-value crop acreage average number of livestock farmer knowledge.
Areas 10 (high-value crop acreage) and 11 (average number of livestock) remain. Area 8 (net farm income) was removed. Two of the directors major resources used to help increase net farm income were loans to farmers and educational staff, programmes and facilities. The director decided to make these into effectiveness areas, largely to replace net farm income. The final areas were focused on ends, not means: on what had to be achieved, not what was done. The objectives associated with all of these effectiveness areas were easily measurable and all were clearly output, not input. In a letter to the author, the director wrote: Number I was my first attempt at setting these down. Number 2 presented my first change. Number 3 is what I thought was a refinement on the second. I am still not completely satisfied
Page 40
with these and I will now discuss these at some length with my superior in order to arrive at what we both feel is the best set of effectiveness areas for my position. The problem that I faced initially in preparing them was that I am in a position of directing a number of programme areas, and a lot of the decisions I make are with reference to staffing, budgeting, personnel, and additions to the programmes. This led me to lose sight of what I was actually supposed to accomplish. Too many attempts to set effectiveness areas fall into one of the two traps illustrated by this managers first and second attempts. Either they focus on inputs and turn managers into bureaucrats, or they deal with uncontrollable outputs and so become predictions, dreams, or simply part of another managers job. Job outputs are always measurable If a so-called effectiveness area or objective is not measurable, we can forget it, because no one will know anyway. The most stern but necessary tests of effectiveness areas and objectives is measurability. The rule is If you cannot measure it, forget it. In the left hand column of the following discussion is a list of qualitative objectives which are used as an illustration in one popular MbO book to suggest that such qualitative objectives must sometimes be used. This is incorrect, To illustrate, in the right hand column are this authors conversions to show that such qualitative objectives are usually unnecessary.
Page 41
It is true that most of these conversions from inputs to outputs involve a broader view of ones job, a greater responsibility for the staff function, and a higher cost of measurement.
Effectiveness areasknowledge workers

It is a popular myth that the effectiveness of many knowledge workers cannot be measured. But look at this set of effectiveness areas, disarmingly simple, all of which are capable of measurement if the associated objectives are worded correctly: Consulted in area of competence Advice accepted Advice acceptance leads to improvement The first area, consulted in area of competence, obliges the knowledge worker, not the manager, to see that the knowledge worker is consulted. Too many knowledge workers, like some university professors, see themselves as information reservoirs with no responsibility to provide a tapping facility; and usually this is sorely needed. Knowledge workers, more than managers, have the opportunity to develop a relationship so that their advice is sought when appropriate. Industry has no place for knowledge workers who do not themselves create consultative conditions. The second area, advice accepted, reflects that it is too easy to give advice that is not accepted. Knowledge workers must be evaluated on their effectiveness in giving advice line managers see they can use. The final area is advice acceptance leads to improvement. As it is too easy to give advice not accepted, it is also too easy to give advice that leads to a a poorer situation developing. Knowledge workers have a responsibility for the success of their advice. Personal competence is not listed as an effectiveness area. It is an input. In any case, if the knowledge worker was not competent, their advice would not lead to improvement. While the measurement problem usually can be solved with imagination, the cost of measurement problem may remain. To measure the impact of a training course on behaviour necessitates at least many telephone calls or questionnaires, and preferably a field survey. The outputs of a public relations position are hard to measure without a formal survey of some kind. In these cases one has to ask whether the function is important enough to have even a rough measurement of its effectiveness. If not, then eliminate the function. If so, then allocate ten per cent of the total appropriate budget to measurement. There is too much conventional wisdom that a particular activity is a good thing. Measurement is the only way to test it. It is difficult for some managers to accept the philosophy that if you cannot measure it, forget it, because no one will know anyway. Accurate measurement is central to good management. Some managers initially see their job as having vague, pervasive, and very long-term effects and claim that it is impossible to measure their performance by normal methods. If such managers also say that they understand what managerial effectiveness really means then they are in a position that is not needed, or they have no authority to do their job, or they are avoiding responsibility.
Page 42
As a simple example, a good relationship is often proposed as an effectiveness area. This is not measurable except by highly subjective methods. A sales manager who once proposed this area said later that it was not only non-measurable but it was an input as well; effectiveness in this area could be equally well measured by short- and long-term sales.
Tests for effectiveness areas

All effectiveness areas should meet four tests:

Output Measurable Important Authority
Obviously, effectiveness areas must represent output not input. No less important, they must lead to associated objectives which are measurable. If you think your job has some element of non-measurability then simply forget it because no one will know anyway. All outputs are measurable. You may decide not to measure them because of the cost of measurement. The time to measure them might be several years. Neither of these points violates a basic idea of science that if something exists then it is measurable. Another test is, importance. The reason for this is to avoid creating very long lists of effectiveness areas. Five to ten is usually enough. Stick to the important things otherwise the list becomes unmanageable for planning purposes. Obviously, the output must be within your authority. So, will you give some thought to how you will measure your effectiveness in output terms? Are you now making some of the mistakes which have been indicated here? Why not try the exercise of listing what you think your outputs are, they may turn out to be activities in some part, and ask Why? until you realise you cannot control the variance. It is quite definite that this kind of activity is best done on a team basis as other people can contribute ideas and tend to be somewhat more objective.
Page 43
5. You and Your Managerial Situation
ONCE YOUR effectiveness areas are better understood it is necessary to look at the managerial situation in which these outputs are to be achieved. Only then can you decide what behaviour should be used. The purpose of this chapter is to give you a sound framework for looking at your managerial situation. It will help you think about what behaviour is appropriate for you to improve your effectiveness in your situation. So, we are focusing on the second element: Situation. EXHIBIT 5.1
Situation This chapter tackles the analysis of situations in three different ways. You may well find one method more helpful than the others, and all you need. You may find that all three help you. No matter what method you use the objective remains the same; for you to derive how you should behave in a situation so that your effectiveness will be increased. The three methods are:

Basic Situation Demand Indicators Technology Demand Indicators Twenty Situational Elements
Four types of basic situation demands

Broadly speaking, your situation is demanding one of four types of behaviour from you, as shown in Exhibit 5.2. EXHIBIT 5.2
Page 44
Four basic styles of behaviour These four types derive from two underlying demands which are independent of each other. One of these is the demand that you be more or less task oriented (TO) and the other demand is that you be more or less relationships oriented (RO). As these two demands are independent it is straightforward to derive four basic types of situation demand. The horizontal dimension is a demand that you be task oriented (TO). The vertical dimension is the demand that you be relationships oriented (RO). This leads to the four basic types of behaviour demanded: separated, that is low on task and relationships; related, high on relationships low on task; dedicated, high on task low on relationships; and integrated, high on both task and relationships. It is simply true that situations vary in what they demand in order for effectiveness to result. Some situations, often in production settings, require dedicated behaviour in order for effectiveness to result. Certainly, managing independent professionals such as research and development scientists, not working as a team, demands related behaviour in order for effectiveness to result.
Basic situation demand indicators

What do you think are the demands your managerial situation is making on your behaviour? Exhibit 5.3 gives some ideas on the five general demands for each of the basic types of situation. Here are some indicators. EXHIBIT 5.3
Page 45
Indicators of situation demands You might look them over and after you read the definitions below. Check off which ones you think your situation demands of you in order for effectiveness to result. Later, we raise the broader issue of changing situational demands when we discuss situational management but you might make some check marks now on the assumption that you cannot change your situation very much. Here are explanations of what each of the 20 items means. Check those that apply in your situation.
Separated demand indicators

A To examine The degree to which continual careful systematic, and deliberate examination of material, or documents of any kind is expected. B To measure The degree to which a considerable amount of objective measurement or evaluation of any kind is expected. C To administer The degree to which conscious and deliberate administration in accordance with existing principles, rules and procedures is expected. D To control The degree to which close control is expected to avoid variations in any kind of plan, schedule, budget, or design. E To maintain The degree to which the primary expectation is the maintenance of records. Which of these apply in your situation?
Related demand indicators

A To trust The degree to which absolute trust and open candid communication across departmental or status and power levels is expected. B To listen The degree to which attentive sincerely interested listening, sometimes over long periods, is expected. C To accept The degree to which complete, active, genuine acceptance of others motives and actions is expected even when sharply different from ones own. D To advise The degree to which a considerable amount of helpful friendly advice is expected. E To encourage The degree to which extensive approving and sympathetic encouragement is expected.
Page 46
Which of these apply in your situation?
Dedicated demand indicators

A To organise The degree to which extensive planning and regular reorganisation of work is expected. B To initiate The degree to which many new tasks are expected to be initiated independently. C To direct The degree to which a considerable amount of active direction of the work of others is expected. D To complete The degree to which it is expected that the primary consideration is to complete the immediate task at hand. E To evaluate The degree to which rigorous evaluation of performance is expected and appropriate action taken. Which of these apply to your situation?
Integrated demand indicators

A To participate The degree to which it is expected that most decision making will be by fully participative methods. B To interact The degree to which a considerable amount of task oriented interpersonal interaction is expected. C To motivate The degree to which a considerable and approximately equal amount of both relationships orientation and task orientation is expected. D To integrate The degree to which individual needs and organisation goals are expected to be suitably balanced and seen as one. E To innovate The degree to which a very high number of original ideas concerning methods of improving both relationships and production is expected. Which of these apply in your situation? Looking at your situation broadly you will find it helpful to think about each of these 20 items and really ask yourself what behaviour is being demanded. In this way you will get an initial idea of how you should behave for effectiveness. The key question is, What behaviour is currently demanded for your
Page 47
effectiveness to be increased? It may well be that your perception of the behaviour demanded by your superior leads to less effectiveness on your part rather than more effectiveness. If you cannot exercise situational management and so change your superiors demands it may well be true that your superior is in fact driving you to less effectiveness and there is nothing you can do about it. This is not the normal case though it is often perceived to be, and sometimes is.
Work technology also influences style demands

You may well find that the indicators provided so far have helped you to understand the demands being made on your behavioural style. However, the analysis can go further. It is possible to look at the work technology itself to get an indicator of demands. You may find that looking at technology indicators as shown in Exhibit 5.4 will deepen, your understanding of why certain demands arise. EXHIBIT 5.4
Indicators of technology demands The kind of work being done obviously indicates the style of behaviour required. In batch production more of a dedicated style should be used. In continuous flow production processes, with fixed stations, demands may be more separated or related. Managing an accounting department demands a different style from managing a group of office equipment sales staff. Work technology influences behaviour required to produce effectiveness. While work technology is only one element of many it is being mentioned here for special attention, because as a general case it has a major influence. It may not be true in your situation but as a general case it is true. You may find it useful to review each of these 20 indicators thinking of the nature of the work in which you are involved. This is another way of looking at demands, focusing on the work alone rather than the elements in a situation such as superior, coworkers and subordinates. Here are explanations of what each of the 20 items mean. The precise question to ask yourself about these definitions is, Which of these 20 indicators best describes the actual current technology in my situation? It is possible, but
Page 48
most unlikely, that you will find all five indicators apply in any one of the four basic demands and none in the others. It is more usual to find three in one. two in another and one in another. If, for instance, you have checked three in integrated and two in dedicated it indicates that your demands based on looking at the work technology only, are integrated and dedicated and it is around those two styles that you are likely to be more effective when thinking of work technology.
Separated technology indicators

A Intellectual component Degree to which subordinates are required to think rather than to act. B System control Degree to which subordinates work and work method follow established procedures. C Intrinsic interest Degree to which the subordinates work is in and of itself interesting, motivating or attractive. D Subordinate autonomy Degree to which subordinates have discretion over their measurement methods. E Task simplicity Degree to which subordinates tasks are simple to perform. Which of these apply in your situation? A technology demanding separated behaviour by the manager, then, would be one in which subordinates do more thinking than acting, where what subordinates actually do follows established procedures, where the work is very interesting in itself, where subordinates can to a large degree decide the nature and level of output and where the tasks are basically simple.
Related technology indicators

A Subordinate skill Degree to which position makes high skill or judgement demands on subordinates. B Commitment required Degree to which position requires the subordinates to be personally committed if all measurement methods are to be fully achieved. C Method autonomy Degree to which subordinates can select the method, tools or approach they wish to use. D Discretion span Degree to which time can elapse before substandard work of subordinates is detected.
Page 49
E Creative component Degree to which position requires subordinates to develop new methods and ideas. Which of these apply in your situation? A technology demanding related behaviour by the manager, then, would be one in which subordinates need a high degree of skill, where their commitment is required, where they can decide their own work method, where their output is difficult to evaluate in the short run, and where subordinates are required to be creative.
Dedicated technology indicators

A Physical component Degree to which the subordinates are required to use physical effort. B Manager knowledge Degree to which subordinates know less about the task than the manager. C Unscheduled events Degree to which unplanned and unanticipated events might occur which require corrective action by the manager. D Directions needed Degree to which subordinates need to be given directions frequently in order for them to complete their task. E Performance measurability Degree to which subordinates performance is measurable, and the impact of remedial actions taken by the manager can be evaluated. Which of these apply in your situation? A technology demanding dedicated behaviour by the manager, then, would be one in which physical effort is required of subordinates, where the manager knows more about the task than the subordinates, where unscheduled events requiring intervention by the manager are likely to occur, where directions are frequently required, and where subordinate performance is measurable.
Integrated technology indicators

A Subordinate interaction Degree to which the subordinates must talk with each other to complete their task. B Subordinate interdependence Degree to which the subordinates must depend on each other in meeting their own measurement methods. C Manager interaction Degree to which the manager must talk with subordinates as a group for
Page 50
them to complete their tasks. D Solution multiplicity Degree to which more than one effective solution is possible, where relative effectiveness of these solutions is difficult to measure, and where the number and evaluation of solutions is improved by interaction. E Pace autonomy Degree to which subordinates may set their own pace, effort or involvement level. Which of these apply in your situation? A technology demanding integrated behaviour by the manager would be one in which the subordinates must talk to, and depend on, each other; where managers have to meet with their subordinates as a group; where more than one solution is possible, although some are more effective than others; and where subordinates can set their own pace.
Two exercises concerning technology demands

Here are two short exercises to get you to think more about technology demands. The two case studies are written up very briefly indeed. If they were each several pages long it is probable that most managers would agree fully on the technology demands. As there is a lot unsaid there is room for error. The main purpose of these case studies is to get you to think about technology demands. The rough answers are given at the end of the chapter. If you get about half right at this point you have a general understanding. If you get less than that then it might be worthwhile to study the definitions again. Case study one The first case study concerns a fixed station production system. The manager of this system is its supervisor. The work is the assembly of automobiles. There is a continuous moving belt which carries the automobiles to the supervisors work area. The tasks in this area are highly specific. The tasks are repeated continuously. There is one supervisor and 300 employees in this work area. The question to be asked is, What demands is this work technology making on the supervisor in order for the supervisor to be more effective? Indicate below which indicators you think apply. EXHIBIT 5.5
Page 51
Indicators of technology demands Case study two This case study concerns an accounting service for doctors with private patients. This is a common accounting service specialising for doctors. Basically, the responsibility is to collect bills that doctors have issued. The firm has 12 employees. The manager in this case is the CEO of the firm who actively supervises the work. They have 200 doctors as clients and give computer generated daily reports to all of them. They have their own computer. Again, the question is, What demands is this work technology making on the supervisor in order for the supervisor to be more effective? Indicate below which indicators you think apply. EXHIBIT 5.6
Indicators of technology demands The answers are given on p. 42.
Twenty situational elements

This chapter provides you with three ways of looking at your situation. The first way proposed was to look at your situation globally and not at any particular element and consider what basic style is being demanded. The second method proposed was to look at the work technology alone and make the same
Page 52
kind of analysis. This third method is to look at the situation in a more particular way and select which of 20 elements are making the most demands on you and you make the same kind of basic style demand analysis with those elements. As indicated in Chapter Two and shown again in Exhibit 5.7 managerial situations can be seen to be composed of one or more of 20 situational elements. In the average managerial situation one or two may be quite dominant and many will be absent. The first seven of these elements are called role set elements, as they refer generally to other people in their various roles. Elements eight to 15 are meant to indicate the various steps from creativity, thinking about an idea, to eventually improving productivity. The steps are roughly sequential in that when one gets an idea, creativity: one sets objectives concerning it, objectives: one makes plans to achieve the objectives, planning and so on. In some jobs some of these elements are more important than others. The last five elements from 16 through 20 all refer to some kind of interaction between people and work. EXHIBIT 5.7 1. Superior: the person to whom you report. 2. Coworkers: managers of equivalent level or authority with whom you interact. 3. Subordinates: those who report directly to you. 4. Staff Advisers: knowledge workers usually with low authority and power, whose job it is to provide information and advice. 5. Unions: union representatives or members of unions. 6. Customers: the purchasers of the companys products or services. 7. General Public: anyone who is not an employee or customer of the company. 8. Creativity: the production of ideas. 9. Objectives: what you plan to achieve. 10. Planning: the specific means whereby objectives are realised. 11. Change introduction: the actual initiation of a new plan. 12. Implementation: the actions that are taken to realise plans and decisions. 13. Controls: methods of monitoring actions so that adjustments can be made if necessary. 14. Evaluation: measurement of the effectiveness of action. 15. Productivity: the level of the managers output of those things required by the manager s superior. 16. Communication: receipt and transmission of information. 17. Conflict: disagreements. 18. Errors: things that go wrong.
Page 53
19. Meetings: two or more people coming together to discuss something. 20. Teamwork: interaction between two or more people with high emphasis of both task and relationships orientations. Brief description of the twenty situational elements
Element dominance
Some of these elements are dominant in your situation. By dominance is meant the degree to which they affect the style you should use to improve effectiveness. You may find it useful to spread 10 points over the 20 elements and indicate the relative strength of the element. That is, to indicate by the number of points you assign to some of these elements to indicate which has most influence on you in determining the style you should use to improve your effectiveness. In some cases you might put all the weight on one element but you would more likely spread the points over a few. This analysis could then help you focus on what demands each element in particular is making. For the more important elements you might want to return to either or both of Exhibit 5.5 and Exhibit 5.6 so you can make a more particular analysis. This is not essential at this point. Relative effectiveness Looking at the elements to which you assigned some points, consider, at this point in time, how effective you are with them. You might find it useful to have a scale running from through 0 to plus 4 to indicate how effective you are. Obviously, there will be a degree of subjectivity in your assessment but there is sufficient evidence that managers are quite capable of making a reasonable assessment themselves. It would make the analysis too detailed if you look at the relative effectiveness of all 20 elements. It is best to limit it to the ones to which you assigned some degree of dominance. However, the main thing is to think about your situation in a way that is helpful to you.
In summary
This chapter has given you three different ways to look at your situation. You may want to use one or more of them. They may produce fairly similar results or somewhat different ones. They will all, however, get you to think about your situation and the demands it is making on you in order for you to be effective. The assumption running through this chapter is that you must be flexible in responding to the demands you observe rather than changing them but when we move on to situational management a quite different notion will be presented, that it might be best for you to change the demands rather than responding to them. Answers to case study one The indicators that best seem to apply are separated: B and E related: dedicated: A, C and E integrated:
Page 54
Answers to case study two The indicators that best seem to apply are separated: B and E related: A dedicated: E integrated: B
Page 55
6. You and Your Managerial Style
The beginning of administrative wisdom is the awareness that there is no one optimum type of management system. TOM BURNS Management of others is self management.
THE OBJECTIVE of this chapter is to get you to think about your current basic style of management and also the other basic styles available. You will then be able to think in detail about applying the correct basic style based on your analysis of your situation in order to increase effectiveness. So, we come to the last circle. EXHIBIT 6.1
Style
Two orientations
There has been a great deal of research into managerial style. A point on which there is virtual agreement is that it is useful to think that managerial behaviour has two orientations. One of these is task orientation and the other is relationships orientation. The titles pretty well explain the terms themselves, however the definitions are as follows: Task Orientation (TO) The extent to which managers direct the efforts of others; characterised by initiating, organising and directing. Relationships Orientation (RO) The extent to which a manager has personal job relationships; characterised by listening, trusting and encouraging. As it happens, these two important dimensions of managerial behaviour are rather independent of each other. A manager can be high on one and low on the other, high on both or low on both. This leads to the kind of diagram shown in Exhibit 6.2. As these two dimensions are independent one can derive four basic styles which mirror the four
Page 56
basic situational demands (Exhibit 6.3). EXHIBIT 6.2
Task and relationships orientation EXHIBIT 6.3
Four basic styles, or four basic situational emands These four basic styles represent managers who are separated from both task and relationships in their situations, others who are mainly related to others, others who are mainly dedicated to the job and others who have a major interest in integrating relationships and task.
Differences across the four bask styles

Obviously the four basic styles are very different. Exhibit 6.4 gives a clear indication of this. It is worth studying these differences in detail now and thinking about your own natural basic style. The interactional mode of the separated manager is correcting deviations; that of the related manager is accepting others. The dedicated manager tends to dominate and direct. The integrated manager wants to join with others in the service of work. The preferred mode of communication of the separated manager is written, as this involves less relationships orientation and can involve lower task orientation. The related manager obviously prefers to talk. The dedicated manager wants to give verbal directions as this helps domination. The integrated manager, rather obviously, prefers meetings.
Page 57
You might now think about circling one item on each line. You may think about yourself two ways with this exhibit. One is how you prefer to behave because of your natural tendencies and one how you should behave in your present situation to improve effectiveness. All managers bring to situations their natural propensities, however a professional manager is primarily concerned with serving what the situation demands, not serving self. EXHIBIT 6.4
Basic style differences
The separated style of manager

Separated managerial behaviour is characterised by both low task and low relationships orientation. The label is separated because it is separated from both people and task. The separated manager is really oriented to nothing changing, only to system maintenance. EXHIBIT 6.5
Page 58
The separated style. It has a low task orientation and low relationships orientation Separated Manager Indicators Cautious/Careful/Conservative Prefers paper work Looks for established principles Accurate/Precise/Correct Steady/Deliberate/Patient Calm/Modest/Discreet
How separated managers differ

Separated managers have an orientation to procedures, methods and systems. Many highly intelligent and effective managers have a separated basic style. Separated managers are ones who are very concerned about correcting deviations. They tend to write more than talk and partly because of this have relatively little personal communication in any direction. Their time perspective tends to be with the past and how we did it last time. Thus they identify with the organisation as a whole rather than with individual members of it. Because of their desire to keep things on an even keel they take great interest in the rules and procedures and naturally judge others on how well they adhere to them. They value intellect in their superiors but not necessarily in others. In committees they tend to use a subdued parliamentary style and attempt to clarify positions, guide others to work through the agenda, and channel all communications through the chair. They are obviously well suited to work in administration, accounting, statistics, engineering design, government and in the control departments of head offices. The separated style may be induced by the relatively lengthy training programmes people in these positions often undergo, of which accountancy is the best example. The values induced in such training parallel the qualities of the separated style. There is the emphasis on accuracy, conservatism, prudence and noninvolvement. Separated managers avoid nonroutine work because they do not enjoy it. When things go wrong their usual reaction is to propose more controls. This also helps to depersonalise future conflict which
Page 59
they avoid if they can. When faced with conflict or other kinds of stress situations they tend to withdraw and quote rules and procedures. They value logic and rationality and are amenable to being influenced by it. The emphasis on logic can sometimes give way to argument, particularly if the problem could have been solved by relationships skills which they do not see as relevant. Their subordinates often believe that they do not recognise them or their accomplishments enough. They see their subordinates less as people and more as parts of their work system. Because of this they tend to punish by removing some of the authority previously given. They undervalue the need for innovation and are generally seen as slaves to the rules. The greatest fear they have about themselves is that they might let emotion, softness or dependence on others influence their judgement. Their greatest fear of others is that they might act irrationally and in some way violate the established system. Separated managers often appear not too secure as people. Instead of interacting with their environment, they take refuge in the rules. They believe that if they follow the rules really well, they will not encounter too many difficulties. When confronted with decision making separated managers want a clearly defined principle to follow. First, they look at the written rules, for they go by the book. Then they will look at the customary ways of solving things in the past. Clearly this approach is useful, or even essential, for some positions in companies at some times. On the other hand, it may at times be quite inappropriate.
Impersonality
Separated managers are impersonal. This may at times be seen as arrogance and negativism, but it may also be seen as complete fairness and objectivity about people. Not only do they want to be seen as impersonal but they would also be very quick to complain about the slightest show of personal interest between their subordinates and those reporting to them. They suspect much helpfulness as favouritism. Separated managers will seldom be guilty of a tyranny of personal whims though the tyranny of rigid rule application can be one of their major faults. Separated managers are usually fair, not because of their relationships orientation but because of their lack of it. One way not to get involved is to treat everyone equally. This equality of treatment usually leads to emphasis on seniority rather than on ability.
Managing within change

Separated managers tend to drop in effectiveness as the amount of change required increases. They prefer specific instructions for each new situation, and until they get them, they are against stretching rules just enough to keep all of them applicable. Clearly the separated style of management is highly inappropriate among key managers in a rapidly changing situation. A few separated managers such as accountants or lawyers, perhaps, may be of help in that situation, but most of the key figures cannot be separated because change will not take place. Separated managers have an overwhelming need for symmetry and order. They want ail the pieces to come together, all the numbers to be in place, and all the evaluations to be neatly tabulated. This is their bastion against change. Increasing output, as such, does not really interest the separated managers. They prefer to decrease
Page 60
costs rather than increase profit. This is one of many reasons why they are attracted to lower levels of the government service. More so than with other basic styles separated managers want others who are separated as subordinates. These managers will be tuned in to the same things as themselves, will add stability to their department, and influence and control in the name of procedures and existing system demands. They want subordinates to follow duties, not to follow the situation or them. They abhor strong personal leadership or example. The active, innovative subordinate will not work well with a separated superior. Their superior rewards them only for staying in line, yet many acts of innovation require straying from the system or at least testing it. Committees, but certainly not project teams, are much used by the separated managers. Committees are impersonal and appear to be founded on the rational principle that several heads are better than one. The use of committees leads to orderly changes in power structure, in decision responsibility, and in systems and procedure. Committee members are chosen for the power position they represent rather than for their ability to solve the problem. A deserter would use committees to induce rigidity rather than order and to diffuse or disguise responsibility rather than to share or concentrate it. Separated managers believe they owe personal obedience to no one, and no one owes it to them. Authority is impersonal. Obedience is based squarely on established procedures, regulations, and managerial position. Separated managers do not like their decisions to be questioned. They see themselves as autonomous within the sphere of their position description. This helps explain why bureaucrats are sometimes called autocrats. They place the rules so far ahead of the individual that they are sometimes seen as being unnecessarily nasty. Separated managers usually prefer that managerial levels be clearly distinguished by status devices, such as desks, offices, and carpets. To some extent such devices are always present in large organisations, but separated managers can carry them to extremes. Separated managers want the system to control them. Most children learn, and then accept as their own, social regulations, values and attitudes. By doing this, they know that society then will not hurt them and, in fact, will value their behaviour. Rule following can be likened to a desire to be loved by a powerful yet detached figure. Separated managers usually very much want to become part of the whole. They may want, in effect, to marry the organisation. As an extreme, they may be aging bachelors with no life outside the organisation, or they may be anyone with little effective involvement with other people who still want to get involved somehow yet on an impersonal basis. Identification is the name given to the process of obtaining personal satisfaction through the existence and activities of something or someone other than oneself. The identification may be with the organisation and its rules, superiors, coworkers, or subordinates or the work technology. Separated managers identify with the organisation and its rules. Within fairly narrow limits, we all have to make our peace with the standards that society imposes. Some learn to do this easily in childhood, while others do not. Those who do not may use a great deal of energy in fighting the standards, and those who do, like the separated manager, may embrace the rules and become true believers. This latter form can be a satisfactory adjustment because no longer is society or the organisation giving orders to us; instead, we are giving orders to ourselves which can serve
Page 61
to lower the tensions that some feel at being ordered around.
The related style of manager

Related managerial behaviour is characterised by low task orientation and high relationships orientation. It is called related because of its emphasis on relationships with people. The related manager tends to be accepting, friendly and creates a secure atmosphere for others to work in. EXHIBIT 6.6
The related style. It has a low task orientation and a high relationships orientation Related Manager indicators People come first Emphasises personal development Informal/Quiet/Unnoticed Long conversations Sympathetic/Accepting/Friendly Creates secure atmosphere
How related managers differ

Related managers are ones who accept others as they find them. They enjoy long conversations as a way of getting to know others better. Because of this they tend to obtain a lot of useful information from their subordinates. They are not too concerned with time and this in part allows them to get to know others better, particularly subordinates with whom they identify. They see organisations primarily as social systems and judge their subordinates on how well they understand others. They judge superiors on the warmth they show to subordinates. In committees they support others, harmonise differences, and coach others to give their best. Related managers are particularly suited for managing professional workers, for some kinds of training and development work, and for coordinating positions where the low power of the position tends
Page 62
to demand a related style if effectiveness is to be achieved. They find it very unpleasant to work with little contact with others. If they find themselves in such a job, they may redesign it so that they can have high contact even though this could lead to decreased overall effectiveness. Their subordinates cooperate well with each other partly because of their examples and partly because they tend to pass over errors and smother conflict with pleasantness. When facing stress they tend to become dependent on others and depressed. Their positive source of influence is likely to be praise while their negative source of influence tends to be the rejection of the individual as a worthy person. While their subordinates like working for related managers the characteristic problem they encounter is lack of direction from them. The punishment most often used is loss of interest in subordinates. While related managers value people highly they tend to undervalue the importance of the organisation and its technology. One of their weaknesses is sentimentality and a personal fear is one of being rejected by others. The thing they most fear in others is conflict. Related managers are basically oriented to other people. Effective managers with a related basic style are often found in personnel, training, research management, and sometimes in managing large clerical offices. They may sometimes be the top person in a division or company paired with a key immediate subordinate with a dedicated style. Related managers can produce a work atmosphere of security and acceptance. Subordinates will then feel free to contribute in every way they can or think they can. They will be willing to participate in a variety of tasks, even those which do not directly affect them. In a flexible, loose structure, where subordinates know more about some things than their superior, this style can lead to effectiveness. In a formal, continuous-flow production process, it might not. Related managers identify with their subordinates and through them fulfil their own needs. The process is much the same as the way in which college students identify with their football team and parents with their children. This identification can centre on the subordinates growth leading to the developer style or centre on the subordinates personal needs leading to the missionary style. Subordinates are usually attracted to the related manager. As in the family situation, they represent a needed source of support and affection. However the rivalry over who should get this attention can create problems. The little direction they offer leaves much unsaid. This ambiguity may create tension, or it may lead to the solution of otherwise difficult problems. Related managers use friendship and understanding to influence others. They are reluctant to use their authority, and prefer to see good points. Related managers are usually aware of their own attitudes and assumptions about themselves, other individuals, and groups. They know when to look inward to find an explanation or solution rather than outward. By being open to this kind of inquiry, they are careful listeners to the views of others. In addition, they are skilful in making their point of view and feelings known. Related managers are more sensitive to the demands of the human system than the demands of the technical system. As long as directions are not needed and personal subordinate involvement is essential, the style can be an effective one. An interest in participative management does not necessarily indicate a related style. Some managers use so-called related techniques to bypass people who should be in on the decision making,
Page 63
but with whom they disagree. Superiors may suggest, for instance, that participation be applied two levels down. They thus could manipulate the intermediate level out of its legitimate part in the decision making process. High sounding labels may be given to such schemes, such as democratic leadership, but it may be manipulation just the same.
The dedicated style of manager

Managerial behaviour characterised by high task orientation but low relationships orientation is designated dedicated because of its emphasis on task completion. The dedicated manager tends to be hardworking, aggressive and independent. EXHIBIT 6.7
The dedicated style. It has a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation Dedicated Manager Indicators Determined/Aggressive/Confident Busy/Driving/Initiating Sets individual tasks and standards Self-reliant/Independent/Ambitious Uses rewards, punishments, controls Tasks come first
How dedicated managers differ

Dedicated managers tend to dominate others. They give many verbal directions to subordinates. Their time perspective is immediate so when they have the choice they prefer to do it now. They identify with superiors and with the technical system of the firm. When possible they emphasise the demands of the technological rather than the human system. They judge subordinates on the degree to which they produce and superiors on their skill in using power. They play a very active part in committees and initiate, evaluate, and direct a great deal.
Page 64
Dedicated managers are well suited for some kinds of production management where directions are needed, and also for sales management. They do not work too well in situations where they have only a little power because they then cannot easily tell people what to do. Their subordinates soon learn that performance is the thing that counts and punishment can be expected if they are in error. They deal with conflict by suppressing it and deal with other stressful situations by domination. They believe that rewards are a good way to influence others or to be influenced themselves. And they also believe that punishments are the best way to stop people from doing things they should not, and the most severe punishment is loss of position. Their subordinates often complain about lack of information. They tend to forget they exist as independent entities and do not give enough value to their individual expectations. Their main weaknesses are that they argue with others when matters could be solved another way. They emphasise the use of power so much that the loss of it is what they fear most. Their biggest fear about others is that they will not produce. Dedicated managers are likely to cast up grand programmes by themselves and then spend time reshaping the organisation to see that the programmes are followed. They show that they mean business, and the implicit message they send to subordinates is either get on or get off. If their subordinates are highly mobile, as are many professional workers, they are likely to leave them. Partly because of this easy mobility, the dedicated style is often inappropriate with professional workers. Dedicated managers prefer one-to-one management decision making. They deal with subordinates as individuals and make each directly accountable to them for a specific set of responsibilities. There is seldom the problem of overlapping of responsibilities, but lack of work integration can occur. The dedicated style may or may not lead to sound management development. Its effectiveness in development depends on the time length of the control loop. Dedicated managers who check daily on subordinate performance and correct it, may inhibit rather than foster development. Managers, with still the same emphasis on performance, who check monthly will get better results. It is becoming clear that a superb management-development device for new managers is to give them a series of difficult jobs with tough objectives associated with each. The dedicated idea of perform or else is still clearly present, but the manager is not actually breathing down a subordinates neck. Dedicated managers prefer to influence their subordinates through their own dedication to hard work. They prefer to motivate by various types of incentive plans based on quantity or quality. They know the workings and limits of the firms reward-and-punishment system, and they use it.
Dedicated technology
Work technology may demand the use of the dedicated style. Time pressures may be high, emergencies may often arise, the work may be dangerous or intrinsically uninteresting, group problem solving may be unimportant, and quality and quantity may be easily measurable. Even if the technology does not demand dedicated behaviour, the manager who is characteristically dedicated identifies with, and is heavily influenced by it, rather than by any other situational element. Dedicated managers know a great deal about their jobs. They have to, or they cannot operate in the style they have chosen. In relying less on subordinates for information, they must rely more on themselves. They alone tend to define the problem and the route to solutions. This style, then, is often
Page 65
used effectively when there is a wide experience range between levels. There is much confusion over the potential effectiveness of the dedicated style. A large number of management writers, suggesting that it is generally less effective, call the style autocrat and leave it at that. Yet most managers know that it is this style which is often the most effective, in both the short and long run, within their own company. People who drive themselves but do not drive others cannot be called dedicated managers. Managing involves others, and ones orientation with respect to them is the important consideration. Managers who work ten hours a day in their office and ignore their subordinates obviously work hard, but as managers, they may be a deserter or bureaucrat. If they are scientists or other essentially solitary workers whose positions require them to work alone, they may be bureaucrats. Dedicated managers are most useful when much must be done very quickly or when a profound change of any kind is needed. If a firm hand and clear directions are essential, virtually all other basic styles will lead to less effectiveness. Dedicated managers seldom flounder. They make decisions quickly. They have a single direction which they maintain. Not all will agree on the direction, but it will be established clearly.
The dedicated organisation

Some types of organisation philosophy may be characterised as dedicated and thus support the use of the dedicated style even in some positions where, in other firms, another style might be appropriate. This type of organisation is not too difficult to identify: the top manager is often dedicated; managers most likely to be promoted are dedicated; the general orientation is task first and people second. The dedicated style is very likely to be effective if most managers in a company use it. This structures the expectations of all subordinates towards it and thus increases their acceptance of it.
Dedicated subordinates
Under some conditions, the nature of the subordinates, themselves, will suggest the use of the dedicated style. They may simply expect to be managed that way because of either prior experience or training. The subordinates may lack decision skills or be quite willing to obey, may fear punishment or overvalue rewards, and may lack knowledge or be simply insecure. The dedicated style is appealing to those subordinates who are not frightened by it and who also agree on the direction taken. It is disliked intensely by separated subordinates who prefer to be left alone or by those who have their own independent ideas on policy. The style is more effective in crisis situations and less effective in administration, research, or educational settings, except by top managers. Many good college presidents, especially those facilitating and managing change, are seen as autocrats, yet any objective appraisal would suggest benevolent autocrat or even executive as closer to the truth. These are two of the more effective styles and are defined in Exhibit 6.13.
The integrated style of manager
Page 66
Managerial behaviour characterised by both high task and high relationships orientation is called integrated because it combines both orientations. The integrated manager prefers shared objectives teamwork. EXHIBIT 6.8
The integrated style. It has a high task orientation and a high relationships orientation Integrated Manager Indicators Derives authority from aims and ideals Integrates individual with organisation Wants participation Prefers shared objectives Interested in motivational techniques Prefers teamwork
How integrated managers differ

Integrated managers like to become part of things. They are essentially joiners and they take great pains in getting appropriately involved with individuals or groups over work. They like to communicate with others in group settings and use meetings frequently. Through them they can obtain the two-way communication they prefer. Their orientation is always to the future. Because they have no real concern for power differentials they identify strongly with coworkers and emphasise teamwork. They use teamwork and other methods to integrate individual needs with technological needs. They naturally judge subordinates on their willingness to join the team. They judge their superiors on their skill in teamwork. In committee activities they tend to be active in setting team performance standards, testing the team members for their commitment and purpose, and motivating them. The work they are most suited for is the management of interacting managers. The work they are least suited for is that with a high component of routine. Their employees are usually fully committed and involved, and this is facilitated in part by their intention of learning from errors rather than punishing them. They are interested in investigating the cause
Page 67
of conflict rather than avoiding, smothering, or suppressing it. In highly stressful situations they tend to postpone making decisions. They tend to control others by proposing common ideals or settling for a compromise. Because of this integrated style and emphasis on the group, their subordinates often feel a lack of independence. Because of their use of ideals to motivate, the punishment they can best use involves loss of self-respect in the person punished. They sometimes undervalue the need for independent action and sometimes use participation inappropriately. Their greatest fear about themselves is that they might become uninvolved. Their greatest fear about others is that they might become dissatisfied. Integrated managers always use both task and relationships orientation. Almost all such behaviour involves either motivational techniques or the setting of overall aims and ideals. Effective managers who are integrated are often found supervising other managers who have to interact in making decisions. Integrated managers wish to structure things so there are highly cooperative approaches toward the achievement of organisation goals. They develop skills in what are essentially personal motivational techniques. They use a maximum task orientation and relationships orientation to produce effectiveness. Integrated managers use a variety of participative techniques. Through them they attempt to flatten the power differential with respect to subordinates, make their authority less personal, and obtain their subordinates commitment to decisions and changes. Integrated managers go to some lengths to make sure their subordinates understand why they are being asked to do something. This will usually go quite beyond advising them of a reason for a change an act which even dedicated managers might do. Integrated managers want them to accept the reasons for change and will use a variety of devices to facilitate such acceptance. Clearly this approach might be very appropriate for a senior manager but considerably less appropriate for a supervisor, especially if faced with union militancy. Integrated managers want to depersonalise authority. To be successful at this they must substitute ideals, aims, goals, or policies, in the name of which certain responses are expected. This ideal may be simply for the good of the firm, Theory Y or 9.9. If subordinates can be taught to respond appropriately to one or another of these, they may be used as impersonal control devices. Although few would salute two flags, many are prepared to die for one. Clearly the integrated approach is based on the idea that subordinates must be turned on in order for effectiveness to be achieved. Its use suggests that unless certain ideals or end results are jointly accepted, subordinates will not put forth their best efforts. Integrated managers want to integrate the needs of the individual with the needs of the organisation. They want to align personal goals with organisation goals. To do this requires a sound understanding of the subordinate as an individual and, usually, a longer time period over which changes are to be made. Clearly a blanket use of this style is based on an idealistic view of all situations and people in all organisations.
Misunderstandings of integrated style

One problem in being objective about the integrated style is that many managers see themselves as integrated when in fact they are not. There is little doubt that the integrated style is an attractive one and is often appropriate. But there is also little doubt that its very attractiveness may lead to its being used in
Page 68
situations where it is inappropriate. Those who persistently misuse the integrated style usually have serious distortions of the nature of human motivation or simply do not understand the superior-subordinate contract. In its simplest form the contract is pay in return for obedience and effort. This is honourable enough although many managers feel guilty about it and thus overuse various motivational or participative techniques. Some managers claim that the integrated style is a fuzzy beast, that they do not understand it, and that they have no idea of how to use it. They ask how a manager can use high TO and RO at the same time. Those that ask this question are very often those who currently encounter a situation in which it cannot be used but, perhaps, have been told in the past they should use it. Not knowing what the style really is may simply mean that in their career so far, the manager has not encountered a situation where it is clearly appropriate. The integrated style is close to the ideal management style proposed by several university professors: McGregors Theory Y, Likerts System 4, and Blakes 9.9.
But what about effectiveness?

It is absolutely essential for every manager to come to grips with the possibility that any basic style may be effective at times. Many traditional approaches to style do not claim this. If one accepts the position that any basic style may be effective at times then further information is needed. This information includes:

A clear definition of effectiveness. A clear description of the four basic styles in their more effective and less effective use. Some guidelines as to when each of the four basic styles would probably lead to a more effective outcome.
All this leads directly to the need for an introduction of a third dimension in addition to task and relationships. This third dimension is obviously, effectiveness. Effectiveness is defined as the extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of the position. For some positions and some situations the need may be for separated behaviour and for others it might be any of the other three basic styles. It is only by measuring effectiveness that one can determine whether a basic style is being used appropriately or not. There is a great deal of research to make it fairly obvious that there is no ideal style. The style must suit the situation; therefore styles must be varied and style flexibility must be the key. Styles either suit situations or they do not suit situations. Styles then are imbedded in situations where they are appropriate or imbedded in situations where they are inappropriate. EXHIBIT 6.9
Page 69
Styles are embedded in situations. Basic styles are used in situations which are inappropriate or appropriate to them The front of the exhibit is the plane of the four less effective styles, the middle is the four basic style plane and the back is the plane of more effectiveness. There are thus eight styles, which include all possible combinations of high and low on task and relationships and effectiveness and are called the Eight Managerial Styles of the 3-D Theory. Exhibit 6.9 has introduced a third dimension, in addition to task orientation and relationships orientation. This third dimension obviously is effectiveness. This exhibit shows another way of linking effectiveness, situation and style. The idea being conveyed is that the dedicated style may be used where it is inappropriate in which case it is called autocrat or the dedicated style may be used in a situation where it is appropriate and in this case it is called benevolent autocrat. The use of the dedicated style to ask your secretary for a cup of coffee is usually inappropriate and can be seen as autocratic. To use the dedicated style to shout, Fire, everyone get out would be seen as appropriate and the term autocratic would hardly apply. Eight style labels have been developed, each the subject of our next eight chapters, to describe the four basic styles used in situations where they are inappropriate and used in situations where they are appropriate. Exhibit 6.10 adds the eight labels. EXHIBIT 6.10
Page 70
The 3-D style model. The complete 3-D style model consists of four basic styles, four more effective managerial styles, and four less effective managerial styles These are called managerial styles to differentiate them from the four basic styles. Basic styles deal with types of behaviour with no comment on whether the behaviour is effective or not. The eight managerial styles deal with behaviour and the situation, and the level of effectiveness, indicating whether the style suits the situation or not. These eight managerial styles then are not eight additional kinds of behaviour. They are simply the names given to the four basic styles when used appropriately or inappropriately. By the use of both the basic and managerial styles, 3-D distinguishes sharply between behaviour and the effectiveness of behaviour.
How the third dimension works

A manager may move along the third dimension of effectiveness by matching the basic style to the needs of the situation. It is quite possible and reasonable for behaviour labelled deserter in one situation to be labelled bureaucrat in another. Managerial style, with its connotations of effectiveness, simply cannot be defined solely with reference to behaviour. It always must be defined with reference to the demands of the situation. When an assessment is made of managerial style, two things must be considered. One is the behaviour actually being used, expressed in TO and RO, and the other is the demands of the situation in which it is used. If the particular behaviour does not meet the demands of the situation, then one of the less effective style labels should be used to describe the situation. If the behaviour is appropriate to the situation, one of the more effective style labels is used instead. Managerial-style assessment thus includes what is a frequently unconscious assessment of behaviour. This twofold assessment is captured beautifully by such expressions as I am firm; you are obstinate;
Page 71
they are pigheaded. I am pragmatic; you are opportunistic; they are Machiavellian. Or I express ancient truths; you express received wisdom; they express stable platitudes. Or, I am impartial; you are a fence-sitter; they are straddlers. What some see as resilient, others see as rigid. They all may observe identical behaviour yet evaluate it quite differently. The best explanations of these differences is in terms of the perceptions about what the situation demands. If we think that that particular behaviour is appropriate to the situation, then we will give it a positive, more effective label, and vice versa. Coins have two sides. So too can most types of behaviour resulting in high or low effectiveness. It depends upon the situation and how the appropriateness of the behaviour to the situation is perceived. It happens in everyday life. This list shows how what is probably identical behaviour could be given quite different evaluation concerning effectiveness because of the observers reading of the situation as well as behaviour used. Style or situation? More Effective Warm-hearted Flexible Dignified Firm Businesslike Conservative Progressive Sensitive Dynamic Less Effective Sentimental Weak-minded Pompous Rigid Brusque Reactionary Left-wing Soft Overbearing To take another case, one might point out that many managerial jobs are purely administrative. They consist, essentially, of taking documents from an in-tray, applying a few decision rules to them, and
Page 72
placing them in an out-tray. Often the quantity of work coming to the in-tray is not within the control of the administrator, having only nominal subordinates, perhaps with similar pieces of paper going from the administrators out-tray to their in-tray. What style is required or even demanded for this work? Obviously, separated behaviour is ideal. A manager who could use separated behaviour in this job would be labelled bureaucrat. Suppose a sales manager or general supervisor behaved this way. They might be perceived and described as a deserter since separated behaviour in most work of their kind is highly inappropriate. Thus identical behaviour, as presented by the separated style, is effective in some jobs but not in others. It is clear from all this that a manager must know about, and the 3-D Theory must have a lot to say about, sizing up situations and about increasing style flexibility so that the right style can be used. The vital distinction between the more effective and less effective styles does not lie in managerial behaviour expressed in terms of TO and RO. Any amounts of either or both do not guarantee effectiveness. Effectiveness results from a styles appropriateness to the situation in which it is used. Thus the dedicated basic style, when inappropriately used, is perceived as and called autocrat, and when appropriately used it is perceived as and called benevolent autocrat. The less effective and more effective versions of the basic styles are shown in the following table:
As is evident from Exhibit 6.10, the separated style when used inappropriately is labelled deserter. When used appropriately, mainly concerned with system maintenance, the term bureaucrat is used. The related style when used inappropriately is called missionary. The same style when used appropriatelybecause the object is developing people rather than simply being nice to themis called developer. The dedicated style when used inappropriately is called autocrat and when used appropriately it is called benevolent autocrat. The integrated style when used inappropriately is called compromiser and when used appropriately is called executive. Exhibit 6.11 is the usual way of showing the eight styles alone. Exhibits 6.12 and 6.13 contain the definitions and indicators in detail. EXHIBIT 6.11
Page 73
The 3-D managerial style model. The middle plane may be omitted once the basic style concept is understood EXHIBIT 6.12
Four basic styles when used appropriately EXHIBIT 6.13
Page 74
Four basic styles when used inappropriately
Page 75
Section C YOUR EIGHT MANAGERIAL STYLES

7 Are You a Deserter? 8 Are You a Missionary? 9 Are You an Autocrat? 10 Are You a Compromiser? 11 Are You a Bureaucrat? 12 Are You a Developer? 13 Are You a Benevolent Autocrat? 14 Are You an Executive? 15 Your Dominant Style Combinations 16 What is Your Style Profile? 17 Research on Managerial Styles This section exclusively concerns managerial style. From it you will gain a much greater understanding of the eight managerial styles of the 3-D Theory. There is a chapter on each of the eight styles. Using the test you completed in Chapter Three you will obtain a good idea of how you scored on each of the styles. If your adjusted score for each managerial style is four or less, it is over-reject, ten is supporting and eleven or more is dominant.
Page 76
7. Are You a Deserter?
Some managers are quietly marking time until retirement. Desertion or minimum management involvement is a central organisation problem.
THE DESERTER manager is one who is using a low task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is therefore less effective. EXHIBIT 7.1
Deserter Indicators Works to rules/minimum output/gives up Avoids involvement/responsibility Gives few useful opinions or suggestions Uncreative/unoriginal/narrow-minded Hinders others/makes things difficult Resists change/uncooperative Shows little concern about errors and usually does little to correct or reduce them
Some things the deserter might say include:

The boss is asking about that report and is getting hot about it. I dont know why, its not that important. If you dont understand it, forget it. If at first you dont succeed, give up. I love my job; its the work I hate. Mistakes are bound to happen, particularly when I give them a little help. Thinkthere must be a harder way to do the job. Lets send the whole thing back to a committee. I really cannot give an opinion on that.
Page 77
I really enjoy work. I can sit and watch it for hours. There is just no reason for itits just some company policy. I dont know and I dont care. Some things others might say about deserters include: They have a great labour saving devicetomorrow. Theyve stopped drinking tea or coffee in the morning because it keeps them awake the rest of the day.
Deserter behaviour and effects

The deserter can be seen as scar tissue on the organisation. They may have been kicked upstairs, kicked downstairs, ignored, badly treated and now they want to get their own back. The main emphasis for deserters is survival. They may watch hungrily for the clock to approach five, so that they can get out of work immediately. They do not want to make any waves and will usually agree to anything. Deserter managers are essentially separated managers in the wrong situation. They are seen as the ones who often show their lack of interest in both task and relationships. They are less effective not only because of their lack of interest but also because of their effect on morale. They may be seen not only as shirking their own duties but also as hindering the performance of others through intervention or by withholding information. In its refined form and in modern organisations desertion is likely to reveal itself in resistance to change or in accepting change and then quietly sabotaging it; making all things difficult, withholding information up or down, aiming for minimum output, impeding others, and lowering moraledeserter managers use the whole range. Desertion is to be found more often in the large company, where it is more easily hidden, than in the small company. Organisation life can be seen as a game, and as in games, people sometimes get hurt. Some are hurt deliberately and some accidentally; sometimes no one else knows it; sometimes the hurt is imaginary. Deserter managers often feel they have been hurt and have never got over it. This may be a result of change that was clumsily introduced. They may be people kicked aside, kicked downstairs, or just ignored. No matter what the case, the important thing is that they think they have been treated unfairly. They have decided that they will try to ignore the demands of the organisation as much as possible. Their avoidance of task and relationships is often handled in highly sophisticated ways so that only close observation will disclose it. Deserters are more to be pitied than anything else because they have usually been made deserters by a major management error. People do not come to organisations acting this way. They are driven to it. The issue for managers is not only how to change the style of deserters but also to prevent more deserters being created. Deserter behaviour is often a general example of displaced aggression which is turned towards an essentially innocent party. In its simplest form, it is the managers who would like to have a shouting match
Page 78
with their superiors but instead have one with subordinates. This unjustified attack is certainly being nasty, but it is not autocracy since no task orientation is involved. It is best called desertion. Aggression may be turned toward oneself so that the person may become accident-prone in the physical or administrative sense. Such displacement helps the managers using it but seldom helps the organisation. It is of considerable value to managers because it enables them to express aggression without incurring retaliation from the individuals they really fear. Displacement is essentially desertion because the real problem is not faced. In addition, the displacement may become so deviant that the deserters action leads to direct harm to the organisation. The deserter managers aim for output just high enough to keep people from bothering them. They may remain uninvolved by pleading insufficient information. They follow up very slowly, like to send things to committees in order to bury them, and want minimum involvement. They develop a wondrous array of techniques to accomplish this. As they do not do too much anyway, and often enjoy their desertion, they have the time and inclination to invent creative ways to inhibit change. Deserter managers are skilled at avoiding responsibility. They know how to use separated techniques as tools to slow things down, sometimes to a halt. They will use the letter rather than the spirit of the regulations. Often they will point to the rules to prove they cannot make a decision. They know how to use the system to pass the buck and to avoid sticking their necks out. They limit their discretionary powers to a vanishing point. Those subjected to their behaviour call it red tape. Above all, the deserter wants to avoid responsibility. This can be taken to its limits. One deserter, a true story, drank at least two bottles of gin every day in the office. This deserter was the top public servant in a medium-sized town and was obviously seen as rather easy to get along with and, not so obviously, was seen as being a truly fantastic developer of subordinates. On one occasion a major and unusual crisis arose involving the lives of many people and the possible destruction of a great deal of property. The deserter called in a subordinate and basically said, I trust you, you look after it. The subordinate did a very good job. While the behaviour might look like that of a developer, it still was desertion. To avoid responsibility the deserter obviously wants to pass things upstairs, downstairs, or sideways or hide them or say its too difficult or its already been done. The favourite technique of the deserter in poorly designed organisations is to do nothing about something and hope that it will go away. It often does, in badly designed organisations. For instance, they may ask whether the approval to initiate the task has been fully cleared. They may ask whether the project is fully defined. If they think they are in a strong enough position, they will simply turn it down, perhaps on the grounds that it is against their principles or simply is not their job. They may do all this in a forthright and even aggressive way to mask their underlying desertion. If a decision is likely to be a particularly sticky or complex one, deserter managers will postpone action on it. At the extreme this may take the ostrich approach of head in the sandbelieving that to ignore a problem is likely to send it away. More often their action will be to pass the file to others, pigeonhole it, or raise complex procedural questions concerning it. By these devices the deserter buys time but may pay for it with interest when the decision has to be confronted. Small problems when
Page 79
delayed sometimes go away; they also sometimes magnify. Separated managers can easily revert to desertion by using the organisations rules against itself. A popular worker parallel to this form of sabotage is the work-to-rule strategy. By following all procedures to the letter, slowdowns inevitably result; managers sometimes have sophisticated work-to-rule programmes of their own. They may be ingenious and disguised, but the effects are the same. Deserters have the amazing ability to act as computers at the most inopportune time. They can rattle off detailed facts and arguments to prove that a particular plan is unworkable. They know all the reasons why things cannot be done. This may often be facilitated by a high verbal fluency and an intellectual camouflage. Deserters who can use statistics well are often hard to spot for what they are, and sometimes hard to stop. If inappropriate deserter behaviour is prolonged, managers can actually come to find it satisfying to obstruct and resist others. They may be quite willing to endure discomfort themselves, for the pleasure of maintaining their negative stand. A very clear example of this is the people who pursue a course of action knowing that it will eventually lead to their exclusion from the group or the company. To maintain this immature behaviour, a face-saving device is essential. It is usually some principle, some rule, or set of procedures which deserters claim are inviolate. Deserter managers can make deserters of their subordinates. Less experienced subordinates may be led to believe that desertion is a reasonable response to the organisation so long as they do not get caught. Others may move to desertion in disgust at their superiors behaviour and in their knowledge that they have no power to change the situation. There is usually no incentive to work effectively for a deserter superior because the rewards and recognition may be low or even in the wrong direction. Deserter managers generally prefer to avoid loose, open, unstructured personal conflict so, instead, use the files or rules as weapons. These may be used to attack just as surely as the sword. They usually like to keep a copy of every memo they send and use them as alibi papers to prove they took action. Deserters will often resist, inhibit, or even prevent major change by using outdated but unreplaced rules. Some deserters are ambitious, and in a company with poor managerial measurement devices they may well advance. Many problems can be avoided for years, such as the low-performing subordinate, the major restructuring of a policy or procedure, the extensive survey of markets, customers, or technologies, and the provision for management succession. Deserters may lead quiet, cordial lives putting off all these problems for their successors. They keep the lid on until they have gone. The crisis is their successors problem, not their own. Incompetent senior management may not spot this desertion for years and may think the successors are incompetent because they seem to have so many new problems with which to deal. Ambitious deserter managers can exist in an organisation with poor control techniques and a poor reward-and-punishment system. These managers usually develop skills in personal effectiveness and apparent effectiveness but are not directly concerned with their managerial effectiveness. Deserters may become so concerned over status rather than managerial effectiveness that they become empire builders. They are interested in increasing their personal effectiveness by enlarging their apparent importance. They will spend an inordinate amount of time in scheming to obtain more
Page 80
subordinates, more space, and more power. All this may have no real relationship to the actual demands of the position. They are interested in make-work projects which will add subordinates, more or less permanently. Some forms of desertion are founded in avoidance behaviour designed to protect the manager from threatening situations. Some deserters are simply scared. They say, No! or are stubborn because to do otherwise might expose them, they believe, to situations difficult to face. Some emotionally immature managers resort to what is essentially childish behaviour in an attempt to solve their adult problem. Their behaviour might be the equivalent of a temper tantrum or sulking. Psychologists call this regression. The particular form it takes depends on what behaviour was successful for the manager during early development. Normal amounts of regression are apparent when people revert to adolescent behaviour at conventions and reunions. Abnormal amounts lead to desertion. These managers have not had an opportunity to grow up. Like spoiled children who find things different at boarding school, deserters decide to withdraw and so inhibit the development of their own social maturity. In boarding schools, as in organisations, we see those who have psychologically fled from their surroundings. They are quiet, friendless, unnoticed, little respected. The rituals of the institution carry them on, beginning with the 8.00 a.m. chapel or the opening of the mail, but they might as well not be there. Do deserters come to an organisation acting that way? Very few come to organisations planning to act as deserters; most are driven to it. It is better to ask How do we avoid creating more? than How can we get rid of them? The main way to do it is change their situation. The deserter manager wants to remain a bystander while not making it too obvious. Occasionally, the deserter manager may make more effort than usual if they deem it necessary to disguise the desertion. Most times deserters are cheery and friendly, particularly to those superior to them, simply to avoid the disguise being penetrated. Obviously, the deserter does not want to draw attention. Too close attention might reveal the level of desertion. So, the deserter avoids conflict, avoids responsibility as much as possible, avoids meetings where possible and prefers not to give opinions. If the effects of the behaviour were not so unfortunate the observation of the deserter at meetings would be a delight to behold. Normally the deserters chair is the greater distance from the table than others present. The deserter may well be leaning back. If the deserter smokes at all it will certainly be smoking there as another method of distancing. The deserter says little but often nods in acquiescence as long as it would not draw conflict. The biggest giveaway of desertion behaviour is the thunderous silence that is maintained. If forced into a position to give an opinion, the deserter uses compromise. Should the deserter chair the meeting then it is pretty certain that everyone will have their full say. So, grey, acceptable decisions will be made. Minutes might be kept but the chance for followup or even distribution is slight. The deserter is little interested in getting the work done, not too interested in contributing, appears to listen but doesnt, makes no attempt at creativity except on how to shorten a meeting, and has no real interest in the decision. The sophisticated deserter develops a variety of verbal and non-verbal techniques to maintain an air of involvement. This might be good eye contact with the speaker, nodding ones head as the speaker proceeds, making quiet, positive grunts now and again, even asking a question though seldom delivering an opinion. Obviously, many of these things could indicate
Page 81
high involvement but the deserter uses them as a mask. Sometimes deserters learn to do things with their mouths that prevent them from speaking. This might be smoking, chewing or sucking something edible or inedible, such as the frame of eyeglasses. The deserter is highly creative about methods of avoiding the desertion being observed. In fact, at times so creative, that it takes a keen observer to recognise a deserter. The deserter quickly identifies with methods of maintaining apparent effectiveness in the organisation and uses these. The apparent effectiveness may relate to being in on time, having reports in on time, submitting long reports, being very deferent to seniors or simply being a good person. Obviously, in organisations where apparent effectiveness is given high value, desertion is encouraged. In organisations where managerial effectiveness is given high value, desertion is hard to maintain. Deserters may or may not be deserters outside of work. If they are deserters with respect to their outside work life, such as with their families and hobbies, it is probable that the desertion reflects behaviour learned very young and has become part of the basic personality structure. More often, the desertion is work-specific. Away from work the deserter may well be active in other jobs, in the community, with the family and in many other ways. It is, of course, this kind of deserter who is most amenable to change. It is obvious that, given the right conditions, the deserter behaviour need not exist. Deserters, rather naturally, are very interested in pensions. They do not want to perform, they want to get out. Many deserters know the pension rights in full detail and, of course, try and change them to make things better for themselves. The whole orientation is not where we are and the work we are doing and our current effectiveness areas. The orientation is, how quickly can we get out of here, and how much can we get when we go. Pure desertion. In a study of 970 managers, we looked at whether any of the eight styles occurred at particular levels in an organisation hierarchy. There was no differentiation in the number of deserters at the various levels. They exist at all levels. They are the people marking time until retirement. Some start young, some end old.
Your deserter score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted scores on the deserter scale. It is the last line under A. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of deserter. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of deserter. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the deserter style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.
Page 82
Changing your behaviour

The statements below reflect deserter behaviour. As you see they reflect deserter behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to decrease your deserter score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I do not show too much interest in maintaining good relationships with those above me. 2. Coworkers I do not give as much priority as I should in maintaining good relationships with other departments. 3. Subordinates I do not show too much interest in my subordinates 4. Staff Advisers I feel it is not usually worth the effort to cooperate with staff advisers. 5. Unions I have little sympathy or interest in unions and what they stand for. 6. Customers I have little interest in myself or others maintaining sound relationships with the customers. 7. General Public I believe the company should have little or no concern with the interests of the general public. 8. Creativity I believe the value of creativity, change and innovation is often over emphasised. 9. Objectives I think that the idea of setting overall objectives can be over done. 10. Planning I think that planning is not really as important as some people think. 11. Change Introduction I think that the actual introduction of a change requires little effort on my part. 12. Implementation
Page 83
I am not too interested in the actual implementation of decisions. 13. Controls I am not too interested in control procedures. 14. Evaluation I believe that evaluation and review are often overstressed. 15. Productivity I am not too interested in improving productivity just for its own sake. 16. Communication I could supply much more useful information to others than I do. 17. Conflict I avoid conflict even when facing it could be useful. 18. Errors I show little concern about errors and usually do little to correct or reduce them. 19. Meetings I do not seem interested in meetings even when they might be useful. 20. Team Work I have no opinion one way or the other about the team approach to management.
Page 84
8. Are You a Missionary?
Some managers have no philosophy and their style is essentially that of the bland leading the bland.
THE MISSIONARY manager is one who is using high relationships orientation and low task orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is therefore less effective. EXHIBIT 8.1
Missionary Indicators Avoids conflict Pleasant/kind/warm Seeks acceptance of self/dependent Makes things easier Avoids initiation/passive/gives no direction Unconcerned with outputs and standards At first sign of conflict attempts to smooth things over Some things the missionary might say include: The boss is asking about that report. I hope that it wont inconvenience you to let me know how it is coming when you have the time. Fringe benefits should always be increased rather than profits. Look after the people and the organisation will look after itself. Argument and conflict never solved anything. The best company is a harmonious company. Harmony leads directly to higher morale and productivity. Conflict is a negative human quality. Day by day, in every way, people are getting better and better.
Page 85
I changed my mind to minimise the chance that someone might be hurt. Keep people happy and they will look after the rest. Some things others might say about missionaries include: They like to do things the herd way, not the hard way. They treat subordinates with great kindness and consideration. They allow subordinates to set their own objectives according to their needs and accept them even if somewhat unsatisfactory. They believe that if an error occurs it should be corrected in such a way that no one will be upset. When a missionary is asked to jump by the superior, there is only one response, How high?
Missionary behaviour and effects

Missionary managers are ones using the related style in a situation in which it is inappropriate. Missionary managers are basically kindly souls who put happy relationships above all other considerations. They are ineffective because their desire to see themselves and be seen as good people prevent them from risking even mild disagreement in order to improve production. Missionary managers believe that happy people produce more. They attempt to run their departments like a social club because they believe that production is less important than good fellowship. They strive to create a warm, pleasant social atmosphere where an easy going work tempo may be maintained. Kind and pleasant to everyone, they never want to rock the boat for fear that someone may get upset. The missionary may not go so far as to see work as unnecessary but certainly wants it to be undemanding on self and on others. Work is arranged so it will have the slightest impact on what people would like to do naturally themselves. The people-first attitude produces a happy place in which to work. Little emphasis is given to control, productivity measures, performance feedback loops. Quite obviously, any form of management by objectives would be anathema. In fact, many organisations use management by objectives as a device to change a missionary organisation into something else. Clearly, the missionary puts morale first and productivity second. The assumption is that unless morale is very high, production will be very low. There is, of course, some merit to this line of thought but it can be carried to extremes. The basic assumption is that if the manager keeps everyone happy then the work will look after itself. Most managers do not object to high morale, but only a few managers would give it their virtual exclusive attention. The problem with morale and the missionary is that the missionary does not see morale simply as a desirable or necessary condition, but it is seen as virtually the only condition. Missionary managers spend much of their time trying to find ways to make things easier for their people. If you want one person, they will give you two; if you want to exceed their budget, they will immediately consent. Their attitude toward conflict leads to poor management and low output. They think
Page 86
that conflict is out of place in an organisation, that no good ideas are developed by an argument, and that mature people never argue. When conflict arises, they smother it with concern for the feelings involved. They deal with hot issues by waiting for them to cool down. They are masters at pouring oil on troubled waters and so avoid dealing with the problems beneath. The missionaries management style is less effective because they always put human problems first in situations where they may not really demand priority. They avoid those who argue and prefer that difficult human problems be solved by transfer, promotion, or pay rises. The missionary wants to be liked. At the extreme, the missionary wants to be dependent upon others. This particular mode of behaviour may have been learned while young and carried into adult and work life. Or, it might simply be a convenient way of avoiding an unpleasant work situation. The missionary has learned only too well that, If I like people, they will like me. The orientation is not really toward liking others, it is to being liked by them. In some work settings this highly supportive behaviour can lead to effectiveness and then this kind of behaviour may be called developer. But, in many situations, simply liking others does not lead to increased effectiveness. Probably, the most serious weakness of missionary behaviour is the avoidance of conflict. The missionary puts being liked first, not effectiveness first. This leads to real problems being smothered or, in sophisticated ways, being ignored. Obviously, the missionary would find it very difficult to criticise a subordinate. What can be as bad, the missionary cannot take criticism. It leads the missionary to despair and desertion. The missionary takes criticism as a personal insult. But, because of the missionary orientation, there is no way to handle what is perceived as a slight. The criticism, being taken personally, does not lead to job improvement. The criticism most probably, was of a particular work behaviour but the missionary believes that it is personality that is being objected to. Missionaries want to believe that they are good people but are not sure about it so must continually prove it to others. They naturally discuss all issues. They are willing to change their mind to keep the peace. What is worse, they think this is always the best thing to do. Missionary managers carry identification with others too far and for the wrong reasons. They may identify so strongly with their subordinates and their personal needs that they essentially join them. They give up their roles as managers. The main thing to know about the missionary is that when they smile at you, they are not saying I like you, they are saying, I want you to like me. It is dependent behaviour. Missionaries are easy to get on with. They are driven by, rather than driving, the situation. They are serving their own needs, as are all the less effective styles. The missionary manager leads from behind. The point of view taken is that you find out where the group wants to go and then you help them get there. The management role is abdicated. Obviously, all this goes down very well with some types of subordinates, but not with more astute ones who have an interest in managerial and organisational effectiveness. Managers who have worked most of their lives in dedicated production-type settings can hardly believe that missionaries can exist anywhere. They do exist and you find them where there are few deadlines, poor measures of effectiveness, an unlimited budget and high market control. These kinds of things can arise in government, educational institutions, and some types of financial institutions.
Page 87
The behaviour of a missionary in a meeting is fairly easy to predict. Obviously, there will be a relaxed attitude. Most things will be agreed with. Criticism is virtually completely avoided. Everyone must have their say, for as long as they like. The meetings start late and run for a long time. Very often three meetings are held where perhaps one was needed. The decisions made, if any, will be ones to which as many people as possible can agree. The listening level is very high because to not listen at length might hurt feelings.
Your missionary score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the missionary scale. It is the last line under B. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of missionary. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of missionary. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the missionary style, that is, you use it very little, if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.

The statements below reflect missionary behaviour. As you see they reflect missionary behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to decrease your missionary score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I try to avoid disagreements with higher management even though this may lower my own or my subordinates productivity. 2. Coworkers I prefer to cooperate and thus avoid any disagreement with other departments. 3. Subordinates I treat subordinates with great kindness and consideration. 4. Staff Advisers I go out of my way to cooperate with staff advisers. I want to make them feel that they are needed.
Page 88
5. Unions I go out of my way to cooperate with union representatives and to keep them as happy as possible. 6. Customers I believe in maintaining good customer relationships even at high cost to the company. 7. General Public I believe that the general public must be kept content at all times even though productivity might fall. 8. Creativity I think that many new ideas lead to unnecessary disagreement and friction. 9. Objectives I allow subordinates to set their own objectives according to their needs and accept them even if somewhat unsatisfactory. 10. Planning I prefer to let individuals set their own plans as long as they do not interfere with the plans of others. 11. Change Introduction I try to introduce changes very gradually so no one will become upset. 12. Implementation I tolerate deviations in implementing plans if this will avert unpleasantness. 13. Controls I overlook violations of any kind if it helps to make things run more smoothly. 14. Evaluation I usually say that a good job has been done whether or not it was really satisfactory. 15. Productivity I believe the proper treatment of people is more important than productivity. 16. Communication I communicate with others so as to maintain good relationships above all else. 17. Conflict At the first sign of conflict I attempt to smooth things over.
Page 89
18. Errors I believe that if an error occurs it should be corrected in such a way that no one will be upset. 19. Meetings I like meetings to run harmoniously. 20. Team Work I believe that team meetings are good primarily because they get people to talk together more.
Page 90
9. Are You an Autocrat?
One ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gains; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have said before, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails. MACHIAVELLI
THE AUTOCRAT manager is one who is using a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is therefore less effective. EXHIBIT 9.1
Autocrat Indicators Critical/threatening Makes decisions Demands obedience/suppresses conflict Wants action and results immediately Downward communication only Acts without consultation Feared/disliked More interested in day-to-day productivity than in long run productivity Performance maidtained through subtle threatening situation. Some things the autocrat might say include:
Page 91
The boss is asking about that report, and is hot about it and so am I. Get on the ball and lets get some action here. Stop talking while I am interrupting. Let me have your ideas even if it costs you your job. My mind is made up, dont confuse me with the facts. Let me have your opinionI havent had a good argument in days. Be reasonabledo it my way. In case you think this is merely a suggestion, you might bear in mind the source. Dont do as I do, do as I say. Some things others might say about the autocrat include: The rough exterior covers a heart of flint. Some call them a pain in the neck and some people have an even lower opinion of them. They think they are big shots just because they explode.
Autocrat behaviour and effects

The autocrat arises when dedicated behaviour is used inappropriately. Autocrat managers are usually perceived as ones who put the immediate task above all other considerations. They are less effective in that they make it obvious that they have no concern for relationships and have little confidence in other people. While many fear them, they also dislike them and are thus motivated to work well only when under direct pressure. Autocrat managers cannot understand why so many people are uncooperative. They do not fully realise that cooperation, to them, means doing it their way. Autocrat managers are perceived as ones who believe that the average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition, and wants security above all. Autocrat managers thus do not fully utilise the capabilities of others. Autocrats sometimes suffer from what might be called the bicycle theory of leadership. Keep your backs bent to those above you while trampling on those beneath. It is essentially the totalitarian style. Some autocrats expect to be treated autocratically and even like it. It serves many needs. One need it serves is to justify treating others that way as well. The autocrat likes to dominate. This domination can take a variety of forms. It might simply be lots of orders, many unnecessary, being given. It might be rearranging information flow or work flow so that references must often be made to the autocrat for work to proceed. It might be insistence on seeing certain documentation, close control of expense accounts, extensive use of notice boards and other such things to put the autocrat firmly in power. The bureaucrat manager, Chapter Eleven, also behaves in some of these ways but for a quite different motivation. The bureaucrat wants order, not power over others. The autocrat is usually fairly easy to spot. While it can happen with other styles, the office is usually loaded with paper files and sometimes charts. This can, of course, be functional at times but it is common
Page 92
with the autocrat and usually not functional. The autocrat prefers to talk a lot and usually talks loudly. Certainly, the autocrat talks unnecessarily very often. Thinking it is important, the autocrat tends to move more quickly than other managers as if everything cannot wait. Unconsciously, this rapid movement is made just to increase visibility and give the air of apparent effectiveness. Autocrat managers see workers as extensions of machines. A subordinates job is to follow orders, nothing more. The job of the boss is to plan in detail every aspect of the subordinates job. Autocrats do not know what motivate means. Their view of work is simple: some people order and others obey, They think that the best committee is the one-person committee, that people work best alone, and that the job of the manager is to generate fear and immediate action. They provide no way to be imaginative. They do not understand the need for recognition by others. The autocrat handles conflict very poorly. In fact, the autocrat has no way to handle it. The autocrat sees conflict, except anything that has been planned by the autocrat, as a direct challenge to authority. Also, managing conflict well normally requires some understanding of the other persons point of view. The autocrat has not got such understanding. Naturally, then, the autocrat wants to eliminate conflict as much as possible. Where the deserter might walk away from it and the missionary might smother it with nice feelings, the autocrat tries to stamp it out. In conflict the autocrat naturally moves to a win-lose situation. The game plan is that the autocrat will win and the other party will lose. So, things become black and white, attempting to understand is never part of the conflict resolution and the winning of the argument becomes far more important than the quality of the decision. Not being able to handle conflict well unfortunately drives the autocrat to even higher levels of autocracy. The autocrat, quite commonly, is driven to a do it or else approach. Even a hardened autocrat may not want to go that far but it may be the only option the autocrat sees in the face of conflict. One popular conflict suppression technique is to simply announce a decision and then walk away from any comment concerning it. This is sometimes done through a notice board, an impersonal memo or simply making a bald statement at the end of a meeting or at the beginning of a very short one. Autocrat managers have a powerful effect on the organisation and do not know it. They help to produce grapevines, cliques, troublemakers, and deserters. At best, they get blind obedience; at worst, they get desertion. Autocrats believe that threats motivate. They might be the sales managers who say, If you get to meet your quota, you get to keep your job. Autocrat managers will get work accomplished, of course. The accomplishments, however, will be far short of potential. In addition, this style does not provide for a solid foundation of continued performance, and it certainly provides no lasting satisfaction for subordinates. Subordinates tend to withdraw from autocrat managers and this can lead to further aggressive behaviour by the autocrat. They want to bridge the gap but have no means for doing so, except by using more controls. Their notion of closeness is agreement on the demands of the technological system, not the human one. Close supervision, probably more appropriately called snoopervision, is a hallmark of the autocrat. The autocrat simply wants to watch everything possible. This directly lowers the autocrats own work effectiveness, because there is so much to do, and certainly lowers the effectiveness of others whose work is being watched because of the motivational effect. The autocrat, has a fascination with
Page 93
detail, not for its own sake, but simply as a way of maintaining a strong power relationship. The close supervision always arises from the autocrats lack of trust in others. Autocrats drive subordinates to desertion or into acting as autocrats themselves with their own subordinates. Obviously, autocrat behaviour arouses resentment because it is quite clear that the autocrat has no interest in the individual at all. If some interest should be shown, it is quite clear that it is only to facilitate the task in some way. Some good subordinates who want to be effective act autocratically toward the autocrat manager. This sometimes works and sometimes does not. Most, however, just simply withdraw their labour and move into quiet apathy, characteristic of desertion. They just do not care. The autocrat created these conditions. Subordinates of autocrats usually hide their errors from the autocrat. They believe that, What the boss does not know will not hurt. What they really are doing is hurting the boss, it is a way of getting their own back. Also, some are not receptive to the idea of an even higher level of autocracy which errors might give rise to. With experience the autocrat learns a great variety of punishment techniques. These may be what amounts to personal insults, using harsh words when not so harsh ones would convey the message as well, ignoring communications either verbal or written, criticising someone harshly in front of others, not inviting people to meetings and withholding decisions unnecessarily. This punishment may or may not be to hurt the other party but a component of it almost always is to let the other party know who is boss. The autocrat often creates autocracy in subordinates. This can arise for a variety of quite different reasons. One is that the autocrats behaviour drives the subordinates to aggressive childlike behaviour themselves and they may simply identify with the autocrat and blindly copy the style being used. The autocrat may deliberately encourage fighting amongst subordinates as this strengthens the autocrats position as the person who must sort things out, and be obeyed later. The decision-making techniques of the autocrat must be rather obvious. The autocrat believes that the best decision is made by one person, preferably without prior consultation. The decision is best announced impersonally. Possibly by memo. Should the autocrat use others to help with the decision, it is probably because the autocrat believes, Let them all have their say to make them think they had a part to play in the decision. In the autocrats decision-making process, little or no consideration is given to individual differences. As people are simply an extension of machines, they may be treated as machines themselves. There is little doubt that the autocrat can affect the health of subordinates. Most of this poor health is stress related and may take many forms such as alcoholism, days off work for a variety of minor ailments, heart attacks and ulcers. In similar fashion, autocrats can have a similar kind of impact on themselves; they make, or try to make, so much more work in a job than is needed that they can at times simply work themselves to death. When an autocrat runs a meeting the behaviour and its effects are reasonably predictable. The autocrat will want to sit in the dominant position. If the table is long and narrow, the autocrat will sit at the top and there probably would not be a chair at the other end. If there is a flip chart and markers, they will be by the autocrats hand. The autocrat will do most of the talking and will normally start with quite a lot to say just to establish early dominance. The autocrats mind is probably made up in advance and the meeting may well be some form of pseudo-participation. The autocrat would encourage short comments
Page 94
rather than longer ones. If anyone makes a longer comment, then autocrats might see their position of power being threatened. The autocrat, being relatively intense, will sit close to the table, probably closer than anyone else, because some of the others, in any case, have been moved to deserter or missionary behaviour. The summing up will be by the autocrat and it will be essentially their decision that will be summed up. In many ways autocrats are simply not in the picture. They want to use more power than their position has, they are more task oriented than the technology demands, and they are less sensitive to relationships than they should be.
Your autocrat score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the autocrat scale. It is the last line under C. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of autocrat. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of autocrat. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the autocrat style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you, yet again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.

The statements below reflect autocrat behaviour. As you see they reflect autocrat behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to decrease your autocrat score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I want to do my job with as little interference from those above as possible. 2. Coworkers I believe in doing my job by myself and prefer little involvement with managers of other departments. 3. Subordinates I direct the work of my subordinates and discourage deviation from my plans. 4. Staff Advisers I tend to avoid or to argue with staff advisers thinking they often know little of
Page 95
the practical side of things. 5. Unions I think that union representatives are a nuisance and I prefer to have little to do with them. 6. Customers I believe my job is to supply a product and the feelings of customers should have little effect on me or the company policy. 7. General Public I believe that what the general public thinks should not influence the company unduly. 8. Creativity I think new ideas from below are often less useful than those from above. 9. Objectives Deviations from the specific objectives I set for others are discouraged. 10. Planning I see planning as a one person job and do not usually involve others or their ideas. 11. Change Introduction I think the best way to introduce change is to make an announcement and then let people get on with it. 12. Implementation I watch implementation of plans closely, point out errors and criticise where necessary. 13. Controls I insist that others follow procedures exactly but sometimes object if I am told to do so. 14. Evaluation I evaluate individuals personally. I frequently point out their good and bad points and criticise where necessary. 15. Productivity I seem more interested in day-to-day productivity than in long run productivity. 16. Communication
Page 96
I am not always as receptive as I might be when others communicate with me and I am good at shooting down ideas. 17. Conflict When disagreement arises I take a firm stand. 18. Errors I believe that when errors occur the person responsible should be reprimanded. 19. Meetings I tend to be dominant at meetings. 20. Team Work I believe in one person, one job, well done.
Page 97
10. Are You a Compromiser?
There is nothing in the world more pitiable than an irresolute person, vacillating between two feelings, who would willingly unite the two, and who does not perceive that nothing can unite them. GOETHE A compromiser who was asked whether it was difficult to make decisions said Well, yes and no.
THE COMPROMISER manager is one who is using a high task orientation and a high relationships orientation in a situation that requires a high orientation to only one or neither and who is therefore less effective. The compromiser is a classic case of low situational sensitivity. The style arises from not knowing when to use task or relationships. EXHIBIT 10.1
Compromiser Indicators Overuses participation Yielding/weak Avoids decisions Produces grey acceptable decisions Idealist/ambiguous Sometimes encourages new ideas but does not always follow up on too many of them.
Some things the compromiser might say include:

The boss is asking about that report. Are you busy now? Can you try and get something down on paper as soon as you have the time. You can convince some of the people some of the time and thats usually enough to get by with. Any plan is really a best fit or simply a balance among the conflicting demands of the
Page 98
organisation. I want all my people to think my way but only after they have really understood and accepted it. I used to have a hard time making up my mindnow, Im not so sure.
Some things others might say about the compromiser include:

They are always trying to save both faces. That manager has three hats: one to cover the head, one to toss in the ring, and one to talk through. Theyre real decisive types, youll always get a definite maybe. There are no one armed compromisers... (on the one hand...!). Do you have difficulty in making decisions? Blake and Mouton propose a 5,5 style which is quite similar to compromiser (Blake, Mouton 1985, pp. 78-81). They describe behaviour along these lines: The following words and phrases give the flavour of the 5,5-oriented manager as described in daily activities: AccommodatesCautious Compromises-ConformistEvasive when challengedExpedientIndirectLikes the tried-and-true NegotiatesPrefers middle groundPulls punchesSandwiches bad between good comments Soft-pedals disagreementStays on majority side-Straddles issues-Swallows convictions in the interest of progressTests the windWafflesWaits to see where others stand?
Compromiser behaviour and effects

The integrated style, when used less effectively, is known as the compromiser. One of the main things to observe about the compromiser is the degree to which they change their minds. They tend to agree with the last person they see. Compromiser managers are essentially ones who see advantages in being oriented to both task and relationships but who are in jobs where only one or the other or neither is needed or who are incapable or unwilling to integrate these ideas and to make sound decisions. Ambivalence and compromise are seen to be their stock in trade. The strongest influence in their decision making process tends to be the most recent or heaviest pressure. They try to minimise immediate problems rather than maximise long-term production. The essence of the compromiser is being unsure. The compromiser is unsure whether to use high task or low task, high relationships or low relationships. The compromiser is confused. The confusion expresses itself in many ways. The basic confusion is whether one should use high task and high relationships or not. The compromiser does not read the situation well. The compromiser is uninformed about the reality. The comments the compromiser makes indicate lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation. These comments may well reflect the immediate presenting situation but not reflect the basic understanding of what the real problem is. In short, the compromiser takes it. This is the essence. Not reading the situation well, the compromiser is cautious. The compromiser wants to get away with
Page 99
anything as soon as possible. It could be true to say that of the four less effective styles the compromiser is, potentially, the most effective. At least the compromiser tries. The compromiser style, though, tries in several directions. The compromiser is not too hard, not too soft and not too evasive. The essence of the compromiser is low situational sensitivity. The compromiser does not know what button to push. So the compromiser pushes all the buttons available. The compromiser has a problem in role clarification. At a personal level that might be called a crisis of identity. Essentially, the question for the compromiser is Where am I? What am I? Where am I supposed to go? What am I supposed to do? What are my effectiveness areas? This basic confusion leads the compromiser directly into less effective behaviour. Not knowing who you are, what you are and what your role is, can only cause confusion in self and from the behaviour this generates, confusion in others. Compromisers, as the name suggests, never do anything well. They push, but not too hard. Whereas they would not condone very poor performance, they show that they do not expect high performance. Compromiser managers are convinced that optimum production is a dream, think that any plan must be a series of compromises and thus look only for what will work in the short term. Compromisers sometimes use participative techniques when they are clearly inappropriate. It may be that the decision is already made, that the decision to be made is trite, or that the subordinates are in no mood, because of expectations or skill, to engage in participation. Under such circumstances, the decision will almost certainly be poorer than the one managers might have made on their own. It is likely to be a compromise decision which resolved nothing. The compromiser is prey to existing practices, procedures and expectations. The reason for this is that, having no internal clear direction, the compromiser must look for direction elsewhere. So, the compromiser tends to agree with the last person in the office, to follow the rules, to respond to expectations of subordinates even though they might lead to low effectiveness and, to do anything else which keeps things on an even keel and so requires no real thought. The compromiser can have wide interests in various management techniques. The key word is various. The compromiser may be well read in management, interested in taking a variety of courses, interested in meeting people with new ideas and appears keen to learn. The problem is this learning covers too wide a field. The compromiser, not knowing what effectiveness areas really are and being unclear about the role, scans too widely. Compromisers can be very well informed but not sufficiently well informed about the right things. As the title suggests, the compromiser is interested in what will work rather than what is best. The compromiser is very interested in using words such as excellence which is meaningless or optimum which is also meaningless, rather than effectiveness which is measurable. To avoid thinking, the compromiser tends to use intellectualisation as a defence. That is, to discuss the broader issues of the day rather than the precise issue of the moment. The essence of the problem of the compromiser is that the compromiser is unclear on how to achieve the outputs necessary. The compromiser does not know whether to push the task button or push the relationships button. So, the compromiser pushes a bit of each but not too hard. This leads to poor
Page 100
decision making and results in low effectiveness based on the compromisers low situational sensitivity. The compromiser believes in being fair but firm. Obviously, this can be highly desirable in some situations but the compromiser carries it to extremes. The reason the compromiser is fair but firm is that the compromiser is unclear whether to be firmer or fairer. Sometimes one needs to be very firm and sometimes one needs to be very fair. The compromiser, not knowing what is appropriate in a particular situation tries both always. Like the bureaucrat, the compromiser respects the rules and past procedures and practices. However, while the bureaucrat does this for conformity, the compromiser does it for simplicity. The bureaucrat wants to follow existing procedures closely to simplify and lower variety. The compromiser does it to provide a sense of direction and requires little creative thought. Obviously, the compromiser sets objectives which are relatively easy to obtain, and therefore, meets them, The objectives the compromiser sets are, in fact, predictions of what will happen anyway rather than objectives that will be achieved by superior performance. The best way to lower the compromiser style is to be absolutely clear about ones effectiveness areas and measurement methods. Then, to take a clear look at the situation and decide what level of task behaviour and relationships behaviour is needed in order to achieve the effectiveness areas. In short, a sharp exercise in role clarification is what every compromiser needs. The compromiser is seen by some as a moving target. The movement arises not so much from deviousness but rather from simply not knowing what to do. There is a perceived imbalance between what the situation appears to demand and what behaviour the compromiser uses. The compromiser lives in a halfway house. The compromiser wants what is reasonable and does not really consider what is best. The compromiser does not know, how, or when to be more task oriented or to be more relationships oriented so simply uses some of each as a standard operating style in most situations. Compromisers are likely to ask their subordinates to participate in a decision which has only a known single good solution. They may already know of the solution, or other skilled people could have advised them of it if they had been consulted. The solution that comes out of such use of participation may be the same single good solution, in which case the time spent was wasted. Increased motivation could hardly arise unless the subordinates were so dim as not to see that only one solution was possible and that management must or should have known it. If the single good solution is not forthcoming, then a compromise would be produced. This would be some kind of balance between what one or more subordinates need and what the organisation needs. This poorer grey decision, to which no one is likely to be truly committed, is a direct result of the inappropriate use of an integrated approach. Compromiser managers avoid conflict by using participation. With strong subordinates this approach can lead to executive infighting among them so that two distinct antagonistic camps develop. A university administrator, internationally known for leanings toward participative management, did not make use of personal influence to deal with a distinct ideological rift in the department. Ph D students found they had to pick one side or the other and to cling for dear life if they wanted their Ph D on time. The administrators unexpected departure, by death, led to one side emerging as dominant and to key members of the other side leaving the institution which set some Ph D
Page 101
students awash. This department needed leadership but got inappropriate participation. Compromisers have a devastating effect on subordinates who prefer to work from a clear plan. The compromisers vacillating approach leads to poor goal setting by subordinates because they have no way of predicting the future course of events. Good decision making often leads to the production of sets of quite different solutions to problems. Any one set alone could lead to success, whereas a combination of two or more could lead to failure. Compromiser managers, not wanting to make decisions, attempt to satisfy several alternatives at once and become even less effective. As an example, managers are sometimes faced with two different alternative methods of solving a particular problem involving people and the organisation. It may be that one method essentially favours the organisation and the task side of things, and the other favours people and the relationships side of things. Either could be effective if used alone and would lead to the benevolent autocrat or developer style. Compromiser managers, however, would attempt to satisfy both alternative solutions rather than one or the other. The compromiser style appears to use the accordian method of management; sometimes controlling and sometimes releasing. The test is so constructed that most managers obtain a dominant more effective style and a dominant less effective style. This means that what is being measured is relative style use, not absolute style use. If you score high on any particular style it does not mean, necessarily, that you use that style to an extreme. What it means is that you use that style more than the other three less effective styles or the three more effective styles. A high score on compromiser can arise somewhat spuriously. If you really reject the notion of styles, in yourself, of deserter, missionary and autocrat then, based on the way the test is constructed, you have to score reasonably high on compromiser.
Your compromiser score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the compromiser scale It is the last line under D. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of compromiser. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of compromiser. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the compromiser style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you, yet again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.
Page 102

The statements below reflect compromiser behaviour. As you see they reflect compromiser behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to decrease your compromiser score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I want to improve my relationships with my superior hut do not always take the action necessary. 2. Coworkers I want to cooperate with managers of other departments but my cooperation seldom works out as well as I would like. 3. Subordinates When dealing with subordinates I attempt to combine both task and relationships consideration but one or the other often suffers. 4. Staff Advisers I say I am willing to cooperate with staff advisers but do not always do so. 5. Unions I say I want to cooperate with union representatives but sometimes put little effort into doing so. 6. Customers I say that good relationships with customers should exist but I do not always do as much as I could to help matters. 7. General Public I say that good relationships with the general public are beneficial to the company but do little about maintaining them. 8. Creativity I sometimes encourage new ideas but do not always follow up on too many of them. 9. Objectives While my objectives are usually fairly clear, I allow them to be quite loose so they are not always a good guide. 10. Planning I make an effort at planning but the plans do not always work out.
Page 103
11. Change Introduction I sometimes talk about the problems of introducing change but do not always attempt to deal with these problems. 12. Implementation I keep an eye on the implementation of plans but do not always take action when it is most needed. 13. Controls I say that I believe control techniques are useful but I establish few and violate some. 14. Evaluation I talk about the importance of evaluation and review but do not always get involved with it myself as much as I might. 15. Productivity I have some interest in higher productivity but it is not always apparent and thus productivity sometimes suffers. 16. Communication While I do try to keep an open channel of communication with others, I am not always successful in doing so. 17. Conflict When conflict arises I try to be fair but firm. 18. Errors I accept the fact that one can learn from errors but only occasionally do I put this to use. 19. Meetings I seem interested only in the task at some meetings and only in relationships at others. 20. Team Work I like the idea of team work hut often am not able to find ways to apply it.
Page 104
11. Are You a Bureaucrat?

To place and power all public spirit tends; In place and power all public spirit ends. THOMAS MOORE He who is firmly seated in authority soon learns to think of security, and not progress, the highest lesson of statescraft. LOWELL
THE BUREAUCRAT manager is one who is using a low task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is therefore more effective. EXHIBIT 11.1
Bureaucrat Indicators Follows orders, rules, procedures Reliable/dependable Maintains system and going concerns Watches details/efficient Rational/logical/self-controlled Fair/just/equitable Prefers to write out communications with others Responds to disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and procedures Some things a bureaucrat might say include: The time is getting near for that report. Is it in good order and on schedule? If we each know and carry out our own particular duties not much can go wrong. I think we should try to exercise a little more creativity around here. Where is that memo on creativity from Head Office?
Page 105
I like to stay within the hounds of past practice, this keeps everything on an even keel. The really good thing about this company is that everything is laid down for you. Look after the rules and regulations and the company will run itself Going through the right channels is the mark of the effective manager. Follow the rules and youll never go far wrong. Lets see how we did it last time, that is usually the best way. Clear rules and procedures are the basic elements of efficiency. I believe that formal meetings are a perfectly sound way to produce new ideas. Decide what is best and then make sure it is followed closely.
Bureaucrat behaviour and effects

The bureaucrat style is simply the separated style used appropriately. Bureaucrat managers are essentially ones who use separated behaviour in a separated situation. Bureaucrats are not overly interested in either task or relationships. They are effective however in that their position or situation does not require this sort of interest, they get less personally involved with the problems of others. In our research, it is the one style that is most anchored in personality. That is, there are predispositions in people to be bureaucratic. In short, some people are naturally bureaucratic. The bureaucrat style was first written about by Max Weber, the Austrian sociologist. He proposed that the bureaucrat is an ideal style. He thought that it was the right way to do things and many organisations are modelled on it now. * Here is a reasonably balanced account of the bureaucrat. The author G.E. West does not admire bureaucrats although the style is good at times. Bureaucratic managers tend to focus control on activities. They assume that proven methods automatically yield results. They believe that if jobs are broken down into small components and executed repetitively, mastery will follow. And they extend preoccupation with activity into the personal realm. They concern themselves with matters like appearance, tact, loyalty, style. In fact, they believe that humanism in the organisation, though desirable, is an unexpected dividend. In the final analysis, they reason that members of the organisation have the choice of complying with its norms or withdrawing their services. Bureaucrats define success as administration of policies and procedures. They believe that job functions are officially conferred and formally circumscribed by the chain of command, organisation charts, company policies, standard operating procedures, etc., and that variations from these without express approval lead to inappropriate, dysfunctional, or even unethical usurpations of authority. They believe in the ultimate rationality of top management and refrain from filling organisational voids, advocating
Page 106
problem significance, or forming coalitions to secure support for change on the notion that if top management wanted it done, they would have ordered it. They believe that since institutions outlive personalities, they need not accommodate revolutions and ought to adopt changes deliberately, if at all. The bureaucrats concept of authority is zero-sum. First, organisational authority or opportunity is seen as having very definite boundaries and the influence pie as divided up among hierarchical levels or functional specialties. Therefore, personal acquisition of authority is treated as upsetting the balance of power and spontaneous delegation of authority as giving away managerial work. Second, promotion to management is viewed as a reward for loyalty or hard work. Thus, maintaining the attitude that rank has its privileges, bureaucrats jealously protect the prerogatives they have earned and that others must wait in turn. But even more significant, the bureaucrat manager defines authority as blameability. Reasoning that because they take the heat when things go wrong, they assume both the right to demand obedience and the right to find the culprit if deviations occur. Bureaucrat has unfortunately become a negative term in most management literature. Many people do not appear to recognise or accept the fact that the bureaucrat style is a key style in maintaining the effectiveness of modern organisations. Rules are needed to harness the efforts of more than a small face-to-face group. A device is also needed to see that all know the rules and follow them. Bureaucrats are often this device. One of the needs of the bureaucrat is to lower variety. This can be good, and it can be bad. The bureaucrat thinks that things are best if they are perfect. Unfortunately, while the objectives are clear the result may not be achieved. The bureaucrat thinks everything has straight lines, and much can be achieved by this. However, while wanting straight lines, the bureaucrat may not be able to achieve them. This creates some very interesting problems for the bureaucrat. To lower variety and diversity the bureaucrat may well eliminate things or miss things. This may be removing some computer tapes, removing some files or moving or eliminating some information system, generally. The bureaucrat thinks this is to create clarity. The real reason is that the bureaucrat wants to lower variety because the bureaucrat cannot handle it. Simplicity is the hallmark of the bureaucrat. Bureaucratic managers are efficient. They go through the right channels, are sticklers for detail, and follow orders exactly. Their orientation is to the rules of the game. If they are managers, they see standard operating procedures in the same light. For them, existing and past practice are the guidelines to follow. True bureaucrats are highly successful organisation members. They keep the going concern in order. The rules, none of which they may have established, they follow. It is no different from any sport. Though effective in following the rules, bureaucrat managers produce few ideas, do not push for production, and do a poor job of developing subordinates. Either their job does not require these qualities or it requires them to a minimal degree. While the bureaucrat is highly effective it is very important not to put a bureaucrat in a job that should not be bureaucratised. Some people are natural-born bureaucrats, they will look at the work situation and try and bureaucratise it. There may be a rather free floating work situation which is running well and is more effective. The bureaucrat might land on it and decide to make things more formal, simply to lower variety for self. Obviously, this is faintly idiotic, but they do it. In short, use bureaucrats for
Page 107
bureaucratic jobs and do not use them for non-bureaucratic jobs. Also, in yourself, recognise your bureaucratic tendencies, and also your non-bureaucratic tendencies, and use one or the other to serve the situation, not to serve your own needs. There is no question that bureaucrats can be effective at times. The point is, though, you have to watch them. The last thing to do is to put a bureaucrat manager, naturally predisposed, in a non-bureaucratic job. The bureaucrat then will organise the job to make it bureaucratic and this leads to lower effectiveness. Obviously, the bureaucratic manager is highly effective if in the right situation. Some situations require high control, low variety, interest in systems, system maintenance, low interpersonal skills and good control. Bureaucrats and even deserters are sometimes incorrectly appraised as autocrats. All three of these styles have a low relationships orientation, but only the autocrat has a high task orientation. What some people mistake for task orientation is often adherence to outmoded rules at a heavy expense to the individuals involved. This behaviour is simply being nasty. The bureaucratic style is often misunderstood. In short, it is seen as less effective and almost evil. Very few games could be played unless the referee is a bureaucrat and knows all the rules. Most games we play have dense rules which may be 100 or 200 pages long. There is nothing whatever wrong with bureaucracy when properly applied. Obviously, the issue is properly, and that means appropriate to the situation. The potential problem with bureaucracy is that rules become the ends. We all live by rules though we may not admit to that. We all play by rules. A jazz band has hundreds of rules running it all the time. So, nothing wrong with rules. But, the issue always is, whether the rules become the ends. In some organisations they might. Simply, what is not understood about the bureaucrat is that the style can be highly effective in the right situation. As an example, the style at one level can be simply transferring papers from an in-basket to an out-basket and applying the firms decision rules to the paperwork. In short, system control. So, what is wrong with that? There is nothing wrong with it, it is perfect. Most organisations need one or more bureaucrats around. In order to maintain the paperwork well. In short, someone needs to be in control. The problem is some managers believe it is their only job, whereas it is most often not so. A substantial number of managerial jobs are naturally bureaucratic although this is seldom recognised. The customs officer, in all countries, has a bureaucratic job but instead of paper has people. What needs to be understood is that this kind of systems maintenance, applying the rules of the company or the rules of land, is a needed and important function. It is doubtful that all customs officers are all natural-born bureaucrats. But, they do know how to behave correctly in the role and they are well trained for it. So, it is, and must be, with some managers in some roles. The bureaucrat is good at defining roles well. There is a tendency to define roles in input terms but the bureaucrat can define them in output terms as well. Obviously, the bureaucrat wants skilled individuals who fill the roles which are well designed. In these roles, rationality and formality are the name of the game. As always, this can be more effective at times and less effective at other times. It requires judgment. There is nothing wrong with bureaucracy when properly applied. There is everything wrong
Page 108
with bureaucracy when improperly applied. It is often assumed that the bureaucrat exists extensively in government. This has not been our experience. Most senior level government officials tend to be highly related. This arises for a variety of reasons which should be obvious to you. Where bureaucracy exists in government it is at supervisor level. That is, the customs official, the tax inspector and the supervisor of mail sorters in the post office. There we all need bureaucracy, it is correct. In fact, it is perfect and is the right style. Naturally, the problem becomes how one changes ones style in a promotion. There is no doubt that high levels in the public service require more relationships orientation and less bureaucracy. Some make it, some do not. As the bureaucratic style is linked to personality it is quite reasonable to have the concept, natural-born bureaucrat. Obviously, good managers can turn bureaucratic style on or off as appropriate. Some, however, use it all the time whether it is needed or not. In yourself, you might consider the level of your bureaucratic or anti-bureaucratic tendencies. These arise from yourself, not so much from the situation. What you have to do is to address your situation and decide whether or not bureaucracy or anti-bureaucracy is appropriate. Naturally, the bureaucrat wants meetings to be conducted in a bureaucratic fashion. This, of course, approaches the normal board-of-director type meeting where all the decisions are taken outside the meeting but are pretended to be taken inside. This kind of meeting is not, in any sense, necessarily bad. It depends upon the quality and nature of the decision making made outside. Many managers enjoy the fact that they score very low on the bureaucratic scale on the Management Style Diagnosis Test. They think over-rejection is always good, this can be incorrect. There is nothing wrong with 95 per cent on bureaucracy, in some situations, and there is nothing wrong with five per cent in other situations. The anti-bureaucrat is basically a maverick. That is, the person who does not want to join the organisation but would rather fight it here and there. This may be appropriate at times. If you over-rejected bureaucrat, you probably feel quite good about it. Well, dont. It may be good and it may not be good. It depends upon your situation. As you well know, I write books. I am also a change agent. In writing books I need to be a complete, absolute bureaucrat. As a change agent I have to be something else, that is for sure. So, it comes down to style flexibility, does it not? How about yours? Should one love or should one hate the bureaucrat? Personally, I love the bureaucrat in the right job. I have simply known too many who performed brilliantly as bureaucrats in a bureaucratic role. The bureaucratic style is effective in many situations. It might help to make it more acceptable if it were called an administrator. Bureaucrat is the more established term however. It also tells it like it is.
Your bureaucrat score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the bureaucrat scale. It is the last line under E. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of bureaucrat. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of bureaucrat. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the bureaucrat style, that
Page 109
is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you, yet again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.

The statements below reflect bureaucrat behaviour. As you see they reflect bureaucrat with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to increase your bureaucrat score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I believe that there will be few problems between myself and higher management if proper procedures and channels are followed. 2. Coworkers I prefer to go through the right channels when working with managers of associated departments. 3. Subordinates I think that things go best when subordinates understand and follow the duties in their job description. 4. Staff Advisers I follow company policy and procedures when dealing with staff advisers. 5. Unions I believe the best way to maintain good union relationships is for both sides to follow the agreement exactly as it is written. 6. Customers I follow general company policy in maintaining customer relationships. 7. General Public I believe in following past practice when dealing with the general public. 8. Creativity I believe that formal meetings are a perfectly sound way to produce new ideas. 9. Objectives Objectives I set are clear and inflexible.
Page 110
10. Planning I plan with a fine attention to detail. 11. Change Introduction I introduce changes formally and follow closely any established procedures. 12. Implementation Once plans are made I make sure that their implementation follows the original plan very closely. 13. Controls I believe that tight controls are a sound way to increase productivity. 14. Evaluation I emphasise regular evaluation, measurement and review of performance. 15. Productivity I believe that the best measure of output is a comparison based on standards previously established. 16. Communication I prefer to write out communications with others. 17. Conflict I respond to disagreement and conflict by referring to rules and procedures. 18. Errors I believe that errors would be minimal if people simply followed established rules and procedures. 19. Meetings I believe formal meetings are the best ones. 20. Team Work I think that the team approach is of use at times but that formal meetings accomplish as much or even more.
Page 111
12. Are You a Developer?
I will pay more for the ability to deal with people than any other ability under the sun. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER The average human being learns, under proper conditions, not only to accept but to seek responsibility. DOUGLAS MCGREGOR
THE DEVELOPER manager is one who is using a high relationships orientation and a low task orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is therefore more effective. EXHIBIT 12.1
The developer is often invisible Developer Indicators Maintains open communication channels Develops talent of others/coaches Understands others/supports Works well with others/cooperates Trusted by others/trusts/listens When responsible for planning, involves many others
Some things a developer might say include:
About that report, do you need any assistance from me in order to do a good job? My job is to tap the creativity and ingenuity of my subordinates. The fewer direct controls on individuals the greater the likelihood of motivation and quality of production. If employees do not grow to accept new responsibility, it is often the fault of the boss.
Page 112
Leaders are best when people barely know they exist. People want to work: my job is to create the situation where they can. My main interest is in finding better ways to coach my subordinates. Managers should be judged by their subordinates growth.
Developer behaviour and effects

The developer style arises when the related style is being used appropriately, Developer managers are generally seen as those who place implicit trust in people. This is the effective version of the related style. The main difference between the missionary and the developer is that the latter is effective in motivating and working with people. They see their job as concerned primarily with developing the talents of others and of providing a work atmosphere conducive to their subordinates commitment to both themselves and the job. The developer is someone who uses relationships orientation in the service of subordinates and also of the situation. It is someone who is a helpful coach, sometimes seen as the invisible person in the organisation. Developers are often quiet, unassuming and self effacing. They may work with teams, they may work with individuals but the emphasis, sometimes quite unconsciously, is always as a developer of others. The developer believes in sharing. That is, sharing self and sharing any resources available in the service of the individual and the organisation. The developer has a very high trust in others. This provides an enormous source of strength. The energy that might be turned toward maintaining ones own needs, ones own self-concept or ones own position is turned to the service of others. This leads directly to increased effectiveness because energy is directed to serving the situation rather than serving self. General Electric Company once invited outside interviewers to ask 300 of its managers what had been most important in their development. Ninety per cent answered in terms of working for a particular superior at some point in their career. This is heavy metal. In most organisations, developer managers have very low visibility. They just sit there turning engineers into general managers, and no one recognises it. Their jobs are seen by all as very pleasant because there is usually so much cooperation in their own and in associated departments. Their skill in creating such a condition often goes unnoticed. They spend a lot of time with their subordinates. They give them as many new responsibilities as they can. They know that average people in industry are producing far below their capacity, but they also know how to motivate them to produce more. Developers are seen as having some interesting assumptions about work. They believe that work is as natural as play or rest, that people want to exercise self-direction and self-control, and that they seek responsibility. They believe what is hard for many managers to believe: that intelligence, imagination, creativity, are widely distributed in the population and are not possessed solely by senior managers. The developer is excellent at critique. Though, clearly, not having high emotional involvement in the
Page 113
feedback given, what the developer says is listened to. The developer gives critiques routinely as a natural ongoing part of the management function. The critique is heard and accepted because it is seen as intended to be helpful. It is so intended. Developer managers can motivate others to peak performance because subordinates see themselves doing it for them and with them. Developers tend to produce a creative atmosphere. They deliberately weaken the impact of the existing organisation or job structure, and this allows their individual subordinates more freedom to think of new ideas. Their openness to novelty and their genuine interest in subordinate self-expression fosters creativity even more. One research study we did involved 1,700 managers in more than 100 different companies. One thing we looked at was what style occurs disproportionately at the top and what style earns disproportionately more. The answer, to both questions, was the developer. The developer style is more often seen at the top of organisations and those who have the developer style were earning more. We looked at a very high salary bracket figure and a highly disproportionate amount of those were developers. Obviously, this is not, in any way, suggesting that other styles will not, routinely, get to the top and that other styles will not routinely earn more. But the facts are there. The developer won on level in hierarchy and won on salary level. True. As the developer believes in the individual, the developer also believes in the group. The developer knows that two heads are better than one and several heads, if well connected in discussion, can be much better than two. The developer will, at times, let meetings run a bit too long. The clear payoff, however, is a massive lowering of resistance to change, a better quality of decision and a shorter implementation period. The developer does not, necessarily, consciously have more and longer meetings for this reason but unconsciously is well aware of the good effects.
Your developer score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the developer scale. It is the last line under F. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of developer. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of developer. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the developer style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you again that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.
Page 114
The statements below reflect developer behaviour. As you see they reflect developer behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to increase your developer score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I understand and cooperate well with higher level management. 2. Coworkers I work to maintain good relationships with other departments. 3. Subordinates My relationship with subordinates is excellent and is characterised by mutual trust and respect. 4. Staff Advisers I understand and cooperate well with staff advisers. 5. Unions I am effective in encouraging trusting union management relationships. 6. Customers I believe that the opinions of customers are of prime concern to the company. 7. General Public I believe in encouraging all concerned to present the company to the public in a good light. 8. Creativity I seek out new and good ideas and motivate others to be as creative as possible. 9. Objectives I successfully motivate others to set their own clear objectives. 10. Planning When I am responsible for planning I involve many others. 11. Change Introduction I prepare those affected by change by talking to them well in advance. 12. Implementation I am responsive to sound proposals for modifying plans, am open to suggestions and am always willing to help. 13. Controls
Page 115
I believe that performance data is best fed back to the individual concerned rather than to the superior. 14. Evaluation I encourage others to evaluate their own and my own performance. 15. Productivity I motivate others to set high output standards and encourage and support them so that these high standards are met. 16. Communication I maintain open, trusting communication channels with everyone. 17. Conflict When conflict arises I help those involved to find a sound basis for agreement. 18. Errors I think that most errors arise for a good reason and it is better to look for the reason than at the error itself. 19. Meetings I make many suggestions at meetings and encourage others to do the same. 20. Team Work I believe in the team approach to the extent that I think most problems are best solved that way.
Page 116
13. Are You a Benevolent Autocrat?
I once heard a manager say, I am going to make this department participative no matter how hard I have to push to do it. Those managers who truly value the individual will recognise individual differences and will not use the participatory style on those who do not want it.
THE BENEVOLENT autocrat manager is one who is using a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is therefore more effective. EXHIBIT 13.1
Benevolent Autocrat Indicators Decisive/shows initiative Industrious/energetic Finisher/committed Evaluative of quantity, quality and time Costs, profits and sales conscious Obtains results Both develops and proposes many new ideas Shows that efficiency and productivity are valued Some things a benevolent autocrat might say include: The boss is asking about that report. Let me have a memo immediately on its current status, your problems, if any, and your anticipated completion date. I like to walk fairly softly but still carry a big stick. I prefer to make up my own mind but will sometimes ask my subordinates for ideas. The best managers are those who work their way up and learn about the best ways of achieving production from the mistakes they made in being tough at times. A good manager keeps a clear eye on the output of all the subordinates.
Page 117
A tough minded disagreement with a fellow manager over how best a task is to be done is a sure sign of productive decision making even though feelings might get hurt. Promotion and pay raises should be based exclusively on output.
Benevolent autocrat behaviour and effects

The benevolent autocrat is task oriented, intervenes a great deal and is effective. It is not a style to use in the administration section of an insurance company or managing independent professionals, such as in a tax office or an R & D laboratory or a university. It is more likely to be useful in a steel mill. As an example of the benevolent autocrat, General Patton once said, Everyone needs a pat on the back from time to timebut some need it lower than others. Benevolent autocrat managers are usually perceived as ones who place implicit trust in themselves and in their own way of doing things. They are concerned about, and effective in, obtaining high production in both the short and long run. Their main skill is getting other people to do what they want them to do without creating undue resentment. They are seen as having much of the orientation of the autocrat in terms of personal style but it is clear to all that they are not serving their own needs to push others around, they are serving the organisations needs for higher productivity. This style is a popular one in industry today. It often characterises managers who have worked up through the company ranks and who have attempted to improve their skill by learning from their errors. Benevolent autocrats are usually somewhat ambitious, know the company methods very well, stay on top of their jobs, and get the jobs done. Benevolent autocrats in top management have little sympathy with participation or bottom-up management. They will sometimes use a participative approach before reaching their decision but not after it. They know that allowing subordinates to comment beforehand may produce a good idea, will alert them to problems they must deal with, and almost always will reduce resistance to change. The benevolent autocrat style is likely to be effective when managers have responsibility, when they have power and a reward-and-punishment system, when they have to give orders for the system to work, and when they have more knowledge than their subordinates. The style is facilitated further if the subordinates expect to be managed in a dedicated fashion and if they lack knowledge or decision-making capability. This style is based on an effective use of power. All managerial positions have some authority vested in them and the benevolent autocrat uses this authority well, in the service of situation. This style is legion and easily recognisable over the centuries in all walks of life. The benevolent autocrat is always easy to find in business organisations, in the public service, the church, the military and in politics. The benevolent autocrat thrives in a system which needs, or seems to need, constant interventions by the manager in order for the system to run well. A typical example of this is batch production, rather than continuous flow production. When the system needs constant interventions to keep things running smoothly, the benevolent autocratic style naturally arises. When this dedicated type of style is used when not needed by the situation, obviously, the autocratic label is, and should be, applied. The benevolent autocrat naturally uses the one-on-one style of management. If a group should be
Page 118
brought together it is more likely to be for speed in announcing a decision than group participation in the decision. Such things as budgets, system changes and system reviews are made on a one-on-one basis. The benevolent autocrat assumes responsibility for optimising the system and manages to do it fairly well This is why the style is effective. Some people through charm, a long-run view, obvious competence, or personal example can make the dedicated style effective in many quite different situations. What happens, in fact, is that subordinates accept the style as appropriate for their managers. They may still call them hardnosed and drivers but nevertheless will be committed to them and their plans. The bureaucrat relies on the system to increase effectiveness, the developer relies upon the individual, the executive on the team, and the benevolent autocrat on self.
Your benevolent autocrat score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the benevolent autocrat scale. It is the last line under G. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of benevolent autocrat. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of benevolent autocrat. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the benevolent autocrat style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you, yet again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.

The statements below reflect benevolent autocrat behaviour. As you see they reflect benevolent autocrat behaviour with all of the situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to increase your benevolent autocrat score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I work well with higher level management and ensure that they know exactly how I see my job. 2. 2 Coworkers I am open to suggestions from other departments and use what I personally believe to be the best ideas. 3. Subordinates I make clear to subordinates what I expect of them. I show that I value efficiency
Page 119
and productivity. 4. Staff Advisers I believe staff advisers must prove that their suggestions will increase productivity. 5. Unions I respect unions and they respect me. My thoughts on union management relationships are put over effectively. 6. Customers I believe that the company should first produce a good product and then get the customer to accept it. 7. General Public I believe that all employees should present the company to the public as being a good corporate citizen. 8. Creativity I both develop and propose many new ideas 9. Objectives I personally set clear objectives that are understood by all those involved. 10. Planning I plan well and concentrate primarily on my own good ideas and assign individual responsibilities. 11. Change Introduction I inform all concerned of the reasons for a change. 12. Implementation I watch the implementation of plans by individuals and give direct assistance and guidance where needed. 13. Controls I show that I think good control techniques are among the most important keys to high productivity. 14. Evaluation I keep methods and output under constant review and make changes to ensure high output. 15. Productivity
Page 120
I personally set high output standards for myself and others and work hard to see that they are met. 16. Communication I keep everyone fully informed of what I think they need to know in order to do their jobs better. 17. Conflict When facing conflict I stand my ground and try to be as persuasive as possible. 18. Errors I think the best way to minimise errors is for those making them to have their errors explained. 19. Meetings I take an active and useful part in meetings and use them to push successfully for my ideas. 20. Team Work I believe in the team approach but also believe a good team needs a good leader who knows what is to be done.
Page 121
14. Are You an Executive?
THE EXECUTIVE manager is one who is using a high task orientation and a high relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is therefore more effective. EXHIBIT 14.1
Executive Indicators Uses team work in decision making Uses participation appropriately Induces commitment to objectives Encourages higher performance Coordinates others in work Some things an executive might say include I aim for true involvement and by it obtain commitment to optimum output. In some situations I announce my decision after hearing ideas; in other situations the team works for consensus. High output standards, clear quality controls and high subordinate motivation and commitment are the marks of a good manager. I want my subordinates to produce at their optimum which I realise may vary widely from one to another. My job is to obtain the best thinking of all and to get everyone to translate this into optimum production. Optimum production involves both an understanding and utilisation of the human and the task variables. A good manager can always make the standards known without impairing the subordinates approach to their jobs.
Page 122
True team management, in the long run, is the most effective. To obtain optimum production managers sometimes have to treat everyone somewhat differently.
Executive behaviour and effects

Executive managers are seen by their subordinates as being personally interested in them and as wanting to improve their effectiveness. The subordinates have confidence in the superior, seeing the executive as building an effective organisation. The executive style is usually reflected in the behaviour of the managers who see their jobs as maximising effectively the efforts of others in relation to both the short- and long-run task. They set high standards for production and performance but recognise that because of individual differences, they will have to treat everyone differently. They are effective in that their commitment to both task and relationships is evident to all and acts as a powerful motivating force. Executive managers welcome disagreement and conflict over task problems. They see such behaviour as necessary, normal, and appropriate. They do not suppress, deny, or avoid conflict. They believe that differences can be worked through, that conflict can be solved, and that commitment will result when both are done. Executive managers know their own jobs and want others to know theirs. Executive management is often team management. Executive managers believe in the interdependence of job functions and work to produce a smoothly functioning, efficiently working team. They initiate many things by group action. Often they are seen as creative and as innovators, but, in fact, it is their teams that produce the ideas owing to the climate the executive managers have induced. They arouse participation and by it, obtain commitment. They strive to obtain involvement in planning and to obtain the best thinking possible. They know that any mature person has a need for both dependence and independence and that individual needs and organisation goals can be meshed. Although executives are good managers, they have an essentially colleague or coworker orientation. They work particularly well when there is low power differences between themselves and otherswhen only expertise has influence. They want to respond to the actual demands of the sociotechnical system in which they find themselves. They do not want to be bothered with what they see as artificial elements such as status differences. Executive managers prefer equality in management to differences of status and power. They lead by inducing their subordinates to commit themselves to common objectives rather than to the manager or to their own duties. Executive managers build loyalty among their subordinates. In doing so, they develop in all of them a keen sense of self-respect which they are reluctant to lose. This, itself, adds another strong tie to the service of organisation objectives. The executive style is the one that is proclaimed most as the ideal style. It is Blakes 9.9, McGregor s Theory Y and Likerts System 4. It is not the only style to use. There are many different jobs in organisations. There are jobs where other styles may be more appropriate. Clearly, the executive style is needed in managing interacting managers. Its use is virtually demanded
Page 123
when managers must decide on the optimum distribution of scarce resources among them, that is, where a high degree of cooperation is needed to achieve the necessary outputs. The style is needed when interaction is needed. The style does not arise from a slavish belief that team work is always good but rather that team work is needed in this particular situation if the correct decisions are going to be made and commitment is needed to implement these decisions.
Your executive score and how to change it

Your score
Turn back to Chapter Three to obtain your adjusted score on the executive scale. It is the last line under H. If your score is 11 or above, it indicates that you have a dominant style of executive. That is, it is a style you use frequently. If your score is 10 you have a supporting style of executive. That is, a style you resort to fairly frequently. If your score is four or below you are over-rejecting the executive style, that is, you use it very little if at all. At this point only one style is being considered. After you have looked at each of your eight styles individually the styles will be looked at together as a style profile. It is important to remind you, yet again, that this test measures your behaviour in the job you now have. If your score is high on this style it is not indicative that you are like it permanently. This is not a test of personality, it is a test of your behaviour in the job you now have.

The statements below reflect executive behaviour. As you see they reflect executive behaviour with all of the 20 situational elements described in Exhibit 5.7. Should you wish to increase your executive score then change your behaviour with respect to one or more of these. 1. Superior I believe higher management is best seen as part of other teams that should interlock effectively with my own. 2. Coworkers All interdepartmental differences in which I am involved are solved jointly. 3. Subordinates I demonstrate that I expect high output from my subordinates yet recognise and consider individual differences. 4. Staff Advisers I see staff advisers as sources of competent help and welcome suggestions from them.
Page 124
5. Unions My actual relationships with union representatives demonstrate that I have a commitment to both productivity and productive union management relationships. 6. Customers I believe a fundamental goal of the firm is to create customers. 7. General Public I work with all concerned to present the company in the best possible light to the general public. 8. Creativity I am constantly on the watch for new, useful and productive ideas from any source and develop many new ideas myself. 9. Objectives I set objectives with others which are clear and fully agreed to by all those directly involved. 10. Planning When I am involved the plans made represent the best thinking of all concerned. 11. Change Introduction I inform all concerned well in advance of any possible changes and give them an opportunity to influence the proposed change. 12. Implementation I keep an eye on the implementation of plans and respond quickly to, and solve, any blockages. 13. Controls If a procedure or control is violated I make sure I concentrate on finding out why . 14. Evaluation I have both methods and output under constant review and changes in them are regularly implemented as needed. 15. Productivity I set high standards for myself and encourage others to set high output standards . 16. Communication I have an open communication channel with everyone on any matter and others
Page 125
have it with me. 17. Conflict I try to resolve conflict as quickly as possible by uncovering its underlying 18. Errors I treat errors primarily as opportunities for everyone to learn and am prepared to look openly at my own errors. 19. Meetings I use meetings to arrive at the best possible decisions to which everyone is committed. 20. Team Work I actively support and promote the team approach to management.
Page 126
15. Your Dominant Style Combinations
YOU HAVE just looked at each of your eight managerial styles individually. This chapter gives you a chance to look at pairings of dominant styles. For instance if you have two dominant styles of deserter and missionary you are essentially a friendly bystander. If your two dominant styles are autocrat and bureaucrat your approach to management is basically the rules or nothingtake it or leave it. Clearly, looking at these in pairs can add to your understanding of your style. The next chapter we will take the analysis further by looking at all eight styles at once. By considering pairs in this way it is often possible to deepen the analysis of why certain styles arise. If you have only one dominant style or no dominant style it is better to skip this chapter and go directly to Chapter 16. Should you have more than two dominant styles look at all the possible combinations. Obviously, give more weight to those on which you scored highest. In the following pairings of styles this sequence is used: Deserter, Missionary, Autocrat, Compromiser, Bureaucrat, Developer, Benevolent Autocrat, Executive. Each side of the pair should be treated as roughly equal unless one has a much higher scope than the other. First, transfer your dominant styles here. It is important to transfer your adjusted scores, not your raw scores. These scores appear on the last row of numbers in the chart of Chapter Three. A Deserter B Missionary C Autocrat D Compromiser E Bureaucrat F Developer G Benevolent Autocrat H Executive
Now, circle any scores of 10 or above. As you know, 10 is a supporting style, not a dominant style, but it may be helpful for you to interpret supporting style pairings if you have only one dominant score or none at all. If you have two or more dominant scores it is probably better to think about those two only, rather than to add the supporting score in as well.
Deserter-missionary (Friendly bystander)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The missionary style is seen as friendly. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows that you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own two preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in
Page 127
that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation. The common element is the low task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Deserter-autocrat (Stand back and tell them)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The autocrat style is seen as tough. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the low relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Deserter-compromiser (This year, next year, sometimes never)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The compromiser style is seen as changeable. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and a low task orientation while the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Deserter-bureaucrat (The rales or nothing)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The styles are similar in that both have low task orientation and low relationships orientation. This indicates that when you are either more effective or less
Page 128
effective you use the same basic approach. This may arise from a failure to see the need for change or an unwillingness or inability to change from a preferred style even when inappropriate. Your strength in one situation is your weakness in others.
Deserter-developer (Sometimes there, sometimes not)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The developer style is seen as people oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation. The common element is the low task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Deserter-benevolent autocrat (If I cant get you to work, I wont)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the low relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Deserter-executive (Winner or loser)

The deserter style is seen as uninvolved. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and a low task orientation while the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. In
Page 129
this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Missionary-autocrat (The bicycle theory of leadership or very confused about the situation)
This style combination could be called the bicycle theory of management-keep your back bent to those above you while trampling on those beneath. This is the totalitarian management style. It might also arise, simply, from confusion about how to deal with the situation. The missionary style is seen as friendly. The autocrat style is seen as tough. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Missionary-compromiser (Love me and well get along well together)

The missionary style is seen as friendly. The compromiser style is seen as changeable. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a high relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the high relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Missionary-bureaucrat (Hope you like these rules)

The missionary style is seen as friendly. The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from
Page 130
misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation. The common element is the low task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Missionary-developer (Always relationships, good or not)

The missionary style is seen as friendly. The developer style is seen as people oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and appropriate response. The styles are similar in that both have high relationships orientation and low task orientation. This indicates that when you are either more effective or less effective you use the same basic approach. This may arise from a failure to see the need for change or an unwillingness or inability to change from a preferred style even when inappropriate. Your strength in one situation is your weakness in others.
Missionary-benevolent autocrat (Ill pour the drinks when youve finished the job)
The missionary style is seen as friendly. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation, and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Missionary-executive (I love being with the group)

The missionary style is seen as friendly. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective
Page 131
and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a high relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the high relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Autocrat-compromiser (Im not sure how hard to drive you!)

The autocrat style is seen as tough. The compromiser style is seen as changeable. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are less effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with situation in a less effective way. The two different methods may arise from misreading the situation or from your own preferred methods of being less effective arising from your personal characteristics. The two styles are different in that one has a high task orientation and low relationships orientation, the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. The common element is the high task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Autocrat-bureaucrat (I can get tough in two quite different ways)

The autocrat style is seen as tough. The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the low relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Autocrat-developer (If not one waytry another)

The autocrat style is seen as tough. The developer style is seen as people oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the
Page 132
situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Autocrat-benevolent autocrat (Always hard, sometimes effective)

The autocrat style is seen as tough. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and appropriate response. The styles are similar in that both have high task orientation and low relationships orientation. This indicates that when you are either more effective or less effective you use the same basic approach. This may arise from a failure to see the need for change or an unwillingness or inability to change from a preferred style even when inappropriate. Your strength in one situation is your weakness in others.
Autocrat-executive (We will have a team!)

The autocrat style is seen as tough. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation and the other has a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation. The common element is the high task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Compromiser-bureaucrat (Keep changing or dont change at all)

The compromiser style is seen as changeable. The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective
Page 133
style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and a low task orientation while the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Compromiser-developer (Change of self or help other people change)

The compromiser style is seen as changeable. The developer style is seen as people oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a high relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the high relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Compromiser-benevolent autocrat (I am Hot sure how to finish the job)

The compromiser style is seen as changeable. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The two styles are different in that one has a high task orientation and low relationships orientation and the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. The common element is the high task orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Compromiser-executive (Team, needed or not)

The compromiser style is seen as changeable. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very
Page 134
likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. One is a less effective style and the other is a more effective style. This shows that you have a characteristic method of being less effective and a characteristic method of being more effective. The less effective style may arise from misreading the situation or personal preferences. The more effective style arises from a correct assessment of situation and an appropriate response. The styles are similar in that both have high task orientation and high relationships orientation. This indicates that when you are either more effective or less effective you use the same basic approach. This may arise from a failure to see the need for change or an unwillingness or inability to change from a preferred style even when inappropriate. Your strength in one situation is your weakness in others.
Bureaucrat-developer (Sometimes system, sometimes people)

The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. The developer style is seen as people oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation. The common element is the low task orientation, It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Bureaucrat-benevolent autocrat (Let the system run it or I will become the system)
The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and low task orientation while the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the low relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Bureaucrat-executive (Sometimes differentiation, sometimes integration)

The bureaucrat style is seen as methods oriented. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very
Page 135
likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a low relationships orientation and a low task orientation while the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Developer-benevolent autocrat (The stick and the carrot)

The developer style is seen as people oriented. The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a low relationships orientation and high task orientation. In this sense they are opposites. The use of such opposite styles indicates flexibility in both task orientation and relationships orientation. The route to effectiveness then is deciding when to use each orientation appropriately. Your ability to use each variably is established.
Developer-executive (Teamwork is all about people)

The developer style is seen as people oriented. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a high relationships orientation and low task orientation and the other has a high relationships orientation and high task orientation. The common element is the high relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low task orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Benevolent autocrat-executive (We are the best team in the league)

The benevolent autocrat style is seen as results oriented. The executive style is seen as team oriented. It is
Page 136
very likely that you are seen in both of these ways by those who work closely with you. Both are more effective styles. This shows you have more than one characteristic method of dealing with the situation in a more effective way. The different methods most probably will arise from your correct assessment that your situation can change from time to time as can your response to it. The two styles are different in that one has a high task orientation and low relationships orientation and the other has a high task orientation and high relationships orientation. It is your variable use of high vs low relationships orientation that causes these styles to arise.
Page 137
16. What is Your Style Profile?
THIS CHAPTER will give you an opportunity to look at your eight styles together. It is helpful to think of style in terms of using various parts of ourselves at various times to suit various situations. It contains a chart for you to display them together and gives actual examples of the profiles of others to help you with the interpretation. First, transfer your adjusted scores from the bottom line of the chart (Chapter Three) to the chart in Exhibit 16.1. Simply shade in a vertical line to indicate your adjusted score on each of the eight styles. EXHIBIT 16.1
My own style profilefor retention in book Exhibit 16.2 is an additional identical chart. This is for your convenience should you be discussing your styles with others. You could then remove this chart from the book for ease of display for a group to discuss.
Dominant, supporting and over-reject styles

Some managers have a single style and they use it consistently. Most managers, however, use a variety of styles. They use a variety of styles with a variety of children, with a variety of subordinates and with a variety of coworkers. So, it may not be that useful to slot a manager in terms of being a particular single style. It is helpful to think about ones dominant style, ones supporting style and the style that one over-rejects. Notice there are three words to the left of the chart. These are dominant, supporting and over-reject. The dominant and supporting styles have been discussed before. The over-reject style is one which you tend to lean away from, more than most managers. This also is worth looking at. It is what you really do not like doing.
Page 138
EXHIBIT 16.2
My own style profileto tear out for discussion with others
Your dominant style

Your dominant style is a managerial style which you use a great deal. It is represented by a score of 11 or more. For some managers the dominant style is very easy to detect by simply observing their work behaviour. They are clearly bureaucrats or autocrats or whatever. Some managers have no dominant style, some have three and sometimes even more This may be because of the variety of demands in their jobs. For instance, it may be that they have a role in supervising some kind of administrative type work and also some production type work. This normally requires two different styles and might well explain two quite different dominant styles. Some jobs require both supervision of sales people and customers. Some work requires supervision of scientists and also clerical workers. So, multiple dominant styles can arise from different job components. They can equally arise also from the way a manager operates in a single job component. Two dominant styles say missionary and deserter would indicate a friendly bystander. Two dominant styles of bureaucrat and autocrat indicate that the manager wants, do it my wayor else. So, in looking at your dominant styles think about the various pairs of them as well as looking at them individually. Some managers have either no dominant more effective style or no dominant less effective style, or neither. If there is no dominant more effective style it may well indicate style flexibility. That is, a variety of styles are being used appropriately. If there is no dominance in the less effective styles it may indicate style drift. That is, a variety of styles are being used inappropriately.
Your supporting style

Your supporting style is any style with a score of ten. In short, it indicates a style that is used more than average. It is a style you make above average use of compared to other managers. It is not so important to interpret as is the dominant style or over-rejected style.
Your over-rejected styles

An over-rejected style is any style which a manager uses far less frequently than the average manager. It
Page 139
is represented by a score of four or less. Obviously over-rejection is desirable when the over-rejected style is less effective. Some managers, however, reject such styles as developer or benevolent autocrat. This may indicate, but not necessarily, that there is an unwillingness or incapacity to use these styles when in fact the situation might require it. Look at your over-rejected styles as closely as you do your dominant styles. If you have a dominant style of benevolent autocrat and you over-reject missionary this combination does give a far clearer indication of just how tough-minded you are. Here are some brief notes on over-rejection of each of the eight managerial styles. Deserter An over-rejection of the deserter style indicates an unwillingness to avoid the situation. You do not use situation avoidance as a means of being less effective. It might help to see in what ways you are in fact less effective if you are not using this particular style. Missionary An over-rejection of the missionary style indicates your unwillingness to become dependent on the situation. It might be that some of your dominant styles, whether less effective or more effective might lead to this in some way. As previously indicated, if you over-reject missionary and are dominant on benevolent autocrat, these things can be put together and interpreted to strengthen the point about your single-minded toughness. However, if you over-reject missionary and are dominant on developer this would tend to indicate that your developer style arises not from a simple love of people and wanting to be loved by them, but from a tough-minded approach to developing others in the work situation. Autocrat An over-rejection of the autocrat style indicates your unwillingness to put productivity before people in a crude, mindless way. You do not attack situations you do not like, you deal with them in other ways. Again, compare this with your dominant styles as well. Compromiser Your over-rejection of the compromiser style indicates that you successfully avoid those situations where you may try and not succeed. An over-rejection of compromiser might also indicate a low tolerance of ambiguity and a strong desire to be successful. Bureaucrat Your over-rejection of the bureaucratic style indicates the lack of use of methods orientation as a means of becoming more effective. The possible reasons are that your position may not demand such orientation, or that it does but you do not realise it or you simply do not like methods and rules. Low score on bureaucrat can indicate a maverick in an organisation. Someone who is counter-dependent and simply does not want to play by the rules. The supposition is that you can get away with it. In some it creates difficulties. In some organisations mavericks do not advance or even last, while in some they are welcome and go to the top. A low score on bureaucratic orientation is sometimes related to having problems in being effective with ones superior. That is rather obvious, is it not? Developer The over-rejection of the developer style indicates a lack of use of people orientation as a
Page 140
means of becoming more effective. It might be that your position does not demand it, or it does and you do not realise it or you do not obtain satisfaction from being people-oriented. Another explanation may be lack of skill being people-oriented. Some light can be thrown on this if you, again, compare it to your dominant style. Benevolent Autocrat The over-rejection of the benevolent autocrat style indicates a lack of use of results orientation as a means of becoming more effective. Lack of use of this style may be explained in much the same way as indicated for the bureaucrat style and developer style. Executive The over-rejection of the executive style indicates a lack of use of team orientation as a means of becoming more effective. Again, think of the reasons why this might occur and compare it to your dominant style.
Illustrative style profiles

This section provides some illustrative style profiles of other actual managers. You may find these helpful in thinking about your own style profile.
Missionary-developer
The manager whose style profile is shown in Exhibit 16.3 has dominant double style of missionary-developer and over-rejects styles of deserter and benevolent autocrat. The job was that of a training manager. This profile fits very well for that kind of role. The job is working with people and attempting to develop them. The role does not necessarily require a high score on missionary but of any of the three less effective styles this would probably be the better one. The over-rejection of benevolent autocrat also fits the work role very well. There is not really very much a training manager or development officer can be benevolent autocrat about. It is quite typical for those in training functions to have high scores in missionary, developer and executive. This manager uses the related style when less effective and the related style when more effective. EXHIBIT 16.3
Page 141
A missionarydeveloper. A training manager profile
Missionaryautocrat
The manager in the process of installing an in-company computer system, developed the profile shown in Exhibit 16.4. EXHIBIT 16.4
A missionaryautocrat. Low situational sensitivity can be inferred from this profile This profile almost certainly arose from what this particular manager saw as the best way to install a computer system. The manager had decided that the best way was to thrust the computer down the throats of all, and by pushing so hard there was a strong negative reaction. Things got so bad that little
Page 142
could be done without signed orders from the CEO. The style used impaired the managers health and the stress undergone caused a heart attack. The way that was used to deal with the resistance met, which was self-created, was to use yet another less effective style of missionary. The basic problem was that of low situational sensitivity. How else could you explain someone who is less effective in two completely different styles? Remaining with the firm, this managers style moved to a more natural benevolent autocrat style. This profile represents the two ways this manager tackled a particular job. The wrong ways.
Deserterexecutive
Double dominant of deserter-executive seems strange but it does occur. This manager was a somewhat selfish, self-centred university administrator who also had a teaching post. This administrator was loved by students and was, without question, an excellent teacher and was also much liked by junior colleagues, but more senior colleagues were not so sure. The administrator was highly self-confident but somewhat frail in the face of adversity. But when the centre of attention in a somewhat dominant position acted extremely well as a team leader. This explains the good relationships with students and junior colleagues. But when under threat or stress this administrator moved to desertion. But being quite creative about how this was done, only a reasonably close observer would notice. When applying for the second most senior administrative post in the university the administrator found enormous general support, but did not get the much needed support from senior colleagues who controlled the committee. Having failed to get the job this administrator at first went on leave from the university and, finally, did not return. This is a clear case of dominant double deserter and executive. If you cannot win, you sulk. If you get your own way you are a winner. If you do not get your own way you are a loser. EXHIBIT 16.5
Page 143
A deserterexecutive. A good manager sometimes
An extreme profile
Profiles as extreme as in Exhibit 16.6 occur occasionally. In this case those styles with relationships orientation in them were extremely high and all those without were extremely low. This extremity obviously suggests both resilience and rigidity. It is resilience where the job had high relationships demands and it would be rigidity where the job did not. This manager tried once to go into sales and failed. While some people think that sales staff need high relationships orientation, this is really artificial. It is often a facade. This manager was so extreme, being unable to use a relationships facade, it had to be relationships, and the particular selling job did not require this. This manager was most successful at working for the national government in setting up special training courses running up to a year, for unemployed youths and adults. Although not doing much of the actual training, managed to do an excellent job in gathering community resources. EXHIBIT 16.6
An extreme profile
Flat profile
A flat profile as shown in Exhibit 16.7 is best interpreted as the use of a wide variety of behaviours. It might arise by job demands, style flexibility, or style drift. The frequent cause of the flat distribution is simply that the manager is highly responsive to situations; both the actual task demands in it and also the people in it. Some managers are concerned when they see a flat distribution and ask something like, Am I really a manager with a distribution like this? Yes, you are. Only a closer study of the job itself and the way you perceive how it should be approached can lead to an adequate interpretation of this style profile. Other reasons for this style profile arising include that the job, in fact, has very low style demands
Page 144
and you can achieve effectiveness in a wide variety of ways. Again, study of the job is necessary. EXHIBIT 16.7
A flat profile indicating flexibility and drift. Perhaps, it is situation or, perhaps, it is personality
Using the test organisation wide

Tests like this one obviously have a wide variety of uses. They are being used here to help you to gain insight into your managerial style so you can think about how you may become more effective. There are other uses, however. To create awareness of, and interest in, management styles. To unfreeze managers, prior to individual or team training programmes. To personalise and thus stimulate discussion on management style. To establish a readiness to experience a personal development programme. To determine development and training needs. To provide the manager with a reasonably objective report of the styles used. To provide a starting point for coaching between associates or superior-subordinate pairs. To appraise important stylistic differences between work teams, departments, or companies. To appraise the nature of individual or company style modification over time. To corroborate or invalidate information about ones style that has been received from other sources. To determine the stylistic features of an organisations hierarchy, preparatory to an organisation change programme. Most readers of this book are reading it for personal development. Some are thinking organisation wide. Some may want to use the test to get a clear picture of styles in the organisation as a whole. This
Page 145
can help direct plan change efforts. If the company turns out to be 20 per cent bureaucratic and it thought it should be something else, then the test results can only help if they are followed by an action plan.
Things to do with these test results

You may have read this book privately or you may have read it as part of a public or in-company training course. In either case, here are some ideas to help you think more about your test results. It certainly helps if you discuss the results with other people. This may be your seminar syndicate team, or your superior, subordinates or coworkers. While we recommend it, be careful when you talk about it with your family. Older children in particular and wives will often say something like, I could have told you that years ago. It will also help if you make some kind of formal plan of which styles you would like to change and how you might like to change them. Why not also write down why you think certain styles have arisen and whether you think you have the capacity to be flexible to change them and whether you should? Obviously, encourage others you work with, superiors, subordinates, coworkers to complete the test themselves and to discuss it together. A separately printed version of this test is available. It includes full scoring instructions and extensive interpretation. It is designed to be used in management training courses. For address of your local supplier, write: Organizational Test Limited, P.O. Box 324, Fredericton, N.B. EBB 4Y9 Canada.
When the test result may be less accurate

Some circumstances can make the test results less accurate. If you are not a manager or supervisor then, to a degree, you were imagining a position. If you are new in the job then you may be finding your feet and, sometimes, the less effective styles are higher, compromiser in particular. The final and most important reason is the accuracy with which you see your own style. Chapter Three contains the Management Style Diagnosis Test. This is a good test and widely used. However, because of its relative brevity and construction, some style scores may not always be correct. Also available from the address above is information on a test correcting for this. It is called the Managerial Effectiveness Test.
Page 146
17. Research on Managerial Styles
THIS RESEARCH is, in part, based on 1,700 managers and gives a general impression of the relationship of managerial styles to such things as type of work, level in hierarchy and industry. A few charts deal with other things such as job satisfaction and perceived managerial effectiveness. All of the charts are presented in a single format with the eight managerial styles on the left hand side and the percentage of which those styles were represented indicated along the horizontal scale. Taken together all this research appears to demonstrate that managerial style is a reasonably strong variable in thinking about managerial behaviour and its effect on managerial performance.
Research base
The research base for the 3D Theory is extensive. The main tests used have been the Management Style Diagnosis Test and the Managerial Effectiveness Test. Both of these measure eight managerial styles. What follows are some selected research findings designed to help managers understand the eight managerial styles and with what they may be associated. Many diagrams look like Exhibit 17.1. The top line indicates the sample: in this case managers who said they were in a manufacturing industry. The number of managers is indicated by N, in this example 384. EXHIBIT 17.1
The left hand of the exhibits show the names of the eight managerial styles as follows: Deserter Missionary Autocrat Compromiser Bureaucrat Developer Benevolent Autocrat
Page 147
Executive
Scientific and evocative names for eight managerial styles

All eight managerial styles have a scientific name, separated, related, dedicated and integrated, each followed by a minus sign if it is a less effective version and a plus sign if it is a more effective version. The matched eight pairs of style names, then on, these exhibits are: Separated Deserter Related Missionary Dedicated Autocrat Integrated Compromiser Separated + Bureaucrat Related + Developer Dedicated + Benevolent Autocrat Integrated + Executive The right hand side shows the percentage of times these styles were found. The bar chart in the centre represents graphically the percentage on the right. Manufacturing This research shows that managers in manufacturing tend to use a benevolent autocrat or 1 a bureaucratic style more than other styles. (12 /2 per cent is average). A bureaucratic style fits very well in a continuous-flow production process, where system maintenance is the job, while the benevolent autocratic style fits more in a batch process where manager interventions are often needed. One style represents maintaining an existing system, the other style, represents a high level of intervention to correct those parts of a system that may not be there. EXHIBIT 17.2
Government Departments Government departments around the world, as shown in Exhibit 17.2, tend to show high relationships orientation. This sample, from many government departments, shows 21.6 per cent missionary and 15 per cent developer. There may be a lower bureaucrat percentage than one would
Page 148
expect as bureaucrats in government tend to occur at first level supervision and lower levels of management. It is in the upper levels, where this sample was obtained, that relationships orientation tends to arise. The reasons for this high relationships orientation may be no short term time demands, no one with high power and no tight responsibilities centred on the individual. Educational Services These 73 managers from a wide variety of types of education services, have a roughly similar profile to that of government and a high relationships orientation is detected again as illustrated in Exhibit 17.3. EXHIBIT 17.3
Research and development managers

In Exhibit 17.4 which pertains to 62 research and development managers from a single, well-known laboratory, only one more effective style is really present. This style is, obviously, developer. It is the only realistic style with which to manage independent research professionals. They work at their own pace, a manager has no real control over their level of performance or output, the managers main job is to create a climate where the research scientist, or any independent professionals for that matter (they might be tax auditors just as well), can work effectively on their own. In short, if one wanted to be effective in managing research scientists, a highly related style is more appropriate which produces the developer style. All of the four less effective styles appear to be equally used in Exhibit 17.4. EXHIBIT 17.4
Page 149
The message here is that if you are managing independent professionals the best thing to work on is climate creation not systems (bureaucrat) or high task (benevolent autocrat) or attempting to build teams (executive), as they may have to work as individuals. In other research settings, the three styles that do not show here could well apply. In Exhibit 17.4 the research scientists were working as individuals. The job of the manager was climate creation. Crudely put, it was to keep the administration off their backs.
Voluntary agencies
Exhibit 17.5 represents a variety of voluntary agencies. It illustrates that the most appropriate style to use where many volunteers are involved is the highly related style of developer. EXHIBIT 17.5
Job satisfaction
Exhibit 17.6 shows how 1682 managers rated their job satisfaction on a scale of low, average, high and very high. This was correlated with their use of the four more effective styles. No particular trend was observed for benevolent autocrat indicating that the benevolent autocrat style is not related one way or the other to job satisfaction. However, for the three remaining more effective styles there is a very strong relationship showing that use of the more effective styles is correlated with job satisfaction. In short the more job satisfaction that is reported, the more use of the more effective styles is observed. EXHIBIT 17.6
JOB SATISFACTION AND MORE EFFECTIVE STYLES
Page 150
Self-rated effectiveness and less effective styles

There is a very strong relationship between self-rated effectiveness and use of less effective styles. In Exhibit 17.7 1695 managers were asked to make a self-rating of their effectiveness as low, average, high or very high. While such self-rating can be challenged on various grounds, there are studies which show that it is as good as other kinds of rating. Also, the rating was made on a confidential basis, so the managers had only themselves to fool. Observe that for all less effective styles the very strong relationship between self-rated low effectiveness and high use of less effective styles and, conversely, the managers who rated themselves as very high on effectiveness also obtained much lower scores on the less effective styles. EXHIBIT 17.7
SELF-RATED EFFECTIVENESS AND LESS-EFFECTIVE STYLES
Self-rated effectiveness and more effective styles

Exhibit 17 8 illustrates the findings from research which covered the same question as addressed above, but with the more effective styles. In short, managers who rate themselves high on effectiveness also turn out to have a much greater use of more effective styles. EXHIBIT 17.8
SELF-RATED EFFECTIVENESS AND MORE-EFFECTIVE STYLE
High effectiveness rating

As effectiveness is such an important issue, the data is presented in Exhibit 17.9 in yet another way. It shows that 219 managers who rated themselves very high on effectiveness also used a preponderance of
Page 151
more effective styles. EXHIBIT 17.9
Low effectiveness rating

Exhibit 17.10 shows that of 30 managers who rated themselves low on effectiveness use less effective styles virtually exclusively. EXHIBIT 17.10
Deserter managers
Exhibit 17.11 shows a Power Utility where 25.0 per cent of the managers were deserters. Rather clearly, there was a problem. My subjective impressions of the organization supported the research data. Such, reasonably objective, data is certainly reinforcing to impressions one might have. In this kind of situation the question naturally arises as to whether or not the deserters were simply dead wood that had to be cleared out or whether there was a chance to change them. As it happened we took the latter chance and it worked. The point is, measurement of style can reveal important things about organizations as well as individuals and this information can help planned change and organization development. EXHIBIT 17.11
Page 152
Presidents and vice presidents

Exhibit 17.12 shows the styles of 33 presidents and vice presidents of a single world conglomerate of about 100,000 employees who completed the test. Most turned out to be executive with a supporting style of autocrat which was clearly observable in the company philosophy and in the style of the top person. These results represent this company only and quite different results can be expected from other sets of presidents and vice presidents. As shown in Exhibit 17.13 there is no correlation over many companies of the level in hierarchy and use of the executive style, although there was in the company shown in Exhibit 17.12. EXHIBIT 17.12
Pulp and paper manufacturers (B)

Sometimes results are not what they seem. Thirty-three middle managers in a pulp and paper company of about 15,000 people took the test and showed two highly related styles of missionary and developer as shown in Exhibit 17.13. This was not expected with this kind of production technology. Does it mean that managers of pulp and paper companies tend to be highly related?
Pulp and paper managers (A)

The test was given to another company of about the same size in the same business as shown in Exhibit 17.14. Results turned out to be the opposite. This company used highly dedicated behaviour, autocrat and benevolent autocrat.
Page 153
EXHIBIT 17.13
EXHIBIT 17.14
What was happening across these two companies was that the measure of aggregate style represented here was not so much a measure of styles of individual managers and their natural propensities but rather the company climate. Further investigation showed that the first pulp and paper company was family owned, considered highly paternalistic, but made quite low profits. The second company made much higher profits and was known to be tough minded.
Style and level in hierarchy

Finally a study was conducted covering over 20 companies in four countries, illustrated in Exhibit 17.15, to determine the relationship between more or less use of a style orientation and level in the hierarchy. Four styles and one orientation showed such a relationship. The autocratic style occurs disproportionately at lower levels of management and upper levels of management. It does not occur disproportionately at middle management. So, we find autocrats at both the high levels of management and at the lower levels where we would include first line supervisors. It might be that the autocrats at the lower level are not being rewarded with promotion because they are autocrats and the autocrats at top level can use this style because of the greater influence they have. EXHIBIT 17.15
Page 154
Value of information
Of what value is all this information? It does demonstrate that the type of work one does seems to relate to the style one uses. Also that there seems to be some relationship between effectiveness and style. The main point to be made, however, is that all concept of style is a useful and powerful idea to use when thinking about management. We can all talk about planning and control and procedures. All of these are important. We must also talk about style just as much. ____________ *West, G.E., Bureaupathology and the failure of MbO, Human Resource Management, Summer, 1977, pp. 33-40.
Page 155
Section D YOUR THREE MANAGERIAL SKILLS

18 You and Your Situational Sensitivity 19 You and Your Style Flexibility 20 You and Your Situational Management Logically, three things follow from what you have read so far. The three skills of an effective manager are the ability to read a situation for what it really contains, situational sensitivity; to adapt to the situation if needed, style flexibility; to change the situation if that is needed, situational management. This is not so new. A prayer attributed to St. Francis of Assist is: O Lord, give me the courage to change what should be changed (situational management) The serenity to accept what cannot be changed (style flexibility) And the wisdom to tell the difference (situational sensitivity) Effective managers know that the key skill is in knowing what to do at a certain time in a certain situation. They know when to stand back, when to get involved, when to consult and when to make decisions. Perhaps the most difficult, is simply when to say yes and when to say no. Sometimes they have to analyse. Sometimes they have to move with a situation. Sometimes they have to change it. Books cannot tell you what to do. All books can do is raise the issues with you. This section deals with the three managerial skills. Situational sensitivity is the ability to read situations correctly, to appraise situational elements in terms of task and relationship demands, flexibility and strength. The second skill, style flexibility is the ability to employ a wide range of behaviour appropriately so that managerial effectiveness increases. Situational management is the ability to change the demands of situational elements so that managerial effectiveness increases. The smooth introduction of change, through overcoming resistance in oneself and others, is a central management skill.
Page 156
18. You and Your Situational Sensitivity
To be great, to be a person of stature, a man must have character, judgement, high intelligence, a special aptitude for seeing his problems whole and truefor seeing things as they are, without exaggeration or emotion. FIELD MARSHAL MONTGOMERY How can we avoid the two extremes; too great bossism in giving orders, and practically no orders given? ..My solution is to depersonalize the giving of orders, to unite all concerned in a study of the situation, to discover the law of the situation and obey that. MARY PARKER FOLLETT
YOUR SITUATIONAL sensitivity is your skill in reading a situation for what it really contains. Obviously, a key managerial skill is the ability to size up a situation. A manager with the sensitivity to read a situation for what it actually contains, and the sensitivity to know what behaviour would actually constitute effectiveness in it, is more likely to be effective. Age and experience do tend to improve situational sensitivity as this skill is a component of experience. However young managers sometimes show a brilliant understanding of situations and of what must be done to produce effectiveness. They know when to push hard, when not to, whom to see and the appropriate timing. Sensitive managers will know what resistances stand in the way of being effective and what they can overcome and must overcome to be effective. Although situational sensitivity is seldom perfect, managers can learn ways to improve it. Sensitivity requires alertness and curiosity. Sensitive managers fit scraps of information and hunches together. Like any scientist, they look at details to construct the whole. From a firebed and an arrowhead, an anthropologist constructs a civilisation. From the way in which a policy is received by different divisions sensitive managers can construct the reality of power politics in an organisation. If a manager makes a series of interventions in situations which later prove effective, then it is highly probable the manager has a high sensitivity to situations. If not, the manager would have made the wrong moves. If, however, a manager does nothing, this alone does not indicate whether or not there is high or low sensitivity. One may know what is wrong but not know how to do anything about it. Situational sensitivity is a diagnostic skill not an action skill. This simply means that a manager may score high on situational sensitivity and yet do nothing with the skill. The well-trained psychologist, sociologist, or anthropologist may have the highest possible situational sensitivity yet the lowest possible effectiveness as a manager. To be effective, the sensitivity must be matched with one but preferably both style flexibility and situational management. Management training exercises are available which measure situational sensitivity with great precision. They consist of depicting a situation by a film or written case study and then asking the
Page 157
manager to make a series of observations concerning it. Situational sensitivity is a particularly useful skill when dealing with other departments. As often occurs in such situations, managers have no real power. They must elicit co-operation based on mutual understanding. They are more likely to be effective if they pay some attention to the realities and the fantasies of how each department operates, who the key people are, where the power really lies. While useful, sensitivity is not such a crucial skill in stable or highly structured environments. When a manager is trained for years for a particular kind of situation which is unchanging, the need for sensitivity decreases. In some such situations it may even be a hindrance because the manager may be acutely aware of what is needed yet be unable to do anything about it.
Do not trust to luck

Many highly sensitive managers, politicians or for that matter, entrepreneurs are often described as lucky. The term luck, like magic, is really a device simply to explain what is to some an otherwise inexplicable outcome. Luck seldom explains managerial effectiveness. The manager in the right place at the right time with the appropriate resources did not come there solely by chance, although it may appear that way. They very often understood the existing or potential situation and were prepared for the opportunities as they came. Managers with low sensitivity tend to have more difficulty than others in learning theories such as the 3-D Theory of Managerial Effectiveness. The 3-D Theory was designed to be reasonably free of bias and of any particular ideology save managerial effectiveness. Unlike many theories it does not suggest that flexibility, resilience or relationships are always good. It operates this way, in part, through the use of tight definitions and a situational approach. Some managers have difficulty in learning 3-D because they cannot see the difference between one situation and another. Without some skill at this level, it is impossible to understand the usefulness of 3-D, let alone have the skill to use it.
The causes of low situational sensitivity

While it may seem surprising to you the main reason why you, or any manager, may have lower situational sensitivity than might be desirable is lack of knowledge about self. That is, low style awareness. If you distort your self to yourself, that is, do not know where you stand or where you really are, you will automatically distort the situation as well. The first step then to improving situational sensitivity is to improve style awareness. Style awareness is the degree to which you appraise your own style correctly. It is knowledge of your impact on others, not of your impact on yourself. The prime usefulness of this self-knowledge is to enable you to make a more effective impact on the situation, not so you can marvel at your own psychic interior. Effective managers must know the impact they are having on others. Without this knowledge, they cannot assess the situation they are in and cannot predict the results of their own behaviour. Many types of group-dynamic management training courses attempt to, and usually can, improve style awareness, as can marriage or even children.
Page 158
Hate at first sight

One indicator of low situational sensitivity is having a tendency to take an instinctive dislike to some people. There are many rather natural and obvious reasons why this might occur but some people make a habit of it. Why might you take an instinctive dislike to someone, perhaps a new work colleague, you have never really known. There are three main reasons for this kind of irrational response. It might be that the person reminds you of someone you dislike, or displays a quality which you dislike in yourself or the new person is in some way a threat to your security. This threat to your security may be anything from making higher performance demands on you, showing you up at work in some way just by simply being more effective, or bringing in some pressure for you to change your comfortable work habits.
The fatal flaw

All of us have flaws; a few of us have fatal flaws which we seem condemned to keep repeating in different contexts. The flaw is best identified by looking at the situations which most often lead to more trouble than they should. The situation may involve a superior when the manager is in a low power situation, it may involve a coworker or a subordinate. It may involve planning, organising, or controlling. It may be confronting disagreement, making a difficult decision, usually its postponement, trying to satisfy everyone, over-reacting to criticism, being vague about poor performance or any one of many more. Fatal flaws often come disguised. The same basic flaw may have occurred in a dozen different ways. Only if a flaw is recognised, can it be managed. It can only be managed by the person whose flaw it is.
Situational sensitivity alone

Situational sensitivity alone is of little value to the practising manager. If a manager cannot use the knowledge, then a manager may as well not know it. Those who go through life as hostile or as friendly observers of the scene, are serving some need to appear intellectual rather than to be useful and, therefore to be effective. One does not like to feel one is being analysed, and this is what situational sensitivity alone can lead to. Sensitivity must be related to an action programme of either managerial flexibility or situational management. Some managers have high sensitivity but low flexibility. They usually tend to change situations rather than change themselves. They use situational management.
Four parts of self

Everything known and not known about ourselves can be put under one of four headings: 1. What we know and others knowstyle awareness. (This is everyones business). 2. What others know and we do not knowstyle unawareness. (We must make this our business). 3. What we know and others do not knowpersonal history. (This is our business only).
Page 159
4. What we and others do not knowunconscious. (This is no-ones business). These can be arranged as demonstrated in Exhibit 18.1. The idea on which this exhibit is based (only terminology is changed) was developed by two psychologists, Joe Luft and Harry Ingham. They call it the Johari Window. See why? EXHIBIT 18.1
Four parts of self. Everything about ourselves can be put in one of these four boxes. To improve their effectiveness, managers need to make box (1) bigger and box (2) smaller This exhibit sharpens the importance of decreasing our degree of style unawareness. The style unawareness area is that part of our behaviour which others are well aware of but we are not. In simple terms, we may be acting in ways toward others, perhaps rejecting them, of which we are essentially unaware. Clearly to be effective with others, we must know just what kind of impact we are making. To become more effective then, a manager needs to make window (2) smaller by increasing the size of window (1). Without a reasonable degree of style awareness, it is difficult to use management style concepts. Without knowing our own basic style, it is all too easy to distort the style of another or the basic-style demands of a situation itself. As a result of training, managers often experience a marked style-awareness shift. They see their style behaviour in a markedly different way. As part of prework for the 3-D Managerial Effectiveness Seminar, managers complete three different managerial inventories which reveal how they see different aspects of their style. A total of 240 points is distributed over the eight managerial styles or 80 on each inventory. On the last day of the seminar, the inventories are again completed according to how the managers now see their typical style behaviour as it existed before the seminar. A record is made of the amount of points shifted from one style to another. The maximum shift is 480 points. A shift of 0 points
Page 160
would indicate no change in style awareness. On almost every seminar, some managers shift over 250 or even 300 points indicating a marked change in style awareness. The average shift is about 140 points.
Some questions for managers to ask themselves

Style awareness is difficult to improve by simply thinking about it, but some assistance may be obtained by answering each of the following questions honestly: 1. If someone said of you You sometimes act like a kid, what behaviour would they be thinking of? 2. What do you do that gets you into trouble? 3. Are there any major themes in your life which seem to repeat themselves perhaps in different contexts? 4. Do you care more about yourself than others? 5. If you obtained a livable pension today, would you still like to keep your job? 6. What did you do when your father was angry at you? Mother angry at you? Friends angry at you? 7. What does your spouse think of you? What do your children think of you? 8. What do you do when your superior is angry with you? Coworkers angry with you? 9. What do you typically do when under attack or faced with conflict? 10. What are your major disappointments in life? 11. What are your major disappointments at work? 12. Who is responsible for your major disappointments? 13. What made you proudest as a child? As an adult? 14. What is your favourite daydream? Do you see anything in it that might be making you a more or less effective manager? 15. What is your single major accomplishment? Most of these questions tap the managers underlying personality dynamics. They are questions which we seldom think about. The answers to them differentiate ourselves sharply from others.
Your defence mechanisms

For a variety of reasons we sometimes are unconsciously not interested in making a sound situational diagnosis. It may be that if we made a realistic diagnosis, we would discover things we do not like, or things we simply do not want to know, or things we do not know how to handle. The main, unconscious mental protective devices we use are known as defence mechanisms originally proposed by Sigmund
Page 161
Freud. Defence mechanisms are not necessarily psychologically unhealthy. All healthy personalities need temporary protection from time to time. The problem occurs when the temporary protection turns into a permanent drop in situational sensitivity and so to a distortion of reality. The defence mechanisms operate entirely outside the awareness of some managers, operating in the unconscious, serving to hide or to shield them from what is unacceptable, threatening or repugnant in the situation so that these things become unrecognised or unacknowledged. In laymans language, defence mechanisms give us blind spots we unconsciously think we need. The main defence mechanisms managers should be aware of in themselves and others are rationalisation (inventing reasons) and projection (its you not me). In addition to these two mechanisms, the following five factors also lead to low sensitivity: negative adaptation (accepting things as they are), symptoms for causes (mistaking appearance for cause), lack of conceptual language (not talking the same language), limiting value system (having one test for everything), and high levels of anxiety (being a worrier).
Rationalisation (inventing reasons)

Rationalisation involves inventing plausible but spurious explanations. For example, attributing the promotion of someone to office politics when in fact the promotion was based on managerial effectiveness. Rationalisation involves inventing and accepting interpretations which an impartial analysis would not substantiate. It is kidding ourselves about what the world is really like. Rationalisation serves to conceal our view of the situation in such a way that the problem is seen as in the situation, not in ourselves. The justification of such interpretation usually involves giving socially acceptable reasons for behaviour or apparently logical reasons for the view of the situation. In business life, what is rationalised in this way is usually believed by the manager but is often not understood or believed by the listener. All managers are familiar with rationalisation. They see it in the manager passed over for promotion who decided it was not wanted anyway. This is called sour grapes (after the fable about the fox who could not get at some grapes and who then decided they were sour). Managers who continually sour grape turn into one. Managers transferred against their wishes may later find that they like their new jobs. This is called sweet lemon to suggest that we invest an unpleasant object or event with positive references when it is forced on us. It is clear that rationalisation at times is an excellent adaptive mechanism which enables us to meet negative circumstances. The change in opinion, of course, might be real and based on objective reality. In this case this is not rationalisation but a factual reappraisal. Managers who are consistently late with their reports find many ways to rationalise their behaviour. They may blame subordinates, overwork, or unanticipated problems. For none of these delays, they feel, can they be held responsible. The real reasons may be fear of being evaluated by the report, unconsciously wanting to inconvenience report recipients, or simply incompetence. These real reasons are often not known to them. If they know them and still put excuses forward, they are not rationalising, they are lying.
Page 162
Rationalisation is not rare. Some managers use it so much that it incapacitates them, most use it to some extent: The job was not completed because other things came up, The promotion was missed because the superior was biased, The subordinates were fired because they were incompetent. Ordinary levels of rationalisation cannot be regarded as a serious problem but overuse can be. An incompetent manager, with a high need for achievement and an excessive fear of failure, might easily develop almost pathological rationalisations, perhaps leading to delusions of persecution. Managers might believe that their superior Has it in for them. This rationalisation may protect them from facing the real reasons for failure and lack of promotion. The overuse of rationalisation may so far remove managers from their real problems that they may end up with a crisis that cannot be solved. If we save face too much, we may simply end up without a true identity. Rationalisation is sometimes excusable on the grounds that it eases the shock of an unpleasant situation. It softens our misgivings about ourselves, eases our conscience, and enables us to restructure reality slowly so that it does not affront our view of ourselves. Some would say that if we did not rationalise we would go crazy. There is truth in this for less effective managers. For the effective manager, however, there is no substitute for reading a situation clearly, facing it squarely, and dealing with it realistically. The problem with rationalisation is not so much that we fool ourselves but that it provides no guidelines for appropriate action. The essential ingredient of rationalisation is distortion to protect ourselves. This distorted perception leads to the identification of the wrong elements to change. Typically, managers who are rationalising may want to change others, or perhaps the technology, when they really should change themselves. College students who do not participate enough in case study classes, where high student participation is expected, usually have a set of rationalisations to explain their less effective behaviour. These include: Too many talk with nothing to say, Still water runs deep, We should have a public speaking course, and even, I was quiet when a child. The best tip off to rationalisation in ourselves or others is the too perfect, too logical, or too consistent explanation. Life is fairly complex, and somewhat tentative explanations are what we usually must use. The rationalisation, however, is usually a logical masterpiece. All the bits fit together to make a perfect cover up story. Another tip off is the insistence with which the rationalisation is offered as an explanation. Shakespeare illuminated this with, The lady doth protest too much, methinks. Winston Churchill was said to have sometimes written in the margin of his speeches WPS. It meant Weak point shout!
Projection (Its you not me)

Projection is attributing to others what is in fact in ones self. In short. Its them, not me. It operates primarily in those with low style awareness, those who do not know how they, in fact, behave. The mechanism is most clearly seen in delusions of persecution. A new manager may be in the process of making changes in a department. Not all will like the changes, and each will react somewhat differently. Subordinates might feel aggressive toward this new manager but, because of social training, may not express it or even be aware of it. By the mechanism of projection, the subordinates then may suspect the
Page 163
managers of having these feelings and, as an extreme, believe themselves victims of a conspiracy. Such statements as these may reveal projection at work: The production department is not to be trusted, They are wolves in sheeps clothing, and Every person has a price. Projection may be combined with rationalisation with undesirable results. Some managers cannot accept and do not see hostility in themselves. They may project this onto others and see the others as mean and aggressive. These managers then may have to rationalise why the other managers act this way towards them. One form is to develop a belief that others want the job or are trying to get them fired. Typical examples of projection are the deserter who sees others as lazy, the selfish person who complains that others do not share and low relationships managers who are concerned that no one seems to take an interest in them. A manager making changes in a department was mystified at the behaviour of two subordinates who resisted at every step, even to the extent of an unsuccessful attempt to get the manager fired. The two subordinates claimed that the manager was simply changing the department to suit the managers own ends. The manager was convinced otherwise and an objective external appraisal showed the changes were long overdue. The subordinates were almost certainly projecting their own feelings onto the manager. They wanted the old way as it suited their needs. But as this was unacceptable to admit to themselves, they convinced themselves that the changes were serving the managers needs. Projection leads to low managerial effectiveness because it can only be maintained at the cost of continually misperceiving social reality. Although such distortion is designed unconsciously to protect the manager, the effect, in the long run, may be the opposite.
Negative adaptation (accepting things as they are)

One of the most important characteristics of human beings is their ability to make a psychological adaptation to an essentially unpleasant situation. Defence mechanisms help them do this. On the detrimental side, many managers adapt to negative conditions in such a way that they lose their sense of perspective about what an ideal situation might be. They believe that they, their department or the company, are operating reasonably well or even perfectly. An objective view would not confirm this. One particular advantage of using competent outsiders for advice is that they can see the true situation. They have had no opportunity to make a negative adaptation to the situation. Negative adaptation is likely to be less common with those managers who have frequent contact outside the organisation, with those with much prior experience elsewhere or with those newly arrived. It can be reduced by a variety of training techniques designed to improve situational sensitivity and also by a sharper measure of managerial effectiveness.
Symptoms for causes (mistaking appearance for cause)

We are all natural born psychologists and this leads us into many difficulties when diagnosing organisation events. Most managers, in fact, customarily make a psychological interpretation of events
Page 164
rather than a sociological one, even when the sociological one is correct. The personality clash diagnosis, for instance, in most cases is incorrect. The clash is often only a symptom and should not be diagnosed as a cause. To diagnose it correctly, it must be demonstrable that the managers involved will fight on the golf course or over a drink. If they are reasonably affable in these circumstances, it cannot be their personalities which clash. A more accurate diagnosis of the underlying cause might be role conflict. That is, their respective jobs are so designed that clashes are inevitable. As an example, suppose one manager was responsible for decreasing marketing costs and another for increasing sales; they did not report to the same manager and so had an ambiguous power relationship to each other. These managers, if committed to their jobs, would almost certainly fight. Is this best explained as personality conflict or role conflict? Clearly role conflict is the better explanation. The danger in calling it personality conflict is that both managers might be asked to take a human relations course and to be nicer to each other. Certainly this action would not get to the root of the problem, whereas a role-alignment meeting might. Other such diagnoses which may be symptoms rather than causes are communication problem, empire building, and apathy. Like personality clash, these are not always best explained by saying People are like that.
Lack of conceptual language (not talking the same language)

Managers who talk and work together need a common set of concepts which they share and agree on. Without such a set, intelligent discussion is hindered. Disraeli spoke for many when he said, If you want to converse with me, define your terms. One of the cornerstones of knowledge is the concept. A concept is simply a bundle of related ideas. To make talk more precise and economic we all use concepts. For example, we do not say that the car moved over a length 100 times 1,000 times one metre every sixty minutes. We, instead, make an equivalent but shorter statement and say that the cars speed was 100 kilometres per hour. Without concepts (in this example, speed, miles and hours) language would be clumsy. So it is with management. Concepts make discussion more precise and often much briefer. Arguments are not, then, over definitions but over the realities of the situation itself. Without the concept of style resilience, it is difficult to quickly make the point that style rigidity has its good side. Without the concept of personal effectiveness, it is difficult to explain how someone can be more effective and yet less effective at the same time. The 3-D terms provide a conceptual language to make discussion and analysis more precise. The concepts are the fewest possible needed to consider effectiveness, situations and styles. They are usable to improve situational sensitivity because they force a focus on elements, activities or outcomes that might otherwise be ignored or misinterpreted.
Limiting value system (having one test for everything)

Some managers have what amounts to an intellectual rigidity by espousing a single value or point of view which colours and sometimes covers reality. They may believe that all problems are human ones, that all work must always be satisfying or that bigness destroys initiative. Whatever the view, when deeply held,
Page 165
the managers are compelled to distort reality so that it fits their established point of view. This produces very simple explanations, since everything is explained in the same way. With a similar kind of simplified approach, some attribute the same motive to whomever it is they disagree with. An example of a motive might be power need. But managers are not psychologists, and even psychologists do not agree upon which motives might be operating for a particular person in a particular situation. It is far safer and more accurate to observe and interpret behaviour, not motives, especially if we have a favourite motive we like to project onto others.
High levels of anxiety (being a worrier)

Some stage fright is usually a good thing. Moderate levels of anxiety tend to improve performance. Terror, on the other hand, usually does not. As anxiety increases through low levels, performance also increases. There comes a point after stage fright level after which further increases in anxiety lead only to decreases in performance. Some persons are permanently anxious whatever the situation. They usually build up deep psychological defences to protect themselves from reality. Physical habits or strong ideological positions about what is right, are less likely to become distorted as a result of high levels of anxiety. Perception, interpretation of motives and feelings about others are likely to become distorted however. Situational sensitivity in particular can be sharply reduced as anxiety increases. But this is precisely the time when it is needed most. Managers at these times are wise to turn to less anxious associates in order to read the situation; and this is what they usually do. Sometimes it is their spouse. Too infrequently it is their older children.
Learning from feedback

One way to improve your situational sensitivity is to learn from feedback you receive. It might be from a candid subordinate or colleague. Managers who want to be more effective seek feedback actively. They are not so concerned with the somewhat trite distinction of feedback into constructive and destructive categories. They are concerned whether it is valid and as quick as possible. They become very interested if the feedback they receive is different from their perceptions. Something must be going on; Here is my chance to learn.
The feedback-learning cycle

Learning from feedback can be seen as a cycle continuously repeating itself. So long as the cycle is maintained, learning can continue. The two key elements in the cycle are making a sound situational diagnosis and obtaining feedback on the results of the actions. The situational-sensitivity cycle of Exhibit 18.2 has six steps. The sixth step leads into a repetition of the cycle. 1 A situational diagnosis is made. 2 The manager decides to adapt to the situation or to change it.
Page 166
3 The manager takes action. 4 The manager obtains feedback on the results of the action. Without this step, the feedback-learning cycle cannot continue. It is its weakest link since it depends on the climate the manager has created and the skill in listening and observing. 5 The manager evaluates the effectiveness of the action, then decides whether it led to more or less effectiveness and how much more effectiveness is possible. 6 The action taken is continued or discarded. EXHIBIT 18.2
Situational-sensitivity cycle. Learning, like music, goes around and around Learning is a continuous process. It is difficult to suggest where it starts or ends. An effective manager is constantly making a diagnosis of the situation, using style flexibility or situational management, and assessing the effectiveness of such actions so that the nature of these interventions can be improved upon.
How to analyse a situation

When you look at any situation you bring your knowledge and experience and perceptive skills to bear. On balance, this is probably the best way and the way you will continue to do so. However, a somewhat more formal way has been developed that you may find of some use. It certainly will help you think of one or more things that you might otherwise overlook. Most situations requiring analysis involve some kind of change and change forces and this approach is based upon this idea. In chapter 20 on situational management many ideas will be given about how to introduce change, that is situational management. Here we are thinking of how to analyse the situation that may need change, situational sensitivity.
Page 167
Reaction to change
The following questions summarise the majority of the ways in which change may be seen as affecting an individual. They are useful in getting a sharper focus on one or several underlying causes of the resistance. Use this list by considering each question in turn as if you were facing a proposed change. Check each question that seems important in increasing either resistance to or acceptance of, the change. Then put (+), (), or (?) against each of those checked to indicate whether that particular factor is likely to increase acceptance, increase resistance, or whether the direction of influence is in doubt. If done well, this analysis provides an assessment of the situation as seen by those affected by the change. It can give leads to the existing restraining forces to be overcome or the main perceived benefits that might be enhanced further. EXHIBIT 18.3 Self (S-1) (S-2) (S-3) (S-4) (S-5) (S-6) (S-7) (S-8) (S-9) Work (W-1) (W-2) (W-3) (W-4) (W-5) (W-6) (W-7) (W-8)
How will my advancement possibilities change? How will my salary change? How will my future with this company change? How will my view of myself change? How will my formal authority change? How will my informal influence change? How will my view of my prior values change? How will my ability to predict the future change? How will my status change?
How will the amount of work I do change? How will my interest in the work change? How will the importance of my work change? How will the challenge of the work change? How will the work pressures change? How will the skill demands on me change? How will my physical surroundings change? How will my hours of work change?
Others (O-1) How will my relationships with my coworkers change? (O-2) How will my relationships with my superiors change? (O-3) How will my relationships with my subordinates change? (O-4) How will what my family thinks of me change? Change-reaction checklist
Page 168
Change-reaction diagram
The change-reaction diagram is used to record the information from the change-reaction checklist. The basic idea of this diagram was proposed by the distinguished psychologist Kurt Lewin. It is useful as a guide for selecting a situational management strategy. There are two basic strategies which may be used to facilitate change: an attempt to increase the acceptance of change or an attempt to decrease the resistance to change. These two sets of forces may be depicted as shown in Exhibit 18.4. EXHIBIT 18.4
Change-reaction diagram: this approach, based on Lewins force-field diagram, shows how a manager can plot and then think about the resistance forces to be weakened and acceptance forces to be strengthened The ten arrows pointing downward represent each of the resistance forces, and the ten arrows pointing upward represent each of the acceptance forces. The number of arrows assigned to each force signifies the strength of the force. The total strength is always ten. The length of an arrow can represent how easily the force may be modified by situational management; so, the longer the arrow, the easier the underlying force is to grasp and modify. The information obtained from the change-reaction checklist can be put on to the diagram by drawing in arrows and labelling them appropriately. EXHIBIT 18.5
Page 169
Example of a resistance analysis. Managers can strengthen any of the acceptance forces or add new ones; they can weaken or eliminate the resistance forces in order to produce change In this example three resistance forces are identified with the weights indicated:
The (O-2), new superior, force is drawn with longer arrows since many techniques can be used to decrease the feelings that usually surround the introduction of a new superior. Among the techniques are provision of background information on them, their early request for ideas to improve departmental effectiveness, a transitional period of a few days where old and new superiors work together, and many others. The acceptance forces are:
The (W-2), more interesting work, force is drawn longer because many techniques can be used to increase the interest of work. These are primarily of the job-enrichment type. This kind of analysis is useful because it takes a rigorous approach to what is so often done very
Page 170
casually. It is always best to make such an analysis with at least one other person in order to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis. As situations may be changed by weakening the resistance forces or strengthening the acceptance forces, each force identified should be so considered in this light.
The two remaining skills

This chapter was all about your situational sensitivity. Perhaps you have decided it is pretty high or perhaps you have decided it is not as high as you would like. We now move on to the two things you can do with your current level of situational sensitivity. You only have two options. You either change yourself, style flexibility, or you change the situation, situational management.
Page 171
19. You and Your Style Flexibility
Life always gets harder toward the summitthe cold increases, responsibility increases. FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE The Antichrist Aphorism No Utopia, nothing but bedlam, will automatically emerge from a regime of unbridled individualism, be it ever so rugged. LEARNED HAND
ONCE YOU have done your best to read a situation for what it truly contains you, broadly, have two choices. You either do a better job at adapting to the situation so that your managerial effectiveness increases, style flexibility, or you change the situation so that your managerial effectiveness increases, situational management. This chapter deals with the flexible response, the next chapter deals with situational management. Most of both the psychological and management literature suggests that a manager with high flexibility is always likely to be a more effective manager. This is incorrect. Some managers change their minds and their behaviour to keep the peace. It might be perceived as being flexible but it is really drifting. Some situations require that a manager maintain a single appropriate style and virtually not vary it. One could hardly call this flexibility. It is clearly effective and we could call it resilience. Of course, maintaining a single style in a situation that does not require that style will lead to less effectiveness and we could call that rigidity. We need to be crystal clear about these differences. To help us, we need a new term. This term is flex. This refers to changing managerial behaviour with no presumptions made about whether it is effective or not. Low flex and high flex behaviour are not more or less effective in themselves. Their effectiveness depends on the situation in which they are used. To build this line of thought into the 3-D Theory, four basic concepts are used to describe both the range of a managers style behaviour and whether it is used appropriately. Style flexibility (appropriate high flex) Style drift (inappropriate high flex) Style resilience (appropriate low flex) Style rigidity (inappropriate low flex) These four concepts can be represented as shown in Exhibit 19.1. EXHIBIT 19.1
Page 172
The four basic concepts of flex The key dimension shown in Exhibit 19.1 is flex. That is, changing ones managerial behaviour. There are four possible outcomes of low and high flex as shown. These outcomes depend upon whether the high or low flex is appropriate to the situation. So, while this chapter rather naturally espouses flexibility and links that to managerial effectiveness you must keep in mind that this is not true in every situation. Some situations may require the opposite. It is in those situations that low behaviour variation is used and situational management is used instead of style flexibility.
Flexibility and drift

If high flex managers are in a situation where their wide range of behaviour is appropriate, they are seen as having style flexibility. They are perceived as oriented to reality, sensitive, adaptive, and open-minded. Even with little ongoing change about them, managers sometimes find they need to have high flex in the apparently unchanging job they have. As a manager supervising ten people you might easily find that two work best when left alone, two need continuous direction, three need to be motivated by objectives, and the three others need a supportive climate. So, in the space of a day you as an effective manager may well use all four basic styles when dealing with such a variety as a dependent subordinate, an aggressive pair of coworkers, a secretary whose work has deteriorated, and a superior only interested in the immediate task at hand. Obviously, to try to use a single basic style in these situations would lead to low effectiveness to say the least. To the extent the organisation and technology allow individual treatment, high flex and sensitive managers could satisfy the demands of all these different situations and so achieve maximum effectiveness. Many positions demand high flex because they require managers to deal with several different kinds of people or groups. The head of a voluntary agency could have to deal with a hostile or friendly board, a tough central fund-raising organisation, professionals, volunteers, the press, the general public and immediate subordinates. If one viewed this position as a whole at one time the total flex demanded would be very high indeed. High flex is likely to be demanded even more in the future. In many firms it is becoming commonplace, for younger managers especially, to undergo periodic changes in position with consequent demands for high flex. In addition, an ongoing organisation change can lead directly to departmental and job changes so that even in particular positions the situation changes. Rapidly changing technology and
Page 173
management techniques themselves produce further change. Sometimes the change is dramatic and sometimes gradual. No matter what the cause of the change, the rate of change is increasing and is imposing more strain on managers to learn new behaviour patterns and discard the old. Whenever the topic of high flex is discussed, you may ask Is high flex really role playing? The suggestion is made that role playing is not being yourself or that it is somehow manipulative. The use of high flex is the ability to play a large number of roles, or use several styles, which is the same thing. Such high flex is best seen as using various parts of yourself as appropriate. If managers continually change their style and so use the same high flex in a situation where wide range of behaviour are inappropriate, they will be seen as having style drift. They are perceived as yielding, unpredictable, and perhaps too sensitive.
Resilience and rigidity

If as a low flex manager you are in a situation where your narrow range of behaviour is appropriate, you are seen as having style resilience. You are perceived as self-confident, orderly, stable and consistent. Style resilience is not a popular subject for many management educators. It clearly should be taught, however, and given a positive value. While there is conflicting evidence, some studies do appear to indicate that subordinates are more likely to be satisfied with any particular style as long as they know what it is. They are less satisfied when they perceive no particular consistent style. Predictability, resilience, and subordinate satisfaction often go together. High flex managers succeeding low flex managers often find that their attempts to loosen things up are not as rapidly successful as they had expected. Their subordinates expectations about how they should behave inhibit their introduction of managing with a higher flex. Many situations demand qualities associated with resilience. Managers who want to be flexible about everything they do will not last long. The modern organisation is a recent and almost wondrous social institution. Its continuity and effectiveness, in part, is based on stability, predictability, and reliability. Its growth may, however, depend on quite different qualities. Obviously an appropriate mix of qualities associated with resilience and flexibility must be sought. As a low flex manager you may find yourself in situations where a much wider range of behaviour is appropriate; you are then seen as having style rigidity. You will be perceived as having a closed mind, as intolerant and unsociable and as resisting change. Much light can be thrown on the nature of resistance by referring to carefully controlled experiments. What follows may be seen by some as an extreme of unusual example. It is neither. It mirrors precisely what happens concerning resistance in organisations large and small. The experiment involves a fish tank almost filled with water with a glass partition in the centre, a big fish on one side and small fishes on the other side. EXHIBIT 19.2
Page 174
Unfreezing needed here In this experiment, then, the big fish is separated from its natural prey, the small fish, by a glass partition. It can see them but cannot get at them. What happens, quite routinely, is that the big fish attempts to get closer to the small fish but continually bumps into the glass partition. After doing this a few hundred times the fish gets rather sore and stops doing it. So far what has happened is fairly obvious. What happens next is not. The glass partition is removed, the small fish surround the big fish and the big fish makes no attempt to eat them. The big fish, in fact, dies of starvation in what is a sea of plenty. It has learned only too well that the small fish are unavailable and that if you try to reach them pain will result. It has difficulty in unlearning what it has already learned so well. The fish has been conditioned into not being able to learn or respond to a new situation. This experiment reflects precisely what is observed routinely in planned change programmes. Management thinks it is a good idea to remove the glass. This may be their wish to introduce a new climate or new methods in the organisation. Other managers in the organisation, most having been around for a long time with a different system, have learned only too well to not go after the smaller fish. Top management may initiate training courses, wave flags or give speeches all concerning the fact that they have removed the glass but the middle managers simply do not believe it and do not respond. Their problem is that they have some unlearning to do because the prior learning was so good. Not learning but unlearning. In short, they need unfreezing. They need to see what is really in their current changed situation rather than what used to be there. Several times, I have been in a situation where I was quite convinced, and later proved correct, that the top team had made many changes and intended to make many more and would carry them through. When meeting with those who reported to the top team I find that, in the first year or so at least, they do not believe a word of it. One consequence of this is that planned change programmes need maintained effort and a substantial amount of work on unfreezing and getting managers to face and accept the new reality.
Four checklists
Page 175
These four checklists will help you gain an understanding of four concepts, style flexibility, style drift, style resilience and style rigidity. You might look at the four lists and check off the words you think apply to you and reflect some things you might want to try and change in yourself. See Exhibit 19.3.
Are you a naturally flexible manager?

There is little question that some managers are naturally more flexible than others and this is related, to a degree, to their personality. It is also true that increased flexibility is easily learned. Four personality characteristics underlie high flex behaviour. You might consider yourself on each one of them.

High ambiguity tolerance (comfortable in unstructured situations) Unconcern with power (not control oriented) Open-belief system (few fixed ideas) Other-directed (interested in others)
High ambiguity tolerance (comfortable in unstructured situations)

High flex types have a high tolerance for ambiguity. They are comfortable in an unstructured situation where one or more of the past, present or future are ill-defined. They are not too threatened by rapid, unexpected changes. Not ones for paperwork, they see this as unnecessarily structuring a situation best kept loose. They favour short reports, loose ground rules and openended planning and scheduling. It is important to them to maintain a friendly, easy atmosphere where the old boy approach is used more than standard operating procedures. Approaches that could be characterised as right or wrong, black or white, go-no-go, and win-lose are foreign to high flex managers. EXHIBIT 19.3
Page 176
Unconcern with power (not control oriented)

High flex managers will often listen more to subordinates than to superiors because they are unconcerned with power. They generally favour flattening the status and power differences between levels and usually avoid displays of status symbols. They are in favour of most forms of participation. High flex managers are sensitive to the way things are. They see good management as the art of the possible. They would prefer to have things develop and flow naturally rather than go one step at a time or be dramatically restructured.
Open-belief system (few fixed ideas)

High flex managers are open-minded. They are ready to see new points of view and to expose themselves to influence. They could easily hold a particular view on one day and change their minds, in the light of new evidence, a day later. They are more concerned with full knowledge than in having their prior beliefs confirmed. They are less likely than others to take extreme positions for or against anything. They have a capacity to accommodate a wide range of view-points and do not feel they must make a successful synthesis of them. Even when unable to accept another point of view, they will always listen to it, usually contemplate it
Page 177
seriously and often live comfortably with it, although it may be contradictory to their existing belief system. They are usually open to new inputs from any source. They are on a continuing search for maximum contact with their environment and are thus open to influence. This openness leads them to drop prior methods with ease. Not tending to hold extreme, fixed views, they argue less vehemently than others. They are tolerant of others holding opposite views. If they have to change their minds, they can do so easily. They are, therefore, as much interested in hearing other views as in pushing their own. To have high flex, managers must have few intrusive personal needs. They must not have a need to do things in one way, to have a particular relationship with others, to live according to a particular ideology or to accomplish a particular thing.
Other-directed (interested in others)

Their openness to influence and their unconcern with power, make the high flex type a team member. They want to be involved in analysis, planning and decision making with others. They seek collaboration with their coworkers and are willing to accommodate a group view rather than maintain their own. They thus are usually more prepared to work for a consensus decision than for a vote. They look for that creative solution or synthesis that everyone will accept. In fact, they find it a challenge to work for such a solution which combines all views, even though the final decision may have some ambiguous elements. High flex managers tend to get involved with people as individuals, not just as subordinates or coworkers. They do not see others as bounded by their role. They are sensitive to individual differences and want to respond to them. They sometimes find themselves involved with another managers home problems. They do this not because they are inquisitive or have high relationship orientation but because they are interested in a variety of inputs and thus look at the total person rather than at a human frame bounded by a job description. Both high flex and low flex types can be seen as fair to others but for different reasons. High flex types are fair owing to their willingness to consider all points of view. Low flex types are fair because they want to treat everyone equally and because they want to lower the ambiguity of the situation. The high flex type is generally more concerned with fairness to the individual, the low flex type with fairness to a particular social system as a whole. The high flex type tends to be sensitive to the relationships orientation elements in a situation. The low flex type to the task orientation elements.
High flex demands

Some managerial positions make high demands on flex so that a variety of basic styles must be used to produce effectiveness. Creative directors of advertising agencies have to deal with a creative staff, the agency management and account executives. With a creative staff, they must provide a supportive climate; with the account executives, they must act like sales staff and push for their ideas; with the management, they are expected to take a rational, hard-headed approach with costs, profits, planning and running a department. Small wonder that low flex, creative directors are thought to
Page 178
be excitable and tend to develop ulcers rapidly. Job characteristics which usually demand high flex include:

high-level management loose procedures unstructured tasks non-routine decision making rapid environmental change manager without complete power many interdependent coworkers
Very few jobs possess all the above-mentioned characteristics, but the following positions, having one or more of them, tend to make higher than average demands on flex:

senior manager personnel manager service-function coordinator research administrator manager of staff department supervisor university CEO
The more senior the manager, the more important high flex is likely to be. No administrative problem repeats itself in every detail. The higher the level, the more complex successive problems are likely to be. In many policy issues, the personality of the shaper has an enormous influence. It is then that flex can be of the utmost importance. Senior executives are continually encountering exceptional circumstances which fall outside established patterns of solutions. It is how they handle these situations that most determines their overall effectiveness. High flex managers in a low flex organisation may not be allowed to manage effectively, and if they do, they could get fired. The general manager of a 500-employee plant was what everyone would call a great-guy except the Chief Executive Officer, who was the general managers immediate superior. The CEO was a bureaucrat and wanted the general manager to pay more attention to detail, stay within budget, make sure sales staff sent in reports weekly and stay close to the telephone. At one point there was serious consideration given to firing the general manager even though by any standard of managerial effectiveness an outstanding performance was demonstrated by the doubling of profits in three years and by far outstripping the head office projections of both sales and profits.
Page 179
The general manager ultimately left and was able to immediately obtain double salary in a new job. As a flexible manager you are perceived as having few personal needs or biases which might lead you to interpret wrongly the real world. You are reality-oriented, and this reality guides your action. You are not led to analyse a situation in terms of how you think things should be. Rather you read a situation for what it is and for what can reasonably be accomplished. You seldom identify with lost causes but more often with objectives being achieved. As a flexible manager you are essentially an optimist about yourself and about the situation. Often you see things you do not care for but know that with time and appropriate behaviour, the situation can be changed. As a flexible manager you recognise that you live in a complex world, you are aware that a wide range of responses are necessary in order to be effective in it. You are very sensitive to other people and are not only sensitive to their differences but accept the differences as normal, appropriate and even necessary. You are trusted and believe that your proposals for change are based on improving overall effectiveness and are not intended simply to satisfy your own needs in some way. As a flexible manager you spend more time in making decisions and less time in implementing them. You are concerned with method of introduction, timing, rate of introduction and probable responses and resistances. In spending more time on deciding how to implement decisions, the implementation period is shortened considerably. You seldom make snap decisions. As a flexible manager you use team management when appropriate. This gives you an ideal opportunity to use your flexibility. Rapid changes do not make you unduly anxious. It brings temporary ambiguity which as a flexible manager you can tolerate easily. You are likely to be willing to experiment with changes that have only a moderate chance of success. You know the world is complex and recognise that any change may bring unanticipated consequences so you are prepared to test a large number of ideas. You are willing to accept a variety of styles of management, varying degrees of participation and an assortment of control techniques. Appropriateness is your only test. In the course of a few hours, you may have used a variety of basic styles as a flexible manager. You adapt your style to what is then demanded. You use participation at times, and at other times you do not.
Why you may resist becoming more flexible

Quite apart from your personal defences there are many other explanations of why you may resist change in yourself.
Why resistance occurs

No direction to change No skills to change
Page 180
No pressure to change Known is safer Personal effectiveness Shell shock Prior learning
No direction to change
Resistance to change often arises simply because the type of change desired is not specified clearly enough. It helps little to ask, implore or demand others to change if you are not clear on the exact nature of the changed behaviour required. Often, the unwritten desired direction is Change to whatever I want at the time. In some settings this might be useful but in normal settings it is not common and normally less effective. As an example, the change request to Improve communication contains really no information on direction of change. Does this mean more talk, less talk, more memos, less memos, communication upwards, communication downwards, communication laterally, listening, more speed reading courses needed, more speed writing courses needed, more basic language courses needed, more use of the telephone, less use of the telephone, longer meetings, shorter meetings? Surely, the point is made. Other examples of quite useless direction for change concern such statements as Lets make the organisation more participative or more 9.9 Theory Y. These statements contain no useful information. All this is why planned change must start with the notion of planned change objectives and how to measure these objectives. The whole point being to give change direction a high degree of specificity. Without this planned change must stop dead in its tracks because everyone does not agree on what changes are being considered.
No skills to change
Change sometimes fails because managers are not provided with the skills needed to implement the change. Perhaps the new corporate planning scheme requires that managers have an increased ability to make a plan. It may well be desirable to arrange that every manager has a one or two-day course on planning which might include such things as being competent at Critical Path Analysis or Programme Evaluation Review Technique or some other technique. Performance appraisal schemes often fail because they are introduced simply as a form which is distributed and managers told, essentially, To get on with it, rather than being formally exposed to a one day course, probably using video tape feedback, which enables them to practice their use of the form and all that it entails on strangers before they use it with their subordinates. If one needs to make an organisation more participative it might well be a good idea to offer managers a short one or two-day course in listening skills or in participative meeting skills. Again, to give them an opportunity to learn in a neutral and safe environment before they apply it on the job.
Page 181
No pressure to change
In addition to directionality and skill level the successful implementation of change requires some pressure of some kind. In its starkest terms it might be financial rewards for successful behaviour change and financial punishments for no behaviour change. More common, the pressure arises from a clear message from management that they want the change and are quite determined to see it implemented. Other pressures for change may be created by talks, meetings and system changes. The single best pressure always is that top management is seen to be supportive of the change and, as it applies, to be directly engaging the change itself.
Known is safer
It is quite common for an effective manager to resist change. The effective manager resists change because of the danger that in making a change the present good level of effectiveness might be decreased. In fact, the simple truth is that change introduction often results in a short term decrease in performance while new skills are being learned or while errors in introducing the change are being weeded out. Think of your own situation and some skill which you acquired too late. Perhaps you waited too long to become computer familiar. You thought that the time taken to learn it would lower your effectiveness with other things. Perhaps you took too long to become really able with a dictating machine. You were concerned that the time taken to learn it would detract from effectiveness. It is important to understand that a manager who is effective and who resists change may be doing so simply because of fear of lowering the good standard of performance at the moment.
Personal effectiveness
While the approach so far has taken a fairly understanding view towards resistance, it can of course arise from purely selfish motives. If one is primarily interested in personal effectiveness, that is meeting ones own personal rather than organisation objectives, one may well show high resistance to proposed changes. If one is overly concerned with ones own position, power, possible career route, size of office, work arrangements, numbers supervised and a host of other things; and puts these first, then it would be natural to expect a higher resistance to reasonable changes which would improve organisation rather than personal effectiveness. The best way to deal with this issue is to raise it with ones colleagues. The question that comes naturally is Are you objecting to this change because of managerial effectiveness or personal effectiveness reasons? This is a routine question in organisations with good team work and candour.
Shell shock
Shell shock, in military medicine, applies to a psychological malfunction wherein the individual cannot cope with the existing unthreatening reality because of lingering feelings about an earlier shocking reality which was impossible to handle. Things are not quite that bad with most organisations, but they
Page 182
sometimes occur; otherwise, why would people involved in change frequently have heart attacks, ulcers, or become alcoholics? All of these can be seen as aspects of shell shock. Some companies pride themselves on being abreast of every new idea in management This obviously can be healthy, it depends to what extent it is carried. But, if in an organisation one year it is job enrichment, the next year quality control circles, the next year management by objectives, the next year participative management... and so on one could reasonably expect that the amount of change would be so great that it would be impossible for most managers to deal with it, and more important, integrate its variety into some sense. Surely, this is an understandable reaction. Planned change should involve a single comprehensive set of ideas over a period of time long enough for them to be integrated into the ongoing life of the organisation.
Prior learning
This refers back to the fish experiment. Some people cannot change because they have learned the wrong things too well. This is sometimes called trained incapacity. It is the most important example of the need for unfreezing.
Will you increase your flexibility?

You can think about your flexibility in terms of the basic styles. Is your behaviour range so narrow, as represented in Exhibit 19.4, that you are in one corner or in one of the others. Or do you have a broader behaviour range, as presented in Exhibit 19.5 with some capacity to use at least three of the basic styles? EXHIBIT 19.4
A resilient or rigid manager From Exhibit 19.5 alone we cannot say whether the manager is more or less effective. We do know the manager has the capacity to use three styles. If one or more of those styles is effective in a situation then we would use the label flexibility, and if not, we would use the label drift. Think about your results on the style test. If you had a double dominant basic style, such as missionary and developer, it is possible that your style variation is limited more or less to related. If you
Page 183
have a fairly flat profile it is probable that your style variation is fairly wide. EXHIBIT 19.5
A flexible or drifting manager Think for a moment about the capacity for your own behaviour change. A rich relative has died and in the will has left you an iron foundry. There is one key proviso. You must personally go and manage the iron foundry and if you change its current one per cent return on investment to five per cent return on investment within a four year period then the iron foundry becomes yours and you can do with it whatever you will. The estimated value with that kind of turnaround would be several times more than your expected income for the rest of your life. Do you think that you would be sufficiently motivated to attempt to improve the organisation effectiveness of the iron foundry? While you probably have had no experience in this line of work do you think you might in fact have a good go at it and you might be reasonably effective if you put effort into it? Most people, like yourself, would say something equivalent to I will give it a go. Suppose, instead, you were asked to lead a university department of management. You were told that in the department there are lecturers all of whom are technical specialists in narrow subjects such as finance, tax, accounting, human relations, organisation behaviour and statistics. You were told that they set their own curricula, they set their own examinations, they decide alone which students pass and which ones do not, it is not at all customary for heads of department to ever view a faculty member teaching; in short, you have little control. You are asked to improve the general organisation effectiveness of the department and to represent the department well to the community. Do you think that this might be an interesting job for five years? Do you think that if you thought it was interesting you might try it? The point with these two examples is that they would require completely opposite kinds of behaviour. The first would require a heavily dedicated task oriented behaviour and the second would require a highly related type of behaviour. You, in fact, believe that you could do either job if needed. One must conclude that you believe that you have a wide range of possible behaviour. It is not the capacity for behaviour change that is the limiting factorit is the clarity of perception that makes it obvious that a particular change to a type of behaviour is needed. We all have an innate wide range of potential behaviour. We and others must learn to use it. We have no room for the resisting ones who
Page 184
claim that behaviour is difficult to change or cannot change. Some claim that change in behaviour is a form of manipulation and that it confuses others. If the behaviour change is for personal effectiveness reasons so that you can serve your own needs then it is appropriately called manipulation. If the behaviour change is to serve situation needs and to improve managerial effectiveness then obviously it is style flexibility. Most people are quite able to sort out one from the other. To help maintain their own resistance some argue that the expectation of behaviour change is not reasonable as you cannot change personality. It is in fact difficult to change personality, if not impossible. It is easy however for us to change behaviour. We are changing our behaviour continually. We act differently with different subordinates, we act differently at home, we sometimes treat our individual children differently, we act differently with our sports team and with our friends. Behaviour changes all the time. It is natural. There is no need to be pessimistic about changing your flexibility. The simple fact is that several excellent methods exist to overcome resistance. What is probably the most advanced method is a behavioural science type event called the 3-D Managerial Effectiveness Seminar as described in chapter 22. It has these nine main components:
How to Improve Flexibility
Theory: About Behaviour About Situation About Effectiveness Awareness: Own Behaviour Own Situation Own Effectiveness Skills: Situational Sensitivity Situation Management Style Flexibility
To help managers change they need some cognitive framework. They need what is, in effect, a common sensible easily understandable language so they are all talking about the same thing in the same way. This language is obviously based around behaviour, around situation and around effectiveness. The behaviour may well consist of managerial styles, the situation or various situation elements such as technology and superior style which affects ones own behaviour and effectiveness. A very clear statement must be given about effectiveness itself. That is, what it is, how it is measured and how it should be improved. Another part of helping people to improve their flexibility should be an enhanced awareness of their own behaviour, their own situation and their own effectiveness. This, in effect, applies the theoretical knowledge to their own situation. The whole of this is to overcome distortion. These seminars
Page 185
start with a simple statement The objective of this seminar is to help make you become more objective about your situation. This may seem a strange way to start a seminar on managerial effectiveness but it is the best way if you follow the ideas here. Obviously, the final segment of the event must be skill improvement. What are the three skills of an effective manager? They must be the ability to size up situations for what they really contain, situational sensitivity; to change situations that need to be changed, situation management; and the ability to adapt to a situation which cannot or should not be changed, style flexibility. All this leads, logically, to improved managerial effectiveness.
What does becoming more flexible meanreally?

What is behaviour change really? Some, as a defence, imagine it is some-thing to do with changing ones basic beliefs, changing ones lifestyle, moving from one role to another in terms of styles and other dramatic expressions. Effective behaviour change may involve one or more of these but it normally does not. It is quite possible to achieve increments in managerial effectiveness with a relatively small amount of behaviour change which to many will be invisible. Here are some ideas:
What is Behaviour Change?

More or less planning More or less talking or memos More or fewer risks More or less consideration More or less participation More or less use of a style Higher candour Remove your desk
Some of the items on this list will seem to be quite minor but can be quite important. Some managers are mavericks, they wing it, they do not plan enough. Other managers are the opposite and like densely prepared bureaucratic schedules for everything even when they are not needed and do not lead to improved effectiveness. Perhaps you should plan a little more or plan a little less. Perhaps you should talk more or less or use memos more or less. Think about what you are doing now and really whether what you are doing is the most effective method. You cannot possibly address this issue until you know what your outputs should be and, to a degree, whether you are achieving them. Are you taking enough risks, or are you taking too many? One severe hindrance to behaviour change is the unwillingness to take any risks at all. Change of necessity involves risk taking. It is simply because we have not been there before. One must expect a short terra decrement of performance with virtually any behaviour change. Perhaps you are showing too much consideration to others, perhaps too little. Perhaps you are using too
Page 186
much participation or perhaps too little. Think of the styles you use. Could you use some of them a bit more or a bit less? Should you be more candid about performance? The point of all this is to indicate that important behaviour change to improve managerial effectiveness need not be dramatic. Overcoming resistance in ones self and in others is not necessarily high drama. It can often be things that are virtually invisible to the casual observer. There is no reason why we should not engage such behaviour change and no reason why we should not expect others to as well. We need to understand resistance always but we need not accept it always.
Page 187
20. You and Your Situational Management
The great end of life is not knowledge but action. THOMAS HUXLEY

Those who make things happen. Those to whom things happen. Those who watch things happen. Those who dont even know that things are happening. L. APPLEY
THE ESSENCE of this chapter on situational management is overcoming resistance to change. To a degree some of this resistance may be within yourself in that you are unwilling to exercise the situational management which would lead to managerial effectiveness. However, the presumption is that most of the resistance is in others and that you, as a manager, need to overcome it. Chapter 19 on style flexibility raised many issues concerning resistance with the main focus being your own resistance to be more flexible. Obviously, all of those arguments also apply to others. In thinking about situational management and resistance in others do consider all you have just considered about yourself when thinking about your own flexibility. People tend to resist change instinctively, based on both conscious and unconscious fears. Overcoming resistance to change is the effective managers stock in trade.
Most common errors

Most of the possible errors in situational management have been discussed or inferred already. Some, however, occur much more frequently, and are more serious, than others. They are:

Human aspects only Technical aspects only No information about change No planning of introduction No benefits Seen as personal Suppression of resistance
Page 188
Meeting force with force
A sole emphasis on the human aspects of change may lead to the changes being distorted from the original plan or may lead to no change at all. Overemphasis on the human side is sometimes induced by human relations training courses. Managers then become either overparticipative or guilty about the methods they have to use. At the other extreme is a sole emphasis on the technical aspects of change. Engineers and systems department managers are among those who have been most guilty of this in the past. This kind of emphasis can lead to the most extreme personal resistance of all. This resistance leads either to still more impersonal pressure, to compromise, or to an abandonment of the project. When a firm has a history of resistance to change, it sometimes resorts to the strategy which might be called no information, no warning, or earthquake. It can get away with these strategies, to some extent, in a heavily technical system, or in a situation where payment can be made for compliance and where direct coercion is possible. The negative effects of such an approach are varied but are often intense. They include grapevines, anxiety, and suppressed or overt hostility. Eventually the pool duplicator turns out resumes for those seeking work elsewhere. A widespread error, and one capable of a simple solution, is lack of planning of the method of introduction. This planning has nothing to do with the actual change itself but solely with the way it is introduced. A new method might have cost several million dollars to design and purchase, yet not even a single employee-year, nor even a month, is spent on ensuring smooth implementation. How much time should be spent? What is an appropriate situational-management design-budget percentage? In most firms it is zero. They think that a plan on paper is a short step from a plan implemented. It is not. All change has associated benefits for the worker, manager, or organisation as a whole. In the long run those working in the organisation will gain if the organisation gains. The benefits of some change may simply be survival, but benefits, in some form, are always present. Even though they may not be individual benefits, they should be stressed rather than ignored. Sometimes change is resisted simply because it is seen as a result of a personal whim. This kind of objection is unlikely to be raised about the manager at the top of a profit centre. It is very likely to be raised about staff people who are seen as empire builders or of very ambitious managers who appear more interested in personal than managerial effectiveness. No normal manager prefers to use coercive means to suppress resistance, yet most managers have and know they will again. There is no argument for suppression unless all else has failed. If absolute time limits are near and if others may suffer because of increased danger or the possibility of adverse economic consequences, then the method may be condoned. Suppression methods are familiar to all and include threats of punishment, offers of bribes, threatened termination, and the threat of cancellation of concessions already offered. These methods are not recommended unless others have failed or unless special conditions prevail because they can easily lead to increased resistance. If handled properly when they must be used, they can lead to increased respect. It is unwise to interpret deep resistance as an attack on the manager or on the changes that the manager wants to implement. The resistance may simply be an instinctive or learned reaction to
Page 189
something strange. If so, it is unwise to meet force with force because it may turn what was simply an initial objection to a lasting resentment.
Ten tested techniques to overcome resistance

In order to change things, resistance to change must be overcome. There are ten techniques by which this may be accomplished. They are easy to learn and just as easy to use. Most of them amount to common sense. All of them are well tested.
The Ten Techniques

Diagnosis Mutual Objective Setting Group Emphasis Maximum Information Discussion of Implementation Use of CeremonyRitual Resistance Interpretation Effective Feedback to Others Appropriate Rate of Change Changing the Work System
The first three of these are specifically designed to give those affected by the change an opportunity to have some influence on the direction, nature, rate and method of introduction of the change. Giving those affected by it some control over the change enables them to become involved with it, to express their ideas more directly and to be in a better position to propose useful modifications in the proposed change if it should appear necessary to them.
Diagnosis
Resistance to change may be reduced if a diagnosis of the situation is first made by those affected by the change. The process of making the diagnosis leads to an increased awareness of what is wrong and this in turn can lead naturally to steps to change the situation. The diagnosis may be in the form of a work team discussing What are the major problems we could solve if we worked together to solve them? This kind of question has been used repeatedly with success at all levels of management. It is not only the ultimate diagnosis that the question produces that is important. The actual process of making the diagnosis itself leads to a profound unfreezing by bringing people together to discuss certain things
Page 190
about their department that they have never discussed before. In such discussions they often gain new perspectives on old problems. They sometimes come to see that they themselves are the prime cause. A company psychologist wanted to persuade management to engage women workers over 30. Top management were opposed to this proposed policy change. They believed that older women had a higher rate of absenteeism, lower rate of work and took longer time to train. The psychologist involved top management in a research project to test their beliefs. Management established the criteria to be used and the method of collecting the data. Managements finding that older women were far better than they had thought led directly to a policy change and also to a campaign to change the policies of other firms. This is a good example of the effect of a diagnosis on changing a stereotype. We do not know it, but it is possible that the same facts collected another way, by consultants perhaps, would not have led to the change. They almost certainly would not have led to the managements campaign to get policies changed there and elsewhere.
Mutual objective setting

Resistance to change is reduced by the use of objective setting by those instituting the change and by those affected by it. Much resistance is simply based on a misunderstanding about the true aims of the change. Once the aims have been set and agreed upon there is usually a straight road to their achievement. Objectives set by those affected by the change are generally more ambitious than those set by those not so involved. In one application of objective setting a group of workers asked for and were allowed to set their own speed on machine paced work. Prior to this the workers had failed to meet the required pace. By using a specially installed dial they established their own speed which they varied by the time of day. Their average output was between 30 and 50 per cent higher than expected and they reported that their work was easier. Bargaining is a lower but often necessary form of mutual objective setting. It is a frank exchange based on We will do this if you do that. It is particularly useful and may be the only method to use with union militancy or in situations where hostility has led to poor communication. Bargaining is not necessarily a display of weakness, it may be an acceptance of reality; it usually leads to compromise. At its worst bargaining leads to obstinacy on both sides and a consequent win-lose approach to the final decision. But conditions can at times be created where it leads to a better decision than either side previously considered.
Group emphasis
Management training is now moving more and more to a group or team emphasis. It is becoming clear that the individual group member in isolation can have little influence without the wholehearted co-operation of the others. The best way to obtain this is to train the managers as a team so that all ideas
Page 191
are team ideas and the team is committed to them as a unit. Some managers say that the first thing to do with an idea is to separate it from the manager who first thought of it and make it group property. Moreover, resistance to change is reduced if the group is made the focus of change rather than the individual. Group decision making has a powerful control over the deviant member who is holding up the group. Groups develop powerful standards for conformity and the means of enforcing them. In the same way that a group can set up work norms to inhibit change, it can set up norms which facilitate it. As with any technique there are times when group decision making is appropriate and times when it is not. For example, it should never be used when management has, or should have already, made up its mind. In fact, it can only be used when both sides have something to gain. Also, it can only operate when a group or potential group actually exists. These first three techniques of diagnosis, mutual objective setting and group emphasis all involve participation in different aspects of the change. The term participation itself was not emphasised as there is so much misunderstanding about it and disagreement over what it means. In the three techniques discussed there is no promise made that management will accept all the ideas suggested and there is no need for such agreement. The techniques can be used quite successfully when management says in effect This much is decided, What are your thoughts on the rest? We will consider all your proposals but cannot guarantee to accept them. The success of such methods as these depends on the extent to which they are seen as legitimate, honest and likely to be successful. While it can be done, it is difficult for a company to start too suddenly to use these techniques in situations where they have never been used before. A certain degree of trust is important and a certain degree of skill in implementation is crucial. Needless to say managers cannot use these techniques if they have already finally settled on a course of action. To do so is both dishonest and folly. You can fool some of the people... and it only takes one to tell the rest. Pseudo participation is time wasted for everyone and clearly inappropriate if a degree of appropriate participation could have been used instead.
Maximum information
When involved in any change, management goes through four distinct steps: 1. Recognises change needed. 2. Decides on ideal state. 3. Designs method of implementation. 4. Implements change. These should each in turn lead to four appropriate announcements: 1. That a change will be made. 2. What the decision is and why made. 3. How decision will be implemented. 4. How decision implementation is progressing.
Page 192
Each of which can produce a possible resistance: 1. To thought of any change. 2. To decision itself. 3. To method of implementation. 4. To changed state itself. When analysing a change in process, or when planning a change, these twelve elements should each be considered in turn. In particular, management should consider how well it is conveying the four separate elements of information required. There is a tremendous fear of incomplete information and people usually believe the worst. The first piece of appropriate information that a change will be made is often omitted or left to rumour; the second what the decision is and why made is often made too tersely; the third how decision will be implemented is often omitted and not enough thought, let alone communication is given to it; the fourth how decision implementation is progressing is seldom communicated particularly when there is little that is good to communicate. Maximum information is usually a sound policy after a change has been announced and sometimes, but not always, before it. Testing the wind with hints about forthcoming changes can sometimes provide useful pointers on the state of resistance or acceptance to the change. On the other hand it can simply raise the level of anxiety and lead to wild rumours. Prior announcements should be crystal clear as far as they go but do not have to be complete. This vague sort of prior announcement or rumour is harmful: Some organisation changes are coming. This precise prior announcement is helpful: A reorganisation to the top two levels of A division will be announced on September 1st by the executive committee. The changes will be carried out during the following two months. The basic function of the division will remain unchanged. Once a change has been announced the maximum possible information should be distributed about it. Resistance to change is almost always lower if the objectives, nature, methods, benefits and drawbacks of the change are made clear to all concerned. Face to face announcements are better than the printed word. Not only do they personalise what may be seen as a depersonalised action but they also allow anxieties to be expressed clearly and perhaps dealt with on the spot.
Discussion of implementation
Discussion of implementation should be a part of the set policy of giving fullest possible information. It calls for distinct treatment, however, as it is a most important step often overlooked. Resistance to change is reduced if there can be agreement on the rate and method of
Page 193
implementation. It is as effective to have discussion on the way a change is to be introduced as it is to discuss the nature of the change itself. Such discussions will cover what the first steps should be, what the rate of change should be, what the appropriate sequence of changes should be and who should be involved in what elements of the implementation. When this method is used successfully it sometimes happens that the unit undergoing the change says to management Leave us alone, come back in two weeks or two months and the changes will be in. A wise manager accepts that kind of offer.
Use of ceremonyritual
In primitive form, in western business society, the golden handshake or gold watch presentation is a method of marking and facilitating a change of role from employed to retired. One problem with the ceremony is that it is essentially one of departure. Only those whom the retired person is leaving are present. This hardly facilitates entry into the community of the retired. Life consists of a series of periods spent in different roles. Most of us follow a similar pattern. We are first infants, then school children, then lovers, then adults, then marriage partners, then parents. At school, at work or in some fraternal orders similar progressions occur. Some degree of ritual surrounds the passage of one role to another. The more important the role distinction the more elaborate is the ritual; witness the marriage ceremony. When there are clearly established progressions from one role to another change becomes much easier to accept. It means that you know that many people have done it before you. You know them. You are prepared for the future and you know what behaviour demands the next role will make on you. You know the conditions for entering the role and for remaining there. You know the meaning and use the various symbols, which might be a wedding ring or a big desk and a fitted carpet. Some of the particular uses of ceremony and ritual for managers are:

Pass on statuscompetencepower Prepare individual or group for change Provide a clear end and beginning Provide for orderly change Make change legitimate Emphasise individual responsibility to organisation
A few more of the many occasions when one or more of these are accomplished and where ceremony and ritual are therefore useful are:

Retirement Promotion Introduction of new coworker Introduction of new superior
Page 194
Introduction of new subordinate Move to new job Start of new system Reorganisation
Ceremonies well used by a manager can serve to focus the importance of the ongoing institution and to underline the importance of individual loyalty to the institution and to the positions in it. Clearly managers need to learn how to use ceremony and ritual, Both can facilitate adaptation to what otherwise might be a painful adjustment.
Resistance interpretation
When people understand why they have been resisting a change, the resistance usually decreases or at least becomes more rational. Interpreting resistance with those who are resisting is a key step in psychoanalysis and, in organisation change consulting. Resistance is seen as a symptom of something else, perhaps fear of the future or an unwillingness to give something up. The form the resistance takes is often an indicator of what the actual resistance might be. Seldom is the real reason given openly. Uncovering these reasons and discussing them can get at the true cause of the problem. Such interpretation of resistance is preceded or followed with some form of letting off steam. This may be in the form of a private or public beef session.
Effective feedback to others

An important part of situational management and helping people change is to give feedback that can be heard. It is very easy to give feedback which no one listens to. Feedback of course is a two-way street but in this chapter we are thinking of your helping others through the use of the feedback you give. Effective managers use very short term feedback loops. They do not wait for the annual appraisal interview to let someone know what they think. They let them know as close to the time of the happening as possible. Experimental psychologists have proven, without any question whatsoever, that a very good way to improve performance is to give feedback on performance. If you want someone to get better, then let them know how they are doing. Feedback may be classified by its timing, evaluative content, validity, and direction.
Page 195
It is better for feedback to be immediate than delayed. The computer has already, and will even further, shorten the customary delay between managerial actions and their effects. Consider a situation where we could discover the effectiveness of our actions within minutes. The learning potential would be enormous, not to mention the early corrections to poor decisions. Clearly managers should consider the timing of their existing feedback loops. How long does it take to know how a situation has changed, what it has become, or what the level of effectiveness is in it? The best feedback is nonevaluativethat which simply tells it like it is. Feedback, on which action must be taken, is less effective if feelings, positive or negative, are transmitted along with the information. For example, a subordinate is much more likely to respond to You did not meet your objectives, than the same statement with the often unspoken override of ... and I do not like you because of it. The first is nonevaluative feedback; the second is negative feedback. The terms negative and positive, then, refer not to the content of the feedback but to the feelings that go with it. Unless specially designed to be otherwise, mechanical feedback devices or computer printouts are completely nonevaluative. Although difficult to accomplish, managers find that the closer they come to such feedback, the easier it is for others to really hear it and take action on it. Feedback is either valid or not. Valid feedback may be negative, positive, or nonevaluative, but it is always accurate. Feedback may come from any direction in an organisation. To indicate its direction, it is called upfeed, downfeed, or crossfeed. Downfeed almost always occurs plentifully; crossfeed and particularly upfeed have to be planned.
Appropriate rate of change

Very few social systems remain unchanged over long periods. Changes may be small and may be introduced slowly, but they do take place. The discussion of change, therefore, should not be solely concerned with the introduction of change itself but also with the rate of change. In deciding whether to introduce change rapidly, the following factors should be considered:

Is time important? What will be gained by speed? What was past custom? Will speed increase resistance? Can acceptance be sacrificed for speed? How would speed be interpreted? Are other changes still being assimilated? Must other changes be integrated?
There are some general arguments for both slow and rapid change. The arguments for slow change
Page 196
are:

Usually produces less resistance Allows for gradual acceptance Will be seen as evolutionary Allows for greater understanding Allows for skill acquisition Changes can blend with others Changes and modifications in the proposed change, itself, will be easier Changes and adjustments to the method used will be easier
The arguments for rapid change are:

Less time taken to reach ideal changed state Shorter adjustment period Only one basic adjustment required Less basic plan modification likely Adds impression of resilience
The speed of change is an important part of any complete plan for reducing resistance. It should be considered carefully along with the methods to be used.
Changing the work system

Most of this chapter has dealt with modifying the aspects of the human system but it might be the work system that requires situational management. This could take many different forms. It might be by reallocating outputs, changing the nature of information loops, making jobs bigger or smaller, adding or removing a person, changing the inspection process, and many, many more. Work can be divided up in many ways depending on the job to be done, and even particular jobs may be organised in different ways. A car can be assembled by a few workers or by hundreds or even thousands. A teacher may teach by lecture alone or with a team of others or by group methods or by the printed word alone. A worker may be given one operation to perform, perhaps an inspection, or may be given hundreds of sequential operations to perform. Most assembly work may be accomplished by a single person or by many. A radio or TV set may be wired from single components by a single worker at a single work place or by dozens or hundreds working sequentially. If errors are hard to discover and hard to correct and the total job involves many essentially similar operations and components, the work might best be done by an individual. Most banks branches are organised in a way so that workers interact little. One person may look
Page 197
after deposits, another foreign currency, another withdrawals, and another loans. The individuals involved relate all their work to a master ledger or computer which is balanced every day. The operations are based on accuracy, honesty, and judgement. Virtually all operations have an important routine element and, with changes, are repeated hundreds of times every day. The nature of the service customers want and their expectations concerning it make it difficult to redesign these kinds of jobs. The style always demanded of bank branch managers or chief accountants is separated or related. It is related if they trust the banks control system and if it is a good one, if not, they become the control system and so move to a separated style.
Your style of situational management

These ten techniques can help you lower resistance to change. You may prefer to use one or two of them consistently or use them all depending on the situation. Situational management can be exercised using any of the four basic styles. It depends on the nature of the change you want to introduce. Obviously, if the change is to introduce some form of systemisation the separated style, oiled by the related style, would be a good idea. If you want to focus rather single-mindedly on results then the dedicated style would be appropriate. And so on. The style used may vary with the particular situational element being changed. As you know from chapter 5 there are twenty of these. It is rather unlikely that you will change your superior by using the dedicated style. It is very likely you could change your coworkers by using the related style. An increasing level of creativity would have to come from either related or integrated styles, preferably integrated. Here is a list of the twenty situational elements already discussed of (Exhibit 20.1). To improve your managerial effectiveness which do you think should be changed in some way? Check these. Then, against each one you have checked, list the basic style which you think is best to create the change you want. If you check several it might be a good idea to allocate ten points over them to indicate their relative importance. You may wish to change everything at once but you cannot always do that. That is life, and work, forever. The main thing is, please do something to improve your managerial effectiveness. I did not write all this simply for my health. Over to you. Obviously. EXHIBIT 20.1 1. Superior: the person to whom you report. 2. Coworkers: managers of equivalent level or authority with whom you interact. 3. Subordinates: those who report directly to you. 4. Staff Advisors: knowledge workers usually with low authority and power, whose job it is to provide information and advice. 5. Unions: union representatives or members of unions.
Page 198
6. Customers: the purchasers of the companys products or services. 7. General Public: anyone who is not an employee or customer of the company. 8. Creativity: the production of ideas. 9. Objectives: what you plan to achieve. 10. Planning: the specific means whereby objectives are realised. 11. Change Introduction: the actual initiation of a new plan. 12. Implementation: the actions that are taken to realise plans and decisions. 13. Controls: methods of monitoring actions so that adjustments can be made if necessary. 14. Evaluation: measurement of the effectiveness of action. 15. Productivity: the level of the managers output of those things required by the manager s superior. 16. Communication: receipt and transmission of information. 17. Conflict: disagreements. 18. Errors: things that go wrong. 19. Meetings: two or more people coming together to discuss something. 20. Teamwork: interaction between two or more people with high emphasis of both task and relationships orientations. Which situational elements should you change?
Page 199
Section E IMPROVING YOUR EFFECTIVENESS

21 How to Improve Your Managerial EffectivenessOn Your Own 22 How to improve Your Managerial EffectivenessThrough Training These two chapters attempt a summary of Where to Go from here. The first chapter gives you direct hints on how to improve your managerial effectiveness. The second chapter outlines a training design which would be useful for those in an organisation who are concerned with improving overall organisational and managerial effectiveness.
Page 200
21. How to Improve Your Managerial EffectivenessOn Your Own
If a man has a talent and cannot use it, he has failed. If he has a talent and uses one half of it, he has partly failed. If he has a talent and learns somehow to use the whole of it, he has gloriously succeeded and won a satisfaction and triumph few men will know. THOMAS WOLFE Tomorrow is the first day of the rest of your life. UNKNOWN
OBVIOUSLY, THIS whole book has been devoted to helping you think about your effectiveness and how to improve it. We started with a clear definition of outputs and effectiveness areas and then moved more to a behavioural side because it is people who run organisations. Managerial effectiveness is nothing more or less than achieving the output requirements of the managerial position. The best method of achieving such output requirements can become clear through answers to the following questions.
Some questions to ask yourself

Here are some questions to ask yourself. They will not all apply but some are certain to if you wish to improve your effectiveness. Do I want to become more effective? What is my potential contribution? What are my effectiveness areas? What are my objectives? What needs changing? How can I improve my superiors effectiveness? How can I improve my coworkers effectiveness? How can I improve my subordinates effectiveness? How can I change the technology? Who else could do this? How can I improve my time management? How can I make decisions more effectively? Should I change my job? What is my future?
Page 201
What additional training should I take? How can I learn more about management, off the job? What can I do now?
Do I want to become more effective?

It is natural for a manager to say Of course I want to become more effective. However in practice, every manager is not always prepared to make the effort to become more effective. One manager may simply want to mark time until retirement; another may be in the completely wrong job and any additional involvement would be unpleasant; some are simply lazy and not inclined to do their best in contributing what they can. Managers must be sure that they really want to become more effective before they read about how to do so. So, do you want to become more effective?
What is my potential contribution?

Once managers have decided they want to become effective, they should initially focus on how they could contribute more, or more effectively, than they are doing now. Some managers have narrow views of their jobs. What they do they may do well, but what they leave undone is enormous. Some managers let the in-tray define their potential contribution and the clock its limit. One manager might view the contribution as simply that of managing a going concern and keeping it on an even keel; another might see the same job as having large components of subordinate development and creative problem-solving in it; still another might see the position primarily as a linking pin with other parts of the firm, and thus take a wider view of its responsibility. Specialists seldom focus on contributions. They often see themselves simply as a knowledge bank; I am not paid for what I do but for what I know. Such a view can and does insulate the specialist from the firm, the professor from the student and the university from society. Job descriptions seldom focus on contributions and if followed too closely may discourage contributions from being made. Too often, job descriptions look downward not outward. They focus on activities a manager must perform and not the method by which effectiveness may be increased. Contributions can seldom be expressed or seen in terms of maintenance of a system. Where possible contribution should be expressed through effectiveness areas in terms of growth, profitability and innovation.
What are my effectiveness areas?

The contribution possible from a managerial position is reflected in the effectiveness areas, the general output requirements for that position. Clearly, an early step in becoming effective is to establish effectiveness areas and objectives. At any level, they must be worked out with the superior or they may be meaningless, unacceptable, incorrect or difficult to apply. Some managers, particularly those at the top of an organisation, find that their effectiveness areas could take a number of different forms, indicating the inherent flexibility in the CEOs position. Setting such effectiveness areas then becomes making a decision about what kind of contribution can best be made.
Page 202
What are my objectives?

Effectiveness areas are converted to annual objectives. These are specific, measurable, time-bounded contributions the manager plans to make. The superior must always agree to them, coworkers should have an opportunity to comment on them and subordinates be at least aware of them. Objectives that are set for the first time are seldom met. This may reflect the substitution of hope for reality or simply lack of skill. Skill in working by management by objectives, like most other skills, requires coaching, training, practice and feedback on results.
What needs changing?

Once objectives are set, there comes the crucial question of What if anything must be changed to achieve the objectives? It may be time re-allocation, making more decisions, patching up a problem with another division or changing a superiors view of that job. The objectives state only what is to be achieved, not how to achieve them. Objectives without plans are dreams. Plans must be made and this usually means change.
How can I improve my superiors effectiveness?

Most managers would like to be able to influence their superior in some way. There is no better way for a manager to gain such influence than by amply satisfying the superiors expectations. This usually involves the manager directly in becoming effective and at the same time making the superior more effective as well. If your own subordinates could take action to improve your effectiveness then presumably you can do the same for your superior. You are unlikely to do much in the way of changing the style, but you can make the superior more effective. This is particularly possible if the status and power differential between you is low, and if the superiors job is much interwoven with your own and therefore more dependent on you. A superior may also be influenced by using an indirect approach by getting someone else to report things. This influence may be exerted by another manager, a book or article, a consultant or a course. The written word is a much under-used influence, yet it is particularly helpful in the low influence situation which a subordinate is often in.
How can I improve my coworkers effectiveness?

Coworkers are usually open to influence at committee meetings which they attend with you. Managers should therefore think of starting meetings with one of these kind of questions: What is the objective of this meeting? How will we know if it has been effective? Do we need it? Can we conclude it in 15 minutes? To do this out of the blue is not always to be recommended, but managers should get around to it as soon as they can. Over a time, it is a relatively simple matter for an effective manager to raise the aspiration level of coworkers by sharing with them the past successes and failures; by describing things as they really are, and by suggesting that standards could be much higher and, by personal example, can show that this is what the manager intends to do.
Page 203
How can I improve my subordinates effectiveness?

By improving effectiveness of subordinates, the effectiveness of the manager is also improved. Perhaps the best single test of a manager is the effectiveness of subordinates. As a minimum this would be expressed by the capacity for one or two of the subordinates to step into the managers shoes. The most effective way of making subordinates more effective is by giving them challenging responsibilities early in their career. The more challenging the responsibilities, the more effective the subordinate is likely to become. Also, clear effectiveness areas for subordinates are obviously crucial. While the development of managers can be furthered by formal courses, 95 per cent of all real management development goes on in the context of the superior/subordinate relationship. The quality of this relationship determines effectiveness. The superior has by far the most influence in structuring it. A subordinate does not have to model managerial style on the superior in order to become effective. The younger ones tend to do so especially if the superior appears to be effective, has upward influence and gives them support. Managers usually accept or even welcome such modelling; but the real skill is in recognising, accepting and managing differences. Managers can be effective in different ways. To force a subordinate into the managers mould may not work or be necessary. A superior is not running a game called, How to be more like me but must demonstrate that subordinates should meet their effectiveness areas, not to please the superior, but because their position demands it.
How can I change the technology?

Briefly, technology is the way work can be done so that effectiveness results. Within limits, a manager is able to change technologythat is, able to change the things the manager places emphasis on. This then presents one of the most important opportunities to improve effectiveness. Some freedom is needed to do this, of course, and it is more likely to be found in managers at the top of the organisation or in firms that have a deliberate policy of position flexibility. Effectiveness areas are particularly susceptible to change when the job is new, or the manager is new in it, or when a crisis situation has developed, or when managers operate as a team and are thus willing to engage in flexible job trading. Some of the many ways that a manager can consider when modifying the technology are: Emphasising either task or relationships. Emphasising one of planning, directing or administering. Being either basically an inside or outside person for the department. Working with more or fewer subordinates.
Who else could do this?

An effective manager asks of every piece of work that conies up, Who below me could do this? A manager is not worked out of a job this waybut is worked into the right job. A manager may be rid of routine administration and into long-range planning, liaison with other divisions or the more effective development of the subordinates.
Page 204
How can I improve my time management?

Time management starts with a heightened awareness of time: how much time is available and how it is being spent. Some managers have found it useful to undertake a study of their own time utilisation. They are almost invariably surprised at the results and the lack of effective time management displayed. Effective managers need to learn how to create massed undisturbed-time and distributed undisturbed-time. Massed undisturbed-time is particularly useful for projects that involve thinking sequentially such as writing a report or book. Small blocks of distributed undisturbed-time are useful for clearing the desk of the accumulation of notices, memos and travel claims to sign. An obvious short-term way to create mass undisturbed-time is by coming in three hours early or doing work at home. This may lower effectiveness in the long-run, so other methods may have to be used. One such method, and there are practical limits in many jobs, is simply to make oneself unavailable on certain days or between certain hours. Most daily interruptions, for many managers, are on relatively trivial matters. As each interruption occurs a manager should ask, How could this have been avoided? and then modify the decision or information system so that such interruptions either do not occur or at least are minimised.
How can I make decisions more effectively?

Effectiveness can never be achieved unless the right decisions are made. Decisions are a managers stock-in-trade. A lack of decision-making can lead to prolonged low effectiveness. Moreover, managers, in reviewing their decisions, often find that most could have been made months or years before. Timing is obviously as important as accuracy. At any one point in time a manager usually has several important decisions that should be made. On some, action is postponed for good reasons; on others, it is postponed for perhaps no reason at all. There is no value in making decisions hastily or too far in advance. But there is often no point in postponing them too long either. Managers might well prepare a list of all the decisions facing them. This is not the usual list of things to doit is a decision-list of decisions. The list should have the most pressing decision, which is not necessarily the most important, at the top. This list can be used as a guide to action. There is, however, a great temptation to make the list and then ignore it, or make it and then start with the easiest decision rather than the most pressing one.
Should I change my job?

Once they have looked closely at what a job really demands, some managers decide that they are in the wrong job. Sometimes everyone knows it and sometimes no-one does. There is a big difference between having daily deadlines or not, between supervising professionals and supervising hourly-paid workers, between system management and selling. It may be that the job is too demanding, not demanding enough, too boring or involving you in things you would simply rather not do. When one has seen hundreds of managers at work, it takes very little skill to pick the ones who are in the wrong job. They simply are not with it. They get no pleasure out of it. They spend all the time they can doing routine work and avoiding decisions. They are more to be pitied than blamed but they cannot be ignored. Perhaps the salary attracted them and that, together with the pensions scheme, now has them locked in. Perhaps the job
Page 205
demands changed while they were in it. Perhaps through their own low sensitivity they did not know what they were getting into. A common example of this is the professional who gets promoted into managing fellow professionals. The ideal solution to being in the wrong job is obvious. The majority of managers who move from, or are moved from, a position in which they are performing poorly, turn out to be more effective and happy in the new position.
What is my future?
Whether or not the organisation has a career plan for you, you should have one of your own. You need to sit down annually and plan where you expect to be in ten years time. A good start is to list the ages of all your family, your estimated personal holdings, your position, your salary and your accomplishments. Then fill in the ten-year gap with what it is necessary for you to do in order to achieve your plan. The future can simply occur or it can be invented. You can see yourself as a cork bobbing on an ocean of fate or as someone with your hand on the tiller facing a fresh breeze. The way you see yourself as an effective manager must be clear if you are to invent your future.
What additional training should I take?

Not all managers are in control of time and money needed to take additional training. Some are, and others can obtain it through good situational management. The world is absolutely chock-full of a wide variety of training courses. Some that last a day are useful and some lasting several months are useful. Think about those bits of your job which you could do better if you had just a little more training in them. In a well designed training course it does not take a long time for an average manager to learn a great deal. Some excellent training courses last only three hours. These are a bit hard to find but they do exist. As a start, you might want to look around and find out just what is available in your general interest area.
How can I learn more about management, off the job?

Most jobs provide, simply by the nature of the work to be done, good management development. This can always be supplemented. A very easy way to supplement it is to take a position in a volunteer organisation where you learn new things. This position might be organising volunteers. It might be fund raising, it might be public relations, it might be trying to get a group to reach agreement. This learning is safer outside the firm than inside the firm. There is less at risk for you. There is absolutely no question that managers who want to be more effective can obtain a good deal of practice in voluntary work outside their full-time work itself.
What can I do now?

It would be an effective move to take action on all this now. The first step would be to list some actions you are going to take and then to act on them.
Page 206
22. How to Improve Your Managerial Effectiveness Through Training (The Managerial Effectiveness Seminar (MES))
THIS BOOK has given you many ideas on improving your effectiveness. You may have read the book on your own or used it as part of a training programme. This chapter outlines a formal way of improving managerial effectiveness through the use of a Managerial Effectiveness Seminar (MES). Training managers, in particular, will find this chapter very useful as it will give them some training design ideas for improving effectiveness. Managers not in training roles will also find the chapter useful in that it gives yet another framework to thinking about improving ones own effectiveness. As might be expected, the MES is based on the theory outlined in this book. That is, the 3-dimensional emphasis on effectiveness, situation and style. The seminar has many practical types of exercises and activities which drive home what all this really means. You can then apply the entire theory to your own situation and activities. At the conclusion of the seminar you will be highly conscious of yourself as a key figure in a situation where effectiveness could be increased. You will become more open to change and see yourself as a key to improving effectiveness rather than leaving it up to others. The MES is a six-day, residential, instrumented laboratory. The seminar starts at 5.30 p.m. on the first day, and ends at 12.30 p.m. on the sixth day. This time span normally covers Sunday evening to Friday noon. Hours are long. Each morning starts promptly at 8.00 a.m. in the main room. Teams frequently work from then until past midnight. About 80 per cent of the seminar takes place in team rooms with four to eight managers, which approximates the usual span of control. Participants with close working relationships, such as superior to subordinate or coworker to coworker may attend the same seminar, but are not placed together on the same team. The MES confronts the teams with a wide variety of problems to solve, generally related to methods of achieving managerial effectiveness through the recognition of the reality of a situation and the best approach to it. Teams solve problems in their team rooms, then meet with other teams in the main room to report on their decisions and to compare their effectiveness in making them and in reaching them.
How the seminar improves your effectiveness

The seminar improves your effectiveness by giving you more clear knowledge about effectiveness and by giving you skills that relate to effectiveness improvement. The seminar concentrates on these things:

Improving your understanding of management concepts Improving your knowledge about effectiveness Improving your self awareness Improving your three managerial skills
Page 207
Improving your team work skills Improving your on-the-job effectiveness
Improving your understanding of management concepts Sometimes managers are less effective than they should be simply because they do not understand basic management concepts. Some terms that appear to be quite standard, are widely misinterpreted. It is enlightening, though saddening, to find how in a single organisation or in a single work team different interpretations are given to such concepts as participation, delegation, team work, autocracy and even objectives and obviously many, many more. It has been demonstrated conclusively that a knowledge of what key terms mean in management, can alone, improve effectiveness. Obviously, when these concepts and their definitions are shared by a team and then shared company wide, effectiveness must increase. Organisations need a common language if they are to improve effectiveness in an integrated way. Disraeli spoke for many when he said, If you want to converse with me define your terms. All this may seem a little strange in a book which is clearly devoted to a behavioural approach. While the book has taken a behavioural approach in no way has it discarded the necessity for clear thinking first. Interpretations are as important as emotions when it comes to improving effectiveness. Improving your knowledge about effectiveness The seminar emphasises effectiveness as the central issue in management. One full day of the seminar is spent solely in each team reaching agreement on the effectiveness areas for each team member. It is really quite important that managers know that apparent, personal and managerial effectiveness are quite different. It is also very important for them to have confirmed their perceptions about these three terms by discussing actual situations and actual managers, possibly through case studies, to make sure things are fully understood. Obviously, a great deal of time is spent in discussion of outputs. This seminar is based firmly on the concept that all needed jobs have outputs and all outputs are measurable, always. This is a rather tough statement for some, the seminar proves it to be a reality. It is surprising how many managers come to the seminar with the belief that for some reason their job is somehow unmeasurable and their job should not have clear outputs. This seminar is quite deliberately designed to negate this kind of thinking. You will learn on the seminar all of the important concepts concerning effectiveness and you will learn how to apply them to your job and the jobs of your coworkers and subordinates. All jobs can be described in effectiveness terms. You will become an expert in doing this. It is a skill that you will use continuously in your life as a manager. You will learn that it is not a matter of finding the effectiveness areas for a position, then the measurement methods and then forgetting about it. Some jobs are continually changing. The best way to deal with this change is through a recognition of change in effectiveness areas and the best people to do this are the managers whose positions impinge on the job. The theme running through the seminar is that managerial effectiveness is the central issue in management. It is the managers job to be effective. It is the only job. In fact, the seminar carries the issue further to point out only, that it is any managers true responsibility to be effective. The pens used on the seminar have Any managers true responsibility printed on them. Improving your self awareness This book has helped you improve your self awareness. You may
Page 208
well see yourself quite differently and have thought of some things you want to do more of and some things you want to change. One important objective of the MES is to advance this learning even further. You now accept that a key step in improving your effectiveness is through better understanding of your own behaviour and its impact on others. Your seminar team members will spend a day with you on giving very frank views on the styles of everyone in the team. Some are slightly apprehensive about this before the seminar but the seminar is so designed that the day runs comfortably and well. As a side line, the manager being appraised by the other team members, during the appraisal, may use only the phrases Tell me more or For instance. The manager may vary the tone in which this is said but may say nothing else. Obviously, through this activity a lot is also being learned about giving and receiving feedback, that can be hard. As part of the seminar prework there is an 80 item test called Style Quotation Test. It gives a variety of things that managers may say about themselves or others may say about them. You are asked to indicate what style you think each represents. This is then compared to worldwide answers. This in fact is a very good measure of style distortion or lack of style distortion. Some managers get nearly 80 right, some managers get very few right. Clearly, something is going on and this provides good learning when it is discussed by the team. It is one thing to say that highly task oriented managers tend to see relationships oriented managers as less effective. This exercise demonstrates it clearly for those who suffer from this distortion, Many other exercises have been carefully designed to help in much the same way. Improving your three managerial skills Up to now the MES has been described in terms of cognitive learning and not learning about self and learning about managerial effectiveness. Obviously, there is a heavy skill building element in the seminar. These skills must be the three managerial skills of situational sensitivity, situational management and style flexibility. The seminar is so designed that there is a virtually continual opportunity to use all three skills and a virtually continual assessment of these skills by yourself and your team members and by seminar instruments. The seminar provides immediate feedback on your level of skills over a variety of activities, also immediate feedback from your team members on how you might improve and further feedback from team members on whether you did or not. Improving your team work skills One very important component of situational management is team work skills. That is, how to help a team get the best out of the team. Many managers think they are naturally good team members when in fact they are in the lowest 5 per cent of the population. They imagine that when they are keeping quiet they are really listening, though in fact what they are really doing is thinking up new arguments. They think that the lowest conflict possible is best; however, this is not the best way usually to get a good decision. They do not understand consensus and always want a chairman who puts things to a vote. They simply do not believe that two heads are better than one and have no concept of synergy or how to get it. There are many, many tricks of the trade in team skills. These are formally taught at the seminar and an opportunity given to practise them. Sometimes teams should work in a creative mode, sometimes in a purely procedural mode, sometimes in a bureaucratic mode and sometimes in an integrated way. These, of course, parallel the four basic managerial styles. So, direct
Page 209
transfer is made between styles of individual managers and team styles. You will learn, very quickly, at the seminar how to appraise the mode the team is in and how to change it. The teams put themselves under continuous assessment and review. A major instrument is the Team Style Diagnosis Test which the team uses nightly to review its activities during the day. There are eight scales. One of the scales is conflict. The team spreads ten points over these eight statements, each representing a different managerial style. This is done for the seven other components as well. By using ideas such as these and having a formal discussion of agreement as to what was observed and how it might be changed you will greatly enhance your understanding of team process and your team skill. While not a formal part of the seminar you will be encouraged at the seminar to meet with your actual work team after the seminar. Here, you and the other team members who presumably attended the MES will apply all the ideas you have learned on the MES. Many of the activities which are used on the MES are done again with the real work team. This would include such things as agreeing on effectiveness areas, agreeing on operating team modes and agreeing on such things as each others style and how styles should be changed to improve team effectiveness. It has been determined quite conclusively that the seminar effects are magnified when the actual work team meets in the months after the seminar to apply the seminar ideas to the work team itself. The whole point in management training is what is called transfer of training and the transfer is greatly facilitated when a superior and all immediate subordinates sit down to discuss their effectiveness areas and other things that impinge on their managerial effectiveness. Improving your on-the-job effectiveness Clearly, the sole way in which the effectiveness of an MES is to be judged is whether or not there are improvements of job effectiveness of the participant. The seminar accomplishes this in several ways. Simply increasing clarity of thinking about effectiveness can, alone, improve effectiveness. Obviously enabling managers to become much more aware of themselves and their impact on others and how to change themselves and others, can improve effectiveness. There are many additional techniques built into the seminar. Roughly the first half of the seminar deals with learning the theory well and the second half of the seminar deals with applying it to the back home situation. In the last half of the seminar participants are talking only about themselves and their real situation and how to improve it. A variety of diagnostic tools are provided. These include tests of managerial and team effectiveness, the team approve a set of effectiveness areas which can be used as a basis for the job, a comprehensive management style profile arrived at jointly by the team, the manager involved and various tests, ratings of managerial, personal and apparent effectiveness and also the three managerial skills with ideas on how to change those that should be changed. Participants are encouraged to move to team application and to company wide application so that they give support to others and get support from others in improving their effectiveness. Many hints are provided on these things.
Questions typically asked about the seminar

Managers who are interested in this seminar naturally have several questions. Here are some common
Page 210
ones together with their answers.

What do I do each day? Is the seminar safe for me? Will the seminar apply to me? What about managerial effectiveness in the organisation?
What do I do each day?

The seminar can be seen as having five stages in learning. Prework You will receive a prework kit. This consists of three texts, wall charts and a seminar workbook. The basic text is Managerial Effectiveness (Reddin, 1984). This explains the 3-D Theory and shows how it is applied to improve effectiveness. The general seminar workbook contains questionnaires, style tests, effectiveness inventories, seminar tasks, case studies, team diagnosis instruments and other learning aids. Depending on your prior knowledge, capacity and dedication, seminar prework generally takes from 50 to 100 hours to complete. Days 1 and 2 You will work in teams to deepen your understanding of the basic concepts relating to effectiveness. By the end of day twoMonday eveningyou will have a thorough understanding of the prework and have a common language with which to approach the more complex aspects covered during the rest of the seminar. Day 3 The effectiveness concepts are applied to a case study so their practical application is demonstrated and learned. Team building skills are also practised and reviewed. At the end of the third day team members evaluate the performance of their teams. Teams usually engage in open and candid discussion on their performance. The skills to identify ineffective performance and to discuss it openly are rapidly built. Day 4 This day is spent on effectiveness. You are provided with a sharp and objective view of your individual role in the on-the-job situation. You also receive the practical skills needed to define your own job and those of other managers in output terms. You will also get the confidence and practical skills needed to define effectiveness areas in an open team setting. Day 5 The fifth day is spent on managerial behaviour. The objectives of this day are:

To provide you with useful feedback on your own style. To improve your skill in appraising the style of others. To improve your skill in giving useful feedback. To improve your skill in receiving feedback.
Page 211
Day 6 The last day concentrates on situation management. You will be provided with an opportunity to consider what personal changes you could make which would improve your managerial effectiveness in your on-the-job situation. You will also learn to give important practical guidance in a team setting. If the seminar is an incompany one then a senior manager will attend to receive feedback from seminar participants. Post seminar This is on the job application: After the MES, you will use the conceptual and printed tools the 3-D MES has provided. You may use them to redefine your position in output terms, to work with subordinates, coworkers and your superior on objectives and also to change your less effective behaviour, or you may decide to change your work situation.
Is the seminar safe for me?

Some managers are naturally concerned about the safety of the seminar for them. Perhaps safety is too strong a word but it is comprehensive. Some managers are concerned that their education is limited, they have not read a book in years and simply wonder whether they can handle a concept. In some countries the seminar is regularly used with those with only four years of education. These participants are naturally somewhat apprehensive but they find by the second or third day of the seminar that they are well into the swing of things. Help can be provided by prior participants or others before the seminar so that they can work through the book with someone with more knowledge. This person does not give the answers but rather explains the concepts. The truth of the matter is that those who feel they may not be up to it learn an additional big thing from the seminar, that they are up to it and could expect much more of themselves. Eighty per cent of the seminar time is spent in team rooms. And, the important thing, if someone does not understand a concept or a term or an idea being developed, they can always ask someone else on the team. The seminar is not an examination, it is a developmental helpful experience. Some managers are concerned about their style and their effectiveness and are worried about it being exposed to others. All personal material of this kind is the property of the team and never leaves the team room. Often teams bring out team results on various things but none of this is ever identified with specific individuals Your team members will know your style well because they have worked with you for a week. Also, they will tell you what they think of your style, as you will tell them about their style. But, this is the limit of it. There is never ever any feedback to management or to other teams. Never. Again, development not assessment. In any case, the theme of the seminar is that team members help each other to improve. In no way is criticism the objective. The seminar is also made safe by the nature of the team compositions. Teams are normally from four to eight members. On a public seminar team membership is assigned essentially, randomly. On an incompany basis the key rule is that no one on the team has a natural working relationship with others on the team on a day to day basis. In short, this eliminates superior subordinate and immediate coworker relationships. The whole idea of the seminar is to give a chance at a trial for developing team skills, natural feedback, consensus testing, complete resolution and many other things. This is best done on a stranger basis rather than with someone who you are working with every day.
Page 212
Will the seminar apply to me?

There is much evidence that the seminar has wide applicability. This evidence relates to levels, functions, ages, types of organisation and countries. The use of the MES across levels The seminar has a demonstrated effectiveness at all managerial and supervisory levels. General Motors, for instance, uses the seminar from plant managerial level down to general foreman level. When the seminar is used as part of an organisation development programme it is obvious that all levels of management and sometimes supervision attend the same seminar. In some companies it is common for all different levels to be attending the same seminar. The reason that all this is seen to work is that the seminar teaches basic truths about management effectiveness which, simply, are applicable to all managerial positions. Nothing more than that. The concepts apply broadly. The use of the MES across functions The seminar has obvious application across all management functions. Some organisations send their top 250 managers and in one case more than their top 1,500 managers, through the full six day residential seminar. Obviously, most types of functions must naturally attend. No adverse affects, by functions, have been reported. Sometimes the seminar is used to train a particular function only. Examples include; production, sales and in one case the administrative function from head office. Age The use of the MES across ages Age, young or old, is no deterrent to the effectiveness of the managerial effectiveness seminar. Managers of 21 and up to the age of 75 have fully participated. In one seminar in a family company the parents of 72 and 75 attended the seminar along with their children of about 40. An older manager of 64 came to a seminar staff member at the end of one seminar and said I only wish Id taken this many years ago. He was not saying it was not effective for him, he was saying it could have been even more effective earlier. Age does not limit learning about managerial effectiveness. Ones perceptions of ones age and what it means might. So, you only have two more years on the job. They could be a very important two years in leaving your best mark and in training your successor in the best way. The managerial effectiveness seminar can help. There is no try room for the argument These managers will retire in about 18 months, why try and develop them? One can do a lot, either way, in 18 months. The use of the MES across types of organisation Broadly, the seminar has been used to improve the effectiveness in organisations as diverse as production organisations, marketing organisations, military organisations, government organisations and virtually most types you might think of. In particular the seminar has been used by Imperial Chemical Industry directors, General Motors plant managers, 35 employees of a 100 employee bakery, 20 employees of a 125 employee brewery. The use of the MES across countries The MES has been conducted in these countries: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Eire, Ethiopia, Finland, Germany, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Mexico,
Page 213
Netherlands, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, United States of America and Venezuela. One of our staff members recently conducted two MESs back to back in Ethiopia. They wanted two, and back to back, because of the overwhelming response to prior ones there. The seminar was attended, in the main, by the most senior government and military officials of this Marxist country. About a month later the absolutely identical seminar, was conducted by the same staff member for the CEO and supervisors of the largest cattle ranch in Texas, which is almost a capitalistic country in its own right. Both seminars were very well received as suiting the specific needs of participants.
What about managerial effectiveness in the organisation?

The MES is used either as management development where the focus of change is the individual manager or for organisation development where the focus of change is the organisation as a whole. Whether used for management development or organisation development the MES is best used on an incompany basis. That is, all participants are members of the same company, the top person of the unit or the CEO attends the last day of the seminar and the seminars are normally conducted by incompany trainers. Obviously, all this can help very much in transferring the things learned on the seminar into the organisation itself. There is little doubt that the MES alone has a profound impact on the organisation. When a large number of managers from a single organisation have participated, the seminar has a deep unfreezing effect on the organisation and considerably increases the readiness for change in the organisation as a whole. When large companies use the seminar simply as management development, they do not link it to any later team building or make any particular attempt to transfer the things learned back to the job. Their general assumption is that the climate of the firm can produce the necessary followup needed and what the seminar really has to do is to get managers unfrozen enough to engage their work situation on their own. However the seminar was originally designed as a first step in a twoor morestage organisation development programme. A very common use is to see the seminar as the unfreezing stage and then other activities leading to a change stage and then to a flexibility maintenance stage. The most common next stage is what we call the team role laboratory which takes the actual work team of superior and all subordinates for four days to look at their situation in an open, candid way and to agree to change it, by consensus. The team role laboratory is designed to capture the spirit and ideas of the MES and transfer them to the actual work setting. A typical incompany MES The typical incompany MES starts on Sunday evening at 5.30 and ends on Friday at 12.30. It is normally held at a rural hotel which most or all participants would not know. The seminar size depends upon the organisation design but often is six teams of about seven people each. At the first incompany MES some of top team will be there, The CEO may well be on the first seminar as a participant but if not would attend, in any case, Friday at 10.30 and given a problem concerning the organisation for teams to present ideas about. The usual problem concerns improving productivity but it might be introducing change or how to best introduce a systemic change such as organisation redesign or management by objectives.
Page 214
Internal staff Most MESs are run by company staff members. Sometimes these staff members are drawn from the personnel training departments and sometimes from other line or staff functions. As a general rule, we find that our post seminar reaction forms show higher results when the seminars are conducted by internal staff even though they were never trainers. One bank trained 15 staff members to conduct seminars and all of these staff members had been branch bank managers at one time in their career. They all started off as cashiers. They were excellent trainers. Seminar availability The seminar is available on an incompany basis in any country at any time. The only limiting factor is language. The seminar is now translated fully into these languages: Dutch, Finnish, German, Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish and Swedish. When the seminar is introduced into a new language area and is not yet translated, more time is then taken on prework and some of it is done through lectures by those who speak the local language and the main room talks are subject to immediate translation. Naturally, in team rooms, the local language may be used. Public seminars are conducted in several countries and, while it is better to start with incompany seminars, some may wish to attend public seminars instead.
Page 215
Glossary
If you want to converse with me define your terms. DISRAELI
ACCEPT One of five related basic situation indicators: The degree to which complete, active, genuine acceptance of others motives and actions is expected even when sharply different from ones own. The other four defined in this glossary are: Trust, Listen, Advise and Encourage. ADMINISTER One of five separated basic situation indicators: The degree to which conscious and deliberate administration in accordance with existing principles, rules and procedures is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Examine, Measure, Control and Maintain. ADVISE One of five related basic situation indicators: The degree to which a considerable amount of helpful friendly advice is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Trust, Listen, Accept and Encourage. AE see Apparent Effectiveness APPARENT EFFECTIVENESS The extent to which a manager gives the appearance of being effective. AUTOCRAT A manager who is using a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is, therefore, less effective; perceived as having no confidence in others, as unpleasant, and as interested only in the immediate task. Indicators are: critical, threatening, demands obedience, suppresses conflict, downward communication only, acts without consultation, sometimes feared, disliked. BASIC SITUATION DEMAND INDICATORS see Separated Basic Situation Indicators, Related Basic Situation Indicators, Dedicated Basic Situation Indicators and Integrated Basic Situation Indicators. BASIC STYLE The way in which a manager behaves as measured by the amount of task orientation and relationships
Page 216
orientation used. The four basic styles are separated, related, dedicated, and integrated. BENEVOLENT AUTOCRAT A manager who is using a high task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is, therefore, more effective; perceived as knowing what is wanted and how to get it without creating resentment. Indicators are: decisive, shows initiative, industrious, energetic, finisher, committed, evaluative of quantity, time and costs, obtains results. BUREAUCRAT A manager who is using a low task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is, therefore, more effective; perceived as being primarily interested in rules and procedures for their own sake, as wanting to control the situation by their use, and as conscientious. Indicators are: follows orders, rules, and procedures, reliable, dependable, maintains the system as a going concern, watches detail, efficient, rational, logical, self-controlled, fair, just, equitable. CLIMATE All the factors which influence behaviour within a social system that are common to essentially unrelated positions. COMMITMENT REQUIRED One of five related technology indicators: The degree to which the position requires the subordinates to be personally committed if overall objectives are to be met. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate Skill, Method Autonomy, Discretion Span and Creative Component. COMPLETE One of five dedicated basic situation indicators: The degree to which it is expected that the primary consideration is to complete the immediate task at hand. The other four defined in this glossary are: Organise, Initiate, Direct and Evaluate. COMPROMISER A manager who is using a high task orientation and a high relationships orientation in a situation that requires a high orientation to only one or neither and who is, therefore, less effective; perceived as being a poor decision maker, as one who allows various pressures in the situation to influence too much, and as avoiding or minimising immediate pressures and problems rather than maximising long-term production. Indicators are: yielding, sometimes weak, avoids decisions, produces grey acceptable decisions, ambiguous, distrusted or not understood. CONTROL One of five separated basic situation indicators: The degree to which close control is expected to avoid variations in any kind of plan, schedule, budget, or design. The other four defined in this glossary are:
Page 217
Examine, Measure, Administer and Maintain. COWORKER A person with whom a manager works who is neither superior nor subordinate. CREATIVE COMPONENT One of five related technology indicators: The degree to which the position requires the subordinates to develop new methods and ideas. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate Skill, Commitment Required, Method Autonomy and Discretion Span. DEDICATED BASIC SITUATION INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the basic situation is demanding a dedicated style are: Organise The degree to which extensive planning and regular reorganisation of work is expected. Initiate The degree to which many new tasks are expected to be initiated independently. Direct The degree to which a considerable amount of active direction of the work of others is expected. Complete The degree to which it is expected that the primary consideration is to complete the immediate task at hand. Evaluate The degree to which rigorous evaluation of performance is expected and appropriate action taken. DEDICATED STYLE A basic style with above average task orientation and below average relationships orientation. The dedicated manager basically directs the work of others and is seen as determined, aggressive, confident, busy, driving, initiating, sets individual tasks, responsibilities, standards, self-reliant, independent, ambitious, uses rewards, punishments, controls, tasks come first. DEDICATED see Benevolent Autocrat DEDICATED see Autocrat DEDICATED TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the work technology is demanding a dedicated style, are: Physical Component The degree to which the subordinates are required to use physical effort. Manager Knowledge
Page 218
The degree to which the subordinates know less about the task than the manager. Unscheduled Events The degree to which unplanned and unanticipated events might occur which require corrective action by the manager. Directions Needed The degree to which the subordinates need to be given directions frequently, in order for them to complete their task. Performance Measurability The degree to which the subordinates performance is measurable, and the impact of remedial actions taken by the manager can be evaluated. DEMANDS see Element Demands DESERTER A manager who is using a low task orientation and a low relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is, therefore, less effective; perceived as uninvolved and passive or negative. Indicators are: works to rules, minimum output, gives up, avoids involvement and responsibility, gives few useful opinions or suggestions, makes things difficult, resists change, unco-operative. DEVELOPER A manager who is using a low task orientation and a high relationships orientation in a situation where such behaviour is appropriate and who is, therefore, more effective; perceived as having implicit trust in people and as being primarily concerned with developing them as individuals. Indicators are: maintains open communication channels, develops talent of others, coaches, understands others, supports, works well with others, co-operates, trusted by others, trusts, listens. DIRECT One of five dedicated basic situation indicators: The degree to which a considerable amount of active direction of the work of others is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Organise, Initiate, Complete and Evaluate. DIRECTIONS NEEDED One of five dedicated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates need to be given directions frequently, in order for them to complete their task. The other four defined in this glossary are: Physical Component, Manager Knowledge, Unscheduled Events and Performance Measurability. DISCRETION SPAN One of five related technology indicators: The degree to which time can elapse before substandard work of the subordinates is detected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate skill, Commitment
Page 219
required, Method autonomy and Creative component. DOMINANT ELEMENTS Those elements, in a particular situation, which make the strongest demands on a managers basic style. DOMINANT STYLE The basic or managerial style a manager uses most frequently. EAs see Effectiveness Areas EFFECTIVENESS AREAS (EAs) General output requirements of a management position. EFFECTIVENESS AREA SET A list of all the specific effectiveness areas for a particular management position. EFFECTIVENESS STANDARDS see Measurement Methods ELEMENT DEMANDS The basic style required by a situational element in order for it to contribute to effectiveness. ELEMENT DOMINANCE Measures how important that element is in the situation. ENCOURAGE One of five related basic situation indicators: The degree to which extensive approving and sympathetic encouragement is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Trust, Listen, Accept and Advise. EVALUATE One of five dedicated basic situation indicators: The degree to which rigorous evaluation of performance is expected and appropriate action taken. The other four defined in this glossary are: Organise, Initiate, Direct and Complete. EXAMINE One of five separated basic situation indicators: The degree to which continual careful systematic, and deliberate examination of material, or documents of any kind is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Measure, Administer, Control and Maintain. EXECUTIVE A manager who is using a high task orientation and a high relationships orientation in a situation where
Page 220
such behaviour is appropriate and who is, therefore, more effective; perceived as a good motivating force and manager who sets high standards, treats everyone somewhat differently, and prefers team management. Indicators are: uses teamwork in decision making, uses participation appropriately, induces commitment to objectives, encourages higher performance, co-ordinates others in work. FATAL FLAW An inappropriate action which managers seem condemned to keep repeating in different contexts. FLEX see Style Flex FLEXIBILITY see Style Flexibility INITIATE One of five dedicated basic situation indicators: The degree to which many new tasks are expected to be initiated independently. The other four defined in this glossary are: Organise, Direct, Complete and Evaluate. INNOVATE One of five integrated basic situation indicators: The degree to which a very high number of original ideas concerning methods of improving both relationships and production is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Participate, Interact, Motivate and Integrate. INPUT AREA An incorrect statement of an effectiveness area which is based on an activity rather than a result. INPUTS What a manager does, or is to do, rather than what a manager achieves by doing it. INSTRUMENTATION A training method which minimises the instructors role by the use of prework, task assignments and self-generated performance feedback. INTEGRATE One of five integrated basic situation indicators: The degree to which individual needs and organisation goals are expected to be suitably balanced and seen as one. The other four defined in this glossary are: Participate, Interact, Motivate and Innovate. INTEGRATED BASIC SITUATION INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the basic situation is demanding an integrated style are: Participate
Page 221
The degree to which it is expected that most decision making will be by fully participative methods. Interact The degree to which a considerable amount of task oriented interpersonal interaction is expected. Motivate The degree to which a considerable and approximately equal amount of both relationships orientation and task orientation is expected to be used in the influence process. Integrate The degree to which individual needs and organisation goals are expected to be suitably balanced and seen as one. Innovate The degree to which a very high number of original ideas concerning methods of improving both relationships and production is expected. INTEGRATED STYLE A basic style with above average task orientation and above average relationships orientation. The integrated manager always uses both task orientation and relationships orientation and derives authority from aims, ideals goals, policies, integrates individual with organisation, wants participation, low power differences, prefers shared objectives and responsibilities, interested in motivational techniques. INTEGRATED see Executive INTEGRATED see Compromiser INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the work technology is demanding a integrated style are: Subordinate Interaction The degree to which the subordinates must talk with each other to complete their task. Subordinate Interdependence The degree to which the subordinates must depend on each other in reaching their own objectives. Manager Interaction The degree to which the manager must talk with subordinates as a group for them to complete their tasks. Solution Multiplicity The degree to which more than one effective solution is possible, where relative effectiveness of these solutions is difficult to measure, and where the number and evaluation of solutions is improved by interaction. Pace Autonomy The degree to which the subordinates may set their own pace, effort or involvement level.
Page 222
INTELLECTUAL COMPONENT One of five separated technology indicators: The degree to which subordinates are required to think rather than act. The other four defined in this glossary are: System control, Intrinsic interest, Subordinate autonomy and Task simplicity. INTERACT One of five integrated basic situation indicators: The degree to which a considerable amount of task oriented interpersonal interaction is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Participate, Motivate, Integrate and Innovate. INTRINSIC INTEREST One of five separated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates work is in and of itself interesting, motivating, or attractive. The other four defined in this glossary are: Intellectual component, System control, Subordinate autonomy and Task simplicity. JOB DESCRIPTIONTraditional/Conventional A written statement often emphasising the input requirements of a particular management position. JED see Job Effectiveness Description JOB EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTION (JED) A written statement specifying the effectiveness areas, measurement methods and authority of a particular management position. LISTEN One of five related basic situation indicators: The degree to which attentive sincerely interested listening, sometimes over long periods, is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Trust, Accept, Advise and Encourage. MAINTAIN One of five separated basic situation indicators: The degree to which the primary expectation is the maintenance of records. The other four defined in this glossary are: Examine, Measure, Administer and Control. MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES (MBO) The establishment of effectiveness areas and measurement methods for management positions and the periodic conversion of these into measurable, time-bounded objectives linked vertically and horizontally and with future planning. MANAGER
Page 223
A person occupying a position in a formal organisation who is responsible for the work of at least one other person and who has formal authority over that person. MANAGER EFFECTIVENESS AREAS The effectiveness areas of a particular management position considered alone; they do not include the effectiveness areas of subordinates. MANAGER INTERACTION One of five integrated technology indicators: The degree to which the manager must talk with subordinates as a group for them to complete their tasks. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate interaction, Subordinate interdependence, Solution multiplicity and Pace autonomy. MANAGER KNOWLEDGE One of five dedicated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates know less about the task than the manager. The other four defined in this glossary are: Physical component, Unscheduled events, Directions needed and Performance measurability. MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS (E) The extent to which a manager achieves the output requirements of the position. MANAGERIAL EFFECTIVENESS SEMINAR (MES) A six-day residential seminar for each manager from the top person down, participating in teams composed of other managers without line relationships to each other. MANAGERIAL SKILLS Three skills required for managerial effectiveness: Situational management, Situational Sensitivity, Style flexibility. MANAGERIAL STYLE An assessment of the appropriateness and therefore effectiveness of a particular basic style in a situation. MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT A training activity designed to prepare managers to become more effective in the future. MANAGEMENT TRAINING A training activity designed to prepare managers to become more effective in their present situation. MBO see Management By Objectives ME see Managerial Effectiveness
Page 224
MEASURE One of five separated basic situation indicators: The degree to which a considerable amount of objective measurement or evaluation of any kind is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Examine, Administer, Control and Maintain. MEASUREMENT METHOD How an effectiveness area is measured. MES see Managerial Effectiveness Seminar METHOD AUTONOMY One of five related technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates can select the method, tools, or approach they wish to use (usually applies to managers higher up in the organisation). The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate skill, Commitment required, Discretion span and Creative component. MISSIONARY A manager who is using a high relationships orientation and a low task orientation in a situation where such behaviour is inappropriate and who is, therefore, less effective; perceived as being primarily interested in harmony. Indicators are: avoids conflict, pleasant, warm and kind, seeks acceptance of self, dependent, makes things easier, avoids initiation, passive, gives no direction, unconcerned with outputs and standards. MMs see Measurement Methods MOTIVATE One of five integrated basic situation indicators: The degree to which a considerable and approximately equal amount of both relationships orientation and task orientation is expected to be used in the influence process. The other four defined in this glossary are: Participate, Interact, Integrate and Innovate. OBJECTIVES Effectiveness areas which are as specific, as time-bounded, and as measurable as possible or specific output requirements of a management position. ORGANISATION see Climate ORGANISATION DEVELOPMENT Developing the organisation as a whole, rather than simply the individuals in it, to become more effective.
Page 225
ORGANISE One of five dedicated basic situation indicators: The degree to which extensive planning and regular reorganisation of work is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Initiate, Direct, Complete and Evaluate. OUTPUTS What managers achieve, or are to achieve, rather than what they do. OVER-REJECTED STYLE A basic or managerial style a manager uses far less frequently than the average manager. PACE AUTONOMY One of five integrated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates may set their own pace, effort or involvement level. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate Interaction, Subordinate Interdependence, Manager Interaction and Solution Multiplicity. PARTICIPATE One of five integrated basic situation indicators: The degree to which it is expected that most decision making will be by fully participative methods. The other four defined in this glossary are: Interact, Motivate, Integrate and Innovate. PE see Personal Effectiveness PERFORMANCE MEASURABILITY One of five dedicated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates performance is measurable, and the impact of remedial actions taken by the manager can be evaluated. The other four defined in this glossary are: Physical component, Manager knowledge, Unscheduled events and Directions needed. PERSONAL EFFECTIVENESS The extent to which managers achieve their own private objectives. PHYSICAL COMPONENT One of five dedicated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates are required to use physical effort. The other four defined in this glossary are: Manager knowledge, Unscheduled events, directions Needed and Performance measurability. PROJECTION Attributing to others what is in fact in ones self.
Page 226
RATIONALISATION The inventing of plausible but spurious explanations. RELATED BASIC SITUATION INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the basic situation is demanding a related style are: Trust The degree to which absolute trust and open candid communication across departmental or status and power levels is expected. Listen The degree to which attentive sincerely interested listening, sometimes over long periods, is expected. Accept The degree to which complete, active, genuine acceptance of others motives and actions is expected even when sharply different from ones own. Advise The degree to which a considerable amount of helpful friendly advice is expected. Encourage The degree to which extensive approving and sympathetic encouragement is expected. RELATED STYLE A basic style with above average task orientation and below average relationships orientation. The related manager is basically oriented to other people and believes that people come first. Emphasises personal development, informal, quiet, unnoticed, long conversations, sympathetic, approving, accepting, friendly, and creates secure atmosphere. RELATED see Developer RELATED see Missionary RELATED TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the work technology is demanding a related style are: Subordinate Skill The degree to which the position makes high skill or judgment demands on the subordinate. Commitment Required The degree to which the position requires the subordinates to be personally committed if overall objectives are to be met. Method Autonomy The degree to which the subordinates can select the method, tools, or approach they wish to use (usually applies to managers higher up in the organisation).
Page 227
Discretion Span The degree to which time can elapse before substandard work of the subordinates is detected. Creative Component The degree to which the position requires the subordinates to develop new methods and ideas. RELATIONSHIPS ORIENTATION (RO) Extent to which a manager has personal job relationships; characterised by listening, trusting and encouraging. RO see Relationships Orientation ROLE That which is expected of you. SEPARATED BASIC SITUATION INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the basic situation is demanding a separated style are: Examine The degree to which continual careful systematic, and deliberate examination of material, or documents of any kind is expected. Measure The degree to which a considerable amount of objective measurement or evaluation of any kind is expected. Administer The degree to which conscious and deliberate administration in accordance with existing principles, rules and procedures is expected. Control The degree to which close control is expected to avoid variations in any kind of plan, schedule, budget, or design. Maintain The degree to which the primary expectation is the maintenance of records. SEPARATED STYLE A basic style with below average task orientation and below average relationships orientation. The separated manager has an orientation to procedures, methods and systems. Is seen as cautious, careful, conservative, orderly, prefers paperwork, procedures, facts, looks for established principles, accurate, precise, correct, perfectionist, steady, deliberate, patient, calm, modest, discreet. SEPARATED see Bureaucrat
Page 228
SEPARATED see Deserter SEPARATED TECHNOLOGY INDICATORS The five indicators, indicating that the work technology is demanding a separated style are: Intellectual Component The degree to which subordinates are required to think rather than act. System Control The degree to which the subordinates work and work method follow established procedures. Intrinsic Interest The degree to which the subordinates work is in and of itself interesting, motivating, or attractive. Subordinate Autonomy The degree to which the subordinates have discretion over the nature level of their output. Task Simplicity The degree to which the subordinates tasks are simple to perform. SF see Style Flexibility SITUATIONAL DEMANDS The basic style required by each of the dominant situational elements in order for managerial effectiveness to be increased. SITUATIONAL MANAGEMENT SKILL (SM) Skill in changing the style demands of one or more situational elements so that managerial effectiveness increases. Scaled from 0 to 4. SITUATIONAL MANIPULATION Changing the style demands of situational elements so that personal effectiveness increases. SITUATIONAL SENSITIVITY (SS) Skill in appraising situational elements in terms of task orientation and relationships orientation demands, flex, and strength. Scaled from 0 to 4. SM see Situational Management Skill SOLUTION MULTIPLICITY One of five integrated technology indicators: The degree to which more than one effective solution is possible, where relative effectiveness of these solutions is difficult to measure, and where the number and
Page 229
evaluation of solutions is improved by interaction. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate interaction, Subordinate interdependence, Manager interaction and Pace autonomy. SS see Situational Sensitivity STYLE APPRAISAL SKILL Ability to appraise anothers style correctly. STYLE AWARENESS Degree to which managers can appraise their own style correctly. STYLE DISTORTION Making a major error in assessing ones own style or that of others. STYLE DRIFT Varying ones basic style behaviour inappropriately in a situation so that managerial effectiveness decreases. STYLE FLEX (FLEX) The ability to vary ones basic style behaviour. Scaled from 0 to 4. STYLE FLEXIBILITY (SF) Skill in varying ones basic style behaviour appropriately to a changing situation so that managerial effectiveness increases. Scaled from 0 to 4. STYLE PROFILE A bar chart showing the degree to which a manager uses each of the managerial styles. STYLE RESILIENCE Maintaining a single appropriate basic style in a situation that demands it so that managerial effectiveness increases. STYLE RIGIDITY Maintaining a single inappropriate basic style in a situation so that managerial effectiveness decreases. SUBORDINATE People over whom managers have authority and for whose work they are responsible. SUBORDINATE AUTONOMY One of five separated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates have discretion over nature and level of their output. The other four defined in this glossary are: Intellectual component,
Page 230
Systems control, Intrinsic interest and Task simplicity. SUBORDINATE INTERACTION One of five integrated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates must talk with each other to complete their task. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate interdependence, Manager interaction, Solution multiplicity and Pace autonomy. SUBORDINATE INTERDEPENDENCE One of five integrated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates must depend on each other in reaching their own objectives. The other four defined in this glossary are: Subordinate interaction, Manager interaction, Solution multiplicity and Pace autonomy. SUBORDINATE SKILL One of five related technology indicators: The degree to which the position makes high skill or judgment demands on the subordinate. The other four defined in this glossary are: Commitment required, Method autonomy, Discretion span and Creative component. SUPERIOR A person having authority over a manager and who is responsible for that managers work. SUPPORTING STYLE The basic or managerial style a manager uses next most frequently after the dominant style. SYSTEM CONTROL One of five separated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates work and work method follow established procedures. The other four defined in this glossary are: Intellectual component, Intrinsic interest, Subordinate autonomy and Task simplicity. TASK ORIENTATION (TO) The extent to which managers direct their efforts; characterised by initiating, organising, and directing. TASK SIMPLICITY One of five separated technology indicators: The degree to which the subordinates tasks are simple to perform. The other four defined in this glossary are: Intellectual component, System control, Intrinsic interest and Subordinate autonomy. TECHNOLOGY The way work may be done to achieve managerial effectiveness. TECHNOLOGY DEMANDS INDICATORS see Separated Technology Indicators, Related Technology Indicators, Dedicated Technology Indicators and Integrated Technology Indicators.
Page 231
TO see Task Orientation TRUST One of five related basic situation indicators: The degree to which absolute trust and open candid communication across departmental or status and power levels is expected. The other four defined in this glossary are: Listen, Accept, Advise and Encourage. UNFREEZE The conditioning of managers and organisations to more readily accept change. UNSCHEDULED EVENTS One of five dedicated technology indicators: The degree to which unplanned and unanticipated events might occur which require corrective action by the manager. The other four defined in this glossary are: Physical component, Manager knowledge, Directions needed and Performance measurability.
Page 232

How To Make YOUR Management Style More Effective

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

How To Make YOUR Management Style More Effective

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ABC Amber ePub Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcepub.

ABC Amber ePub Converter Trial version, http://www.processtext.com/abcepub.html

SIM MEMBERSHIP PUBLICATION