Bruce Smith Is a Totally Incompetent Manager - Essay Example

Bruce Smith is a totally incompetent manager. At the outset when one is informed about the opinions and reactions of the staff of Bruce Smith about his leadership ability it seems to be an open and shut case where the verdict is in favor of Bruce. But when we are confronted with the negative feedback coming from fellow managers from different units, one begins to wonder whether they are being unreasonable in their evaluation or whether there are serious issues with Bruce. A cursory evaluation of the situation throws up happy subordinates and unhappy peers. Let us evaluate Bruce's strength's and weaknesses using Mintzberg's Theory of what managers do. The criteria for evaluation will be the Managerial activities and the associated roles with each activity. As we move along we will also use other theories and research to substantiate our conclusions. Mintzberg has classified the managerial activities into three categories. Each category has associated roles. The interpersonal activities of a manager arise out of his status and the formal authority that he has. This category of activities supports the information processing and the decision roles which are the other two activities that manager performs. Three roles are associated with the interpersonal activities of a manager: Figurehead: This is the role in which the manager represents the unit which he heads and becomes the one who symbolizes the unit. Duties must be carried out whether they are social, legal or inspirational. Events must be attended and documents must be signed. There is no evidence in the information provided in the case study to suggest that Bruce might not be fulfilling this role well. In fact his commitment to excellence in the performance of his unit indicates that he fulfills this role very well. Leader: This is a decisive role played by a manager particularly with respect to his relationship with subordinates. In the leadership role the manager keeps the subordinates motivated, encouraged and alert. The manager balances the interests of the organization (which he keeps first) with the interests of the employee to ensure effective functioning. I would categorize Bruce as an exceptional leader. Robert Katz identified three skills that are necessary for good management. These are technical skills, human skills and conceptual skills. Peterson & Fleet (2004, pp. 1299) have defined these for us: Technical skills are defined as the understanding of, or proficiency in, specific activities that require the use of specialized tools, methods, processes, procedures, techniques, or knowledge.Human skills are defined as the ability to work cooperatively with others, to communicate effectively, to resolve conflict, and to be a team player.Finally, conceptual skills are defined as the ability to see the organization as a whole or to have a systemic viewpoint Bruce would score highly on technical skills because of his ability to resolve technical issues as indicated by the feedback of his subordinate Stephen Dye who appreciated Bruce's ability to come up with solutions for technical problems like computers or paper or ink. Alex Brown another of Bruce's subordinates has complimented him on his interest in keeping his staff well trained as well as his frankness in giving feedback. Leonard Best tell us about the monthly morning tea awards which is a system that keeps the team motivated and contributes to a good spirit. These soft skills of Bruce give him a high score on human skills which is the second category of skills enumerated by Katz as necessary for managers. The time and energy he devotes to these human activities indicate the high level of priority that he attaches to these activities as well as his belief in the need to keep his team motivated. Liaison: This is the role of the manager which has to do with his networking skills. A positive equation with people with whom there may be no direct working relationship has great rewards and favor result out of these relationships. These kind of networking skills shaping internal and external contacts are also essential for information exchange. Maureen Mackenzie (2004) has formulated a model of problem solving by line managers which has two alternative methods. One is the conventional method where the decision requiring event occurs. Motivated by this need the manager seeks information which will help him take the necessary decision. The other approach is one in which the manager stores bits and pieces of information which may or may not seem relevant to the immediate business. This is called the knowledge savings account. When the event requiring a decision occurs, the manager draws from his knowledge savings account and is able to take quick decisions. Mackenzie also points out that "The behavior to accumulate information may also be self-serving. An individual's image being a powerful manager who is in the know can motivate the (knowledge) accumulation behaviour". Bruce's networking skills with external contacts i.e with the industry are very good. He has very good information on the latest technology, competition and customer expectations. However this area seems to be perhaps Bruce's biggest vulnerability within Paper Partners. While he exhibits excellent human skills in dealing with subordinates, his networking skills with internal contacts and peers seem unsatisfactory. So is Bruce really a non-performer in this area He clearly understands the need for human relationships and motivation. He clearly understands the need for networking with the industry which helps him get information. How can his poor relationship with his peers in other departments be explained Let us come to the three roles associated with the informational activities of a manager. Monitor: This role is about setting up an information system to monitor the organizations performance vis--vis the external needs, competition and to keep current with changes in the market environment. This is done by building contacts both within and outside the organization. Hence the manager emerges as the nerve centre of the organizations information. Once again, we find that Bruce scores highly with respect to the information that he has with regards to the market environment and the contacts that he has in the industry. His only problem seems to be within the company. There is nothing to suggest however that his poor relationships with his peers affect his ability to get internal information. Disseminator: This role is one in which the manager would transfer the information he has received from outside the organization to the people in the organization. This can be done factually or through values and symbols. He also creates systems for information flow within the organization among subordinates. Bruce has set up systems of training which help his subordinates with knowledge and information to keep them competent. Lauren Potter's knowledge about Bruce's links with the industry indicates that he shares information that he receives through these contacts with his team. The sales organization of Paper Partners however is never informed of Bruce's activities. It is clear that there is a lack of coordination between printery and sales, due to which the sales team is losing its credibility in the market. When Mike Willesee from the packaging and delivery section refers to Bruce's tendency to 'spit' out his orders, it clearly reflects unwillingness to spend time communicating with the packaging team. Spokesperson: The role of the manager here is to communicate the organization's plans and policies. He lobbies for his organization. He is also considered an expert in the field of operation of his organization and influences decisions in this area. Bruce does not seem to have much interest in the overall running of Paper Partners. It is not clear what his role is in the larger organization. As far as lobbying for his organization (meaning Bruce's printery unit) is concerned he seems to be doing a good job in the rest of the industry, but he is not helping their cause within Paper Partners. The decisional activities of a manager defined by Mintzberg include four roles. Entrepreneur: The manager has to be responsive to the external environment and make the necessary changes within the organization in order to adapt to the needs. From Lauren Potter's feedback about Bruce, it is clear that he is 'on top of the next big thing in printing'. He is proactive about his work and presumably this proactivity would result in the necessary changes based on his evaluation. His flexibility can also be seen in the feedback about him from Nella McDonald who appreciates his openness to ideas. The monthly morning tea probably rewards innovation too, going by Bruce's style. The disturbance handler: The manager must have a cool head when there is fire all around. He settles dust which can be raised when there are occurrences like interpersonal relationships breaking down, or costly mistakes causing unexpected disequilibrium in the system. He care whatever corrective action is necessary including calming matters, buying time, evaluating the situation, changing the structures etc. Bruce has frankness about him with which he deals with his subordinates, telling them like it is, and dealing with performance which is unsatisfactory. He has also been appreciated as competent in a crisis. His technical as well as human skills make him a man who is well equipped in a tight situation. However, Bruce himself is responsible for causing disequilibrium in the larger organization because of his low priority to relationships with peer managers and other departments. Resource allocater: This role is about prioritizing and scheduling work. The manager also authorizes proposals and makes significant organizational decisions within a framework or model has he has in his head. He divides tasks according to the needs of the organization. Bruce has taken some important decisions like positioning the organization for small print jobs and configuring the printing section to do smaller print jobs. Negotiator: The manager in this role represents the organization in negotiations with other organizations. This is also connected to his role as figurehead and spokesman apart from the fact that he is also the resource allocator. There is no evidence of negotiations that Bruce would have done on behalf of the organization in the case study. Further Observations: It is established that Bruce has exceptional technical and human skills (using Katz's work on managerial skills). The question that needs to be asked is whether he has conceptual skills (the third category of skills as defined by Katz) as well. Conceptual skills imply an ability to see the organization as a whole. Bruce is clearly competent in handing his own organization within the bigger organization, but does he lack conceptual skills such that he cannot see beyond his own sphere of control Mike Willesee made a pertinent point when he stated that Bruce seems to forget that they are all working for the same company. The research which we shall use to help us conclude on this matter is a work by Fred Luthans (1988) who did a study on the difference between successful and effective managers. Success being defined as the level to which the manager has climbed and effective being defined as the ability to get the job done. Luthans found that the way successful and effective managers spent their time was quite different. Successful managers more of their time socializing, politicking and interacting with outsiders. They spend considerably lesser time doing the traditional managerial activities like planning, organizing, controlling etc., and less time in the HR activities. There is a clear link found in Luthans study between activities done and the results in terms of success or effectiveness. Noteworthy is the finding that less than 10% of the managers of the sample of the study would be deemed both successful and effective, the unfortunate implication being that rarely are effective managers successful and vice versa. Effective managers spent considerable time on HR and communication activities and less time on networking. "Networking activity had by far the strongest relative relationship to success, but the weakest with effectiveness. On the other hand, human resource management activity had a strong relationship to effectiveness (second only to communication activity), but had the weakest relative relationship to success" Luthans quotes a manager who would be representative of the category of effective managers: "Both how much and how well things get done around here, as well as keeping my people loyal and happy, has to do with keeping them informed and involved. If I make a change in procedure or the guys upstairs give us a new process or piece of equipment to work with, I get my people's input and give them the full story before I lay it on them. Then I make sure they have the proper training and give them feedback on how they are doing. When they screw up, I let them know it, but when they do a good job, I let them know about that too. Bruce's case seems to be like that of an effective manager who is not currently successful. Clearly Bruce has allocated his time for communication and motivational HR activities. Luthans also quotes a manager who would be representative of the category of successful managers: "I find that the way to get ahead around here is to be friendly with the right people, both inside and outside the firm. They get tired of always talking shop, so I find a common interest - with some it's sports, with others it's our kids - and interact with them on that level. The other formal stuff around the office is important but I really work at this informal side and have found it pays off when promotion time rolls around." The above approach is clearly what Bruce does not follow. Not only is his interaction with peer managers unfriendly, even his interaction with his own boss is non-receptive to input. The unhappiness that Bruce's peers and superior have with him is typical of effective but non-successful managers. Perhaps within this case study of Bruce and Paper Partners we get an understanding of why effective managers are not rewarded with success (or promotion). We see that in spite of Bruce's superior performance his boss Paul Southey considers him a problem. Paul is probably guilty of overdoing the 'hands-off' style of management. Candace Walters (2005) quotes Bruce Tulgan's study on the subject, "Many managers leave high performers alone, assuming they "have everything they need." Instead, Tulgan suggests, high performers suffer when under-managed. They often are not acknowledged and rewarded effectively, may not be given all the resources they need, and may fail to see a clear connection between their efforts and the success of the organization Paul Southey must cater to the needs of Bruce as a high performer and help him to see the link between his own performance and the company's. Henri Fayol's principles of management can be applied in this context. Micheal J Fells (2000) believes that Fayol's "principles" and "elements" of management have stood the test of time. He writes, "Indeed it would be easy to think that Fayol's model would be rendered ineffective simply by the passage of time. However Fayol's five elements of planning, organizing, commanding, controlling and coordinating are quite general and therefore may in fact pass the test of time" Paul can focus on developing two of the fourteen out of the non-exhaustive list of Fayol's principles within Paper Partners. The first is the principle of unity of direction, where the whole organization should move together with the same common objectives rather than individualistic ones. The second is the principle of esprit de corps, where there is a spirit of unity, loyalty and pride within the whole organization which will prompt them to consider themselves as a single team rather than many disjointed units. Paul must, as Bruce's boss, help him to develop conceptual skills which will help Bruce in the long run as he climbs the ladder, as well as help the organization which will benefit from Bruce's increasing ability to see the bigger picture. The onus is on Paul. Based on the theoretical frameworks of Mintzberg, Katz and Fayol we conclude that Bruce is by no means an incompetent manager. In keeping with the research of Luthans we categorize Bruce as an illustration of Luthans' findings where because of his poor networking skills (which Luthans' found are only necessary for the managers personal interests) he finds himself out of favor with his boss and his peers. However his superior HR and communication skills make him an effective manager who needs to be managed better by his superiors in the company to get the best out of him. List of References Fells, Micheal J. 2000, "Fayol Stands the test of time", Journal of Management History, vol 6, no.8, pp 347 Luthans, Fred. 1988. "Successful vs. Effective Real Managers" University of Nebraska, Lincoln, [Online], 13 Apr 2006, Available at: http://www.be.wvu.edu/divmim/mgmt/blakely/homepage/BADM543/LeadingvsManaging.htm Mackenzie, Maureen. 6 Jan 2004. "The Knowledge Savings Account", Knowledge Management, [Online], 12 Apr 2006, Available at: http://www.destinationkm.com/articles/default.aspArticleID=1108 Peterson, Tim O and David D Van Fleet. Aug 2004, "The Ongoing Legacy of R.L. Katz", Management Decision, vol. 42. no. 10, pp. 1299. Walters, Candace. 28 Jan 2005. "Avoiding the perils of hands-off management", HR.Works Inc., [Online],14 Apr 2006, Available at: http://www.hrworks-inc.com/art-jan282005.html, Read More