Its management that gets in the way

When I get asked, "how can we make our managers better leaders?" I almost always feel the urge to scream GET OUT OF THEIR WAY DUMMY!

Developing leadership within in a cohort of managers starts with the top. Makes sense doesn't it, yet it almost never happens. Everyone wants to do it to the next level down, few are willing to do it to themselves first. If I had £100 for every manager that ever asked me, "is our management team going to be do this work?" I'd be a very wealth man.

Middle managers - i.e. the manager of managers - are squeezed between senior management control and junior management enthusiasm. The tenderfoot at the bottom wants to drive change and prove they are someone to be recognised. While the old guard at the top want predictability and consistent results.

The executive team wants entrepreneurship and they want control. It’s a paradox that creates a situation where they are their own problem. Middle managers are controlled and checked often by systemic processes that contradict the notions espoused by the CEO during a town-hall meeting. These systemic issues pervade organisations, eventually stamping out all signs of judgement and responsibility.

Do not be misguided and think this only exist in old-fashioned firms and government bodies. I see this all of the time in the most modern leading edge companies. Companies that are successful. Even companies that are market leaders.

As an example of how a simply system, which is in place for the good of the employees, can develop myth and legend that completely distorts the intended good and crushes middle manager leadership.

The Case of the Performance Management System.

The senior team of our case company is so convinced of the power of talent management it elects to embrace a full blown performance management system, which in todays world always means a computerised system. This immediately produces an issue, natural workflow meets computerised model of workflow. This mismatch started a process of resistance. Added to this were messages about talent and grading. What is a ONE versus a TWO or a FIVE were vague? Sounds easy but in realty it was not thought through in terms of how these messages would be received and implemented.

Then as the implementation began senior managers talked about making sure people were encouraged to go the extra mile and reflect this in their grades. "Everyone must continually strive to do more, last years TWO is only good enough to be this years THREE!" And here it was. A seemly immovable rule that meant that some middle manager believed they no longer had the discretion over how he or she rated their people.

The system is no longer favoured and the reasons for its implementation are lost in a haze of blame.

Solving this kind of problem is extremely complex once the problem has grown because its almost impossible for managers at all levels to remain detached enough to look at the route cause.

Senior management need to learn how to ask for what they want and leave the “what to do” to managers they trust to lead the change. However they need to be explicit about the leadership culture; a way of operating as a leader with models to facilitate discussions focused on leadership not simply the task at hand. These discussions need to be focused on communication and behaviour. What managers say and how they say it. How they act when they are dealing with people and how to act when mistakes happen.

Time spent by senior teams considering how they model the way is the starting place from which to answer the question "how can we make our managers better leaders?"