The theory of management has made significant strides in analyzing the behavior of leaders, studying the reasons for their successes and failures, and systematizing knowledge on how to cultivate strong qualities within themselves while combating weaknesses.
We pay particular attention to foreign theorists. Ask your boss what to read on this topic or to name their 'favorite book'. You will likely hear the names Goldratt, Adizes, Machiavelli... I have often personally confirmed that the 'priceless knowledge' gleaned from these books forever displaces the 'school curriculum' from the minds of 'leaders'. A person struggles and answers incorrectly the question 'What is the square root of 9 and -9?'... But that's a different discussion.
In my opinion, the domestic classic of management, Vladimir Tarasov, who studied this topic since the late Soviet era, has thoroughly uncovered it in his work, especially in the books 'Personal Management Art', 'Eight Steps to Managerial Mastery'. I would recommend starting with management from the latter, which by definition is 'The art of getting work done through others’ (sic).
However, if serious literature seems out of reach, and you need to grasp the subject for a 'quick start' or simply out of curiosity, it is necessary to extract a clear picture from a seemingly convoluted topic. This is what we will do.
Let’s consider just two 'managers'. The first is Tarasov's 'ideal leader', of whom only one thing is known — that he exists. The second type, let’s call him the Caretaker — the antithesis of the first. We will build a theory on their opposition and study their motivations. Motives — we will develop our theory, and by understanding their values — we will uncover the reasons for their differences.
So, both understand that the position is temporary. Either they will be retained or changed, or promoted. But the first feels confident in himself, and thus believes he will be promoted, so he sets the task of leaving behind a clearly functioning structure that will not require his presence. The second fears this is the ceiling, or is simply tired and wants to stay in his position. Hence, there is a significant difference in approaches.
Regarding delegation. The goal of the first is to not become irreplaceable.And he delegates, ensuring that subordinates have genuine responsibility. He delegates delegation — creating organizational structures. His ultimate goal is to delegate EVERYTHING. He will be responsible for the final result, but will achieve it through others' efforts. In case of victory, such a leader will tell the team: you won. And he will be sincere.
The second type can delegate execution but not responsibility. He will put all documents through himself, getting involved in every detail. Well, like a typical superintendent. He subconsciously desires to be indispensable.!
To the training of direct subordinates. The first type learns himself and strives to educate others. Because qualified subordinates are absolutely necessary for the work and career. The priority is the transfer of personal experience, systematic meetings, and analysis of performance.
The superintendent hasn't opened a book in a long time. He may be prone to jealousy over others' successes. He surely thinks that subordinates already know everything since they are in their positions. If he organizes a meeting, it's more likely not to teach but to showcase himself!
To the freedom of making management decisions. Subordinates work independently, without looking back at the leader, even though they know that if there are significant deviations, he will delve into their work and do so professionally. They resolve operational issues, including financial ones, on their own.
For the superintendent, it's the opposite. There is minimal independence; he approves all decisions. Try not to bring something for signature and not agree on your decision, purchase, or bonus!
Responsibility for one’s own and others' mistakes. The first type: we failed, but it is my fault. He is more likely to punish not the guilty party itself, but their superior.
The second type organizes a commission, but when appointing guilty parties, he does not include himself in the order of punishment.
To documentation. The first type upholds the principle that "knowledge should belong to the company." Technological and organizational processes are documented. Not formally, but authentically. A knowledge base is maintained, with quality records...
The superintendent has a very formal attitude toward documentation. That is, it may exist — but just for show. The team culture of working "by standards" is weak (actual work may differ from what is documented).
About peopleAnd this is the most important thing. Although both strive to surround themselves with the right people, the first one doesn't feel insecure when meeting someone smarter or more talented. After all, it's easier to find a successor and solve the main task! He will say, “Personnel matters above all” (C). He says it sincerely because he values each person, cherishes them, and relies on trust. If he decides to fire someone, he will do it in person, with a heavy heart.
The second one demands loyalty. You might hear him say, “There are no irreplaceable people,” or “Find someone irreplaceable and fire them,” and so on. It's very possible that he will try to shift the burden of dismissal onto the subordinate's shoulders. He may even imply: “A subordinate should never be smarter than their boss” (a subtle drift towards complete dishonesty). As a result, there's often no substitute for him. He wanted to be irreplaceable, and he became one!
... And this can go on. If the REASONS are clear, it's not difficult to imagine the possible consequences. I believe you understand everything perfectly. The characters are idealized and perhaps only exist in literature. Reaching the N-th level of management according to Tarasov is great, but being a steward isn't bad; sometimes, it's vital. After all, a “manager's” job is evaluated by a result the performance of their team: production volume, company profits...
But a decent person who is completely honest with themselves will most likely go down the first path.The most challenging aspect of management is to remain a decent person while fulfilling the role of a leader. The position is taken voluntarily, if taken at all. Decency is given from above, if given at all. (C)
Source: habr.com
