From: korz@cs.columbia.edu (Frederick Korz)
Subject: Re: A business major catching up.
Followup-To: alt.callahans
Summary: Good management facilitates among other things.
Reply-To: korz@cs.columbia.edu
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 18:00:50 GMT

Frood wanders by and hears:

In article <1992Apr12.114338.25001@cco.caltech.edu> lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
>In article <1992Apr12.000435.10698@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu>, dapetersen@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Toothpick (-:)) writes:
>>Who was it who was speaking about getting paid to have fun?
>StM admits, "'Twas I."
>>I certainly am!
>"Congratulations."
"I second that.  Congratulations!  Enjoying your work certainly helps."

><[[ snip ]]

"Prefatory statement:
  I don't formally study management, though i did have some courses in
it back in the dark ages.  Rather I did a 5 year intensive internship
as a manager, learning from both positive and negative examples and
making my share of mistakes.  Since then I've had the opportunity to
observe in two other domains.  Specifically the organizations I
observed from within were, respectively, (1) US Navy submarine fleet
[from ensigns and petty officers to admirals and master chiefs], (2)
academic organizations [lecturers and support folk to deans], and (3)
a major commercial research laboratory [new researchers and support
staff to Vice Presidents].

>>Specifically, Jilara's statements about business generalists having no skills
>>at all and Bear's statements on getting more people out of organizational
>>work.  Now, I have a liberal business background with a double major: 
>>Organizational Behavior and Personnel/Employee Relations.  In layman's terms,
>>I studied a lot of psychology as it relates to workplace issues and a lot of
>>specific personnel related functions (compensation, interviewing, training,
>>etc...).
>
>"And if and when you reach top `management,' how many of these skills will you
>still be using?   Not many, I'd wager."

Depends on how one reached `top management'.  Whether on a series of
brilliant (or perhaps diabolical) deals and leaping from firm to firm,
or a firmer history of sound (beneficial to all) management.

Some of the best top managers I've seen remember their pasts, adapt
and enhance these skills as they move up in addition to learning new
ones, make sure they know quite a deal about the organization they
manage, even if they don't know the moment-to-moment details, and at
the same time don't meddle.

>>I believe that the problem with most ineffective managers comes from the
>>fallacy that everyone WANTS to be a manager.
[[ snip ]]
>>So we take, for instance, technical people who have done a great job and
>>promote them to head of some technical department.  But often, that takes
>>people away from the very work they enjoyed!  It can put them in a position
>>of authority over people who were once their peers. And often, no one trained
>>them or taught them how to be a manager."

Anecdotal evidence, both my experience in the 'real world'(TM) and my
brushes with the literature, has shown this true in many cases.  There
are folk who do what they do very well and wish to keep on doing it.
For them an undesired promotion into management, complete with
pressure to accept this promotion ("it is a reward, you know" (yeah,
right)), is like any other undesired change -- more of a punishment.

A promotion can also be a double social whammy.  Where social
stratification exists, you're no longer one of the "guys/gals", and
now you have to enter and learn a new circle.

>"This CAN be a problem.  It was mentioned in one of the management courses I
>took as an undergrad.  But it's no worse a problem than taking someone who's
>been trained to be a manager, and putting him in charge of an organization
>that's supposed to be doing something, without ever training him in what the
>organization's doing.  And the latter problem was NOT mentioned in the
>management courses I took."
>
>>"To me, management is a delicate balance between company interests and
>>individual interests. 
>
>"That's true.  But this means that you truly understand the company's
>interests.
>And management training alone is NOT SUFFICIENT TO ALLOW YOU TO ACCURATELY
>ASSESS THE COMPANY'S INTERESTS.  You also have to know, at a fairly detailed
>level, exactly what the company's business is, and how it works."

><[[ snip (good analogy about forest, both toothpick and StM. btw.) ]]


Here's a general list of qualities that i offer you for your
consideration.  Just a top-of-my-head list of things seen over the
years.  (Caveat emptor.)

Good management typically:
   Facilitates activity - adding structure to unproductive chaos and
removing structure that hampers activity.
   Is knowledgeable of the organization - all around - above, below
and to the sides.  Could, in a pinch easily substitute for any peer,
subordinate, or to some extent immediate superior.  Has some idea of
what an action he/she issues really requires of those who do it.
Observes before acting.
   Supervises subordinate managers and trains them to be good managers.
   Acts as a buffer, interpreter and intermediary between the level
above and those below.
   Is knowledgeable of the necessary information to do the job and
stays that way.
   Is not preceded by alarm (as things are hidden or excuses prepared)
and followed by whispers behind the back.
   Knows how to listen, how to inquire, and when to leave off both.
   Is feared most for being firm but fair (or at least trying to be fair).



Some of the characteristics of "bad" management:

   Rules rather than facilitates.  Worried about the empire as it
affects the emperor/ess.
   Knows the organization only for the purpose of manipulating it.
Probably couldn't or wouldn't do another's job competently.
   Passes any blame up or down, claims all the credit.
   Is not up to date and blames others for his/her ignorance.
   Often is preceded by a wave of activity and followed by more that
whispers.  (e.g.  "Quick!  The boss!" and "Why can't he/she just sit
in that office and leave us to our work?")
   At best hears what she/he wants to hear.  Doesn't know how to
listen.
   Is feared as an arbitrary tyrant, with any fairness being purely
coincidental.


I'm sure you can start sorting some of the negative examples into
violations of the first group of traits or affirmations of some of the
negatives in the second group of traits.

You've also got to low pass filter this.  Good managers make mistakes
or have to carry out bad policy from above.  Bad managers may be folks
who were not ready to manage rather than having any inherent evil
streak.   Bad managers may also have fortuitous mistakes too.

Managers, in short, are folks doing a job.  They can be good or bad or
anywhere inbetween as a manager for any number of reasons."


Frood's voice has been growing more and more distant as the stack of
soap boxes grow beneath his feet.  It seems you can hardly see him
now.

"Yikes, i'm stratosphere-bound on a stack of soap boxes!  Oh well, tis
my own fault.  I'll be down ... eventually."

"BTW:  Happy Birthday DM"


	frood

Fred Korz			450 Computer Science Building
korz@cs.columbia.edu		Columbia University
(212) 854-8177			NY, NY  10027 (USA)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans