The theory of “management” has succeeded a lot in analyzing the behavior of leaders, in studying the reasons for their successes and failures, in systematizing knowledge on how to develop their strengths in themselves and fight the weak ones.
We pay special attention to foreign theorists. Ask the boss what to read on this topic or ask them to name their “favorite book”. Surely you will hear the names of Goldratt, Adizes, Machiavelli ... I was repeatedly convinced personally that the “priceless knowledge” gleaned from these books forever ousts the school curriculum from the minds of the “leaders”. A person with difficulty and already incorrectly answers the question “What is the root of 9 and -9?” ... But this is a separate conversation.
In my opinion, the Russian classic of management Vladimir Tarasov, who has studied this topic since the late Soviet era, perfectly revealed it in his work, especially in the books “Personal Management Art”, “Eight Steps of Management Excellence”. To begin acquaintance with “management”, which, by definition, is “The art of doing the work with someone else's hands” (sic), would recommend with the latter.
But if serious literature does not reach the hands, but you need to understand the subject for a “quick start” or just out of interest, you should extract a clear picture from a confusing topic at first glance. This is what we'll do.
Consider just two "managers". The first is Tarasov's "ideal leader", about whom only one thing is known - that he exists. The second type, let's call it the Supply Manager, is the opposite of the first. On their opposition, studying them motives - we will build a theory, and having understood them valuables - find out the reason for their differences.
So. Both understand that the position is temporary. Or leave / remove, or raise higher. But the first one is confident in himself, which means he will be raised, therefore he sets himself the task of leaving behind a clearly working structure in which there will be no immediate need for him. The second is afraid that this is the ceiling, or just tired and wants to linger on it. Hence the big difference in approaches.
To delegation. The purpose of the first not become indispensable. And he delegates, necessarily giving subordinates real responsibility. Delegates delegation - creates organizational structures. Its ultimate goal is to delegate EVERYTHING. He will be responsible for the final result, but he will receive it - by proxy. In case of victory, such a leader will tell the team: it is YOU who won. And he will be sincere.
The second one can delegate execution, but not responsibility. All papers will pass through itself, will delve into every little thing. Well, like a typical caretaker. He subconsciously desires be indispensable!
To learning direct subordinates. The first one is self-learning and seeks to teach others. Because qualified subordinates are absolutely necessary for business and career. In the first place - the transfer of personal experience, systematic meetings, analysis of "flights".
The caretaker - he himself has not opened the book for a long time. Perhaps he is inclined to be jealous of success. He probably thinks that subordinates already know everything, since they ended up in their positions. If they organize a meeting, then rather than teach, but to show themselves!
To freedom making managerial decisions. Subordinates work independently, without looking back at the manager, although they are well aware that in the event of significant deviations, he will delve into their work and do it professionally. Operational issues, incl. financial - decide for yourself.
For the manager, it's the other way around. A minimum of independence, all decisions are approved by him. Try not to bring it for signature and do not agree on your decision, purchase, bonus! ..
Responsibility for their own and others' mistakes. First, we failed, but that's my fault. Rather, he will punish not the guilty person, but his leader.
The second - organizes a commission, and appointing the guilty does not include himself in the punishment order.
To documentation. The first professes the principle “knowledge should belong to the company”. Technological and organizational processes are documented. Not formally, but for real. Maintained knowledge base, quality records…
The caretaker has a very formal attitude to documentation. Those. she can and is - for show. The culture of the team’s work “according to standards” is weak (real work may differ from documented work).
To people. And this is the most important thing. Although both strive to surround themselves with the right people, the first one does not complex if he meets smarter / more talented. After all, it's easier to find a successor and solve the main problem! He will say: “Cadres decide everything” (C). He will say sincerely, because he appreciates everyone, cherishes and relies on trust. If he decides to fire him, he will do it PERSONALLY with a heavy heart.
The second one requires loyalty. You can hear from him - “there are no irreplaceable people”, “find an irreplaceable and fire”, etc. And it is very possible that he will try to shift the burden of dismissal onto the shoulders of a subordinate. Perhaps he will hint: “a subordinate should not be smarter than the boss” (quiet drift towards complete dishonesty). Therefore, there is often no replacement next to it. He wanted to be irreplaceable, and he became one!
… You can go on and on. If the REASONS are clear, it is not difficult to imagine the possible consequences. I think you understood everything perfectly. The characters are idealized, perhaps found only in literature. Reaching the Nth level of Tarasov's leadership is great, but being a supply manager is not bad, and sometimes it is vital. After all, the work of a “manager” is judged by result the work of his team: the volume of output, the profit of the company ...
But a decent and completely honest person in front of himself is most likely to go the first way.. The hardest thing about management is being the leader and staying decent man. Position - taken independently, if taken. Decency - given from above, if given. (WITH)
Source: habr.com