Are today's managers effective?

There is a crisis of managerial effectiveness. The overall business growth and abundance of opportunities may merely be covering up the financial impact of this ineffectiveness, at least for now. A look at what seems to be forcing managers to work one or two rungs below their real level of contribution. Many managers have ended up robbing their team members of the fundamental autonomy of being able to organise their work and operate at a pace they are comfortable with, says Sri Ganesh Chella, in this article in Business Line.

- Dilip.

__________________________________________

Source: Business Line, 19-06-2006

Ganesh Chella

I wish I had the time to do some of the strategic things I have always wanted to do. It is just that I have this temporary fire to put out.

I have always had to sacrifice my professional development because of work pressures. This really concerns me.

While I am busy through the day, I find it hard to tell myself what substantial work I have done at the end of each day.

These are the voices of today's managers who find themselves working one or two rungs below their real level of contribution.

Is it possible that many of today's managers are not as effective as they have the potential to be? What factors could be leading to this ineffectiveness?

Having interacted with hundreds of managers across levels and organisations over the years, I am convinced that we do have a crisis of managerial effectiveness. The overall business growth and abundance of opportunities may merely be covering up the financial impact of this ineffectiveness, at least for now. There are four important reasons that seem to be forcing managers to work below their real level of contribution:

Tenure

There is a growing body of evidence that points to the serious negative consequences of diminishing tenure on managerial effectiveness.

A reasonable amount of tenure seems necessary to understand the organisation's policies, processes, cultural dimensions and, most important, build a base level of workplace relationships.

Tenure also seems necessary to understand one's team and mobilise it towards a common purpose.

Diminishing tenure forces managers to compensate for the lack of team development through a much more directive managerial style with a high level of day-to-day involvement.

Team maturity

Every organisation today has to contend with a fair amount of attrition. Add to this the pressures of growth. The heady combination of managing growth and attrition means that the average manager often has to manage a team that is made up of a large proportion of young and inexperienced employees.

While it seems logical for the manager to invest in the development of these team members, managers are also under pressure to get things done. Many succumb to this pressure by taking on the role of an individual contributor.

Faith in people

In a lot of my discussions with managers about their role in championing the development of people, one thing strikes me as significant — the average manager is quite disillusioned with the futility of his efforts in championing the development of his team members.

Why should I, and what is in it for me? These are the questions they ask me and I honestly do not have a very smart answer, for the simple reason that I have never ever seen it this way!

Many managers believe that despite their best efforts, their team member will choose to leave and that they will only end up training for the street. I think that we have a crisis of faith in people, especially managerial faith.

This results in managers doing only what it takes to get today's work accomplished, be it through micro-managing or through close supervision.

Modern work style

There are three elements of the modern manager's work style that concern me a lot.

Misplaced dignity of work

Many modern managers have never had the experience of having a personal secretary or even a clerical assistant supporting them in their work. They have been brought up in the school of thought that having an assistant is against dignity of work, a sign of inefficiency and extravagance. I think this belief is quite flawed.

While I do not have empirical evidence to back my argument, I am convinced that many managers would be far more effective if they had the benefit of a personal assistant or secretary. I see managers spend time on such trivialities as booking their tickets, checking flight timings, setting up appointments, filing their papers and filing routine reports. A fair amount of staff work that consumes a good part of today's manager's time is best done by an assistant and the time and intellectual bandwidth saved will more than pay for the costs involved.

The myth of multi-tasking

Many managers pride themselves on their ability to multi-task. This translates into their taking calls, responding to mails and also talking to the person sitting in front of them at the same time. I have had the horrifying experience of being that person sitting in front of a few such managers and can tell you that it does not work.

Multi-tasking means not "being there" with any of the things you are doing — the mail, the call or the person in front. Multi-tasking is for machines, not for people.

The technology trap

A service technician representing a large Indian corporate recently visited my home to set right a piece of equipment I had purchased. The five-minute conversation that I was attempting to have with him was interrupted by about three phone calls, presumably from his supervisor. I ordered him to switch off the phone and pay attention to me.

Obviously, technology had given his manager the tool to micro-manage his team member and make life miserable for him and his customers. The same is the case with e-mails and other forms of electronic performance monitoring.

Many managers have ended up robbing their team members of the fundamental autonomy of being able to organise their work and operate at a pace they are comfortable with.

All things considered, many of today's achievement-oriented managers are nothing more than great individual contributors.

Can they ever become real managers? Will they be allowed to become one? I guess we will have to ask their managers these questions.