What interested me in today's presentation - all about the Bay Area Rapid Transit System - was something that applies in a very widespread way: the negative implications of the word "management." Ultimately, I think the word is used to describe difficult to work with people, people who don't understand what is going on, people who are trying to make your life hard, people who hold your employment fate in their hands, people who make uninformed decisions, people you can't talk to... The list continues. And while I concede that many of these misconceptions are not unfounded, I don't think that the universal "management" should be a negative thing.
Management is absolutely necessary. Merriam-Webster defines management as follows:
1: the act or art of managing : the conducting or supervising of something (as a business)
2: judicious use of means to accomplish an end
3: the collective body of those who manage or direct an enterprise
None of these imply negativity or incompetency. Management is about the bigger picture, the grander goal, the long-term vision. It's about knowing people's skills, strengths, and interests to best use them to achieve something bigger. Management should tie in closely with leadership. A good manager doesn't need constantly be reprimanding, nor should he/she be constantly micromanaging. This is the crux of the "redefinition."
It ultimately comes down to the fact that little can be achieved without a leader. This leader can take on many forms, but it is nearly impossible to do anything productive without one individual who can make a final decision. If we make every decision by vote nothing would get done because actions would end up contradicting each other or worse, harming each other. You need someone who is going to look at the end goal and figure out what matters, who can contribute and how, what timeline is appropriate, and how to motivate people. Management can be so powerful if handled correctly - it need not be a negative synonym for bureaucracy, inefficiency, or incompetence.
Part of the problem is pride. Managers want to believe that they know best (this is true of leaders too). But, you see, management is meant to know the resources (be it people, objects, spaces, whatever) and find the best use of them. This includes contacting people and gathering opinions. A good leader and manager needs an innovative mind and a solid intuition, but there is nothing that says a manager needs to know all the answers. This mindset plagues management and prevents progress.
Another misconception (fully perpetuated, mind you) about management is that it is a universal skill that can be applied in the same manner to most/all industries. Um, no. Not at all. In a technical setting, a manager with little or no technical background comes off as naïve, undereducated, and, frankly, incompetent. This is exacerbated by managers in these situations who try to "cover up" their knowledge gap and make decisions without consulting anyone or by making assumptions (which are actually so detrimental). A manager from a different industry or background can be wildly successful in a different field as long as they are open to learn and defer to those more experienced for the finer grain details of an operation or project.
Management is a powerful and necessary tool in making a group function productively. It becomes increasingly important as that group grows in size, because no one person can know all aspects of what is happening, let alone make informed decisions about them. This growth step can be when management gets muddled or ineffective, but when they are most needed in order to keep the company moving along.
On a somewhat tangential note, the promotion progression should not necessarily be to management! I think this is one of the biggest flaws of work environments all over the place. Some people are simply not meant to be managers. They don't have the people skills, the vision, the time, or sometimes the desire to be in charge of others. Promoting someone out of a job they excel at does not ensure their success as a manager of those same people. It makes sense if you think of it this way: someone may be the best darn hammerer on the entire construction site, but if they are myopic and technically-oriented and antisocial or abrasive, promoting them to be the Hammer Team Manager will not do anyone any good. More fitting would be a training role or a consultant role that allows him to tap into his expertise and passions without making him uncomfortable with responsibility. This is so much better for everyone.
As some one who loves administrative and managerial tasks, I don't want the idea of "management" to continue to be a bad one. I am still in college and already find myself in multiple leadership/management roles, so I can see the flaws plainly. Their are misconceptions, lack of motivation, as well as a whole slew of other problems with traditional hierarchical attitudes and hiring practices. I hope that some progress can be made (maybe we need managers of the managers?) in making the managerial positions of most workplaces productive and helpful rather than bureaucratic and frustrating.
No comments:
Post a Comment