|
Years ago, I ran into this research
by Fred Luthans, PhD
Successful vs. Effective Real
Managers
The Academy of Management Executive
(1987-1989)
Vol. 2, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 127-132
Published by: Academy of Management Article Stable URL:http://www.jstor.org/stable/4164814
ABSTRACT
Rather than searching for
technological, governmental, or economic solutions to the
performance problems facing today's organizations, maybe it is
time to take a closer look at managers' day-to-day activities.
Instead of taking a normative view of what managers should do
or examining a small group of elite managers, this article
draws from the results recently reported in a book on an
observational study that used a large sample of what are
called "real managers" -- managers from all levels of large
and small mainstream organizations.
After first covering what real managers do (the four
activities of traditional management, communication, human
resource management, and networking), Luthans examines the
important, but heretofore ignored, distinction between
successful and effective real managers. Successful real
managers are on a relatively fast promotion track (an index of
level over tenure). Effective real managers have satisfied and
committed subordinates who perceive quality and quantity
performance in their unit (a combined index using standardized
questionnaire measures of satisfaction, commitment, and
performance).
A comparative analysis of the activities of the successful
versus the effective real managers reveals little similarity
between the two. Successful managers give relatively more
attention to networking (socializing, politicking, and
interacting with outsiders) than their unsuccessful
counterparts and give relatively little attention to human
resource management activities (motivating/reinforcing,
managing conflict, staffing, and training/development).
In stark contrast, however, effective managers give by far the
most relative attention and effort to communicating
(exchanging information and processing paperwork) and human
resource management activities and the least to networking.
Although Luthans' conclusions about successful vs. effective
managers are bound by the definitions and method of study and
analysis used, their implications for today's organizations
are nevertheless revealing and interesting and can perhaps
begin to explain why there are problems. Luthans concludes by
discussing these implications and providing some guidelines on
how organizations can most effectively respond to them.
Over the years I have been reminded time after time, that who
gets the worm, is not who you would think...and with the
recent advent of the Rules For Radicals-->even when it's
running filters for conventional reasons--there is even more
pronounced effect of what makes successful (or not) leaders.
My thoughts today prompted me to
draw this incredible distinction with Obama and Romney.
For whomever you are for, these two
prototypical "managers" are poster children for Luthan's
Study.
I won't go into a political
diatribe, but one has to be careful to match the success
requirements with scaffolding and the resources. If you
believe the USA will be better off with a Successful Manager,
or an Effective Real Leader--a case can be made for
either--the choice is as clear as night and day in this
election season of 2012.
The STARKNESS of the contrast is
valuable here as as we look at what are the success
requirements... @F-L-O-W for the success of our country...?
DOES ANYONE HAVE A CLUE?
Of course not, and this is a great
time to make my point about the difference between BS and
@F-L-O-W --> In BS, it's important to keep Success
Requirements muttled so the emphasis stays on the changing
climate... @F-L-O-W Success Requirements MUST BE CLARIFIED in
order to understand the gap, so we don't look at having to
change, but to scaffold... This is a key attribution that
occurs among Successful vs. Effective Real Managers.
If I keep you focused on the
politics, and the networks, rather than what is real success,
I won't lose...and YOU can't win.
|
