CHAPTER 1
"PLAY BY THE RULES": AMANAGEMENT PHILOSOPHY
If you are a manager and don't want to be regarded as a great boss, youshould not be a manager in the first place. Regardless of the profession,you have the opportunity to inspire those under your purview to thepoint where they feel privileged to have you as their leader. Much workmay be necessary for you to get there, but in not aspiring to be the bestmanager possible, you do a disservice to the organization, to yourself,and most important, to those you agreed to lead.
MANAGEMENT: A PROFESSION ALL BY ITSELF
Whether I was an administrator at a hospital or the president of asoftware company, I always looked forward to going to work each day.It was exciting to be able to work with people from all walks of life.My job was to provide a work environment conducive to their happyand effective efforts toward accomplishing the goals of the company.Throughout the years, I had the opportunity to witness and becomeinvolved with many different types of managers from around thecountry. Some were very experienced and some were brand new totheir field; many of them were very good, and some were not goodat all. Some were well educated, good at their jobs, and easy to workwith, while others were just educated idiots. Often the managers witha limited education were among the best, while others managed withthe attitude "It's just a job." This type of attitude was referred to inthe military as being on the ROAD (Retired while On Active Duty).Unfortunately, it's also found in the civilian sector.
Have you ever had a boss you despised, one who made you think,If I ever find myself in a position of authority, unlike this boss, I will doeverything possible to inspire my employees? I had such an experience earlyin my career, which gave me the motivation to learn all I could aboutbeing a good manager.
Managers are in a unique position. They are in control, some more sothan others. Unfortunately, many managers—especially new ones—donot know where to begin, which oftentimes relates to a lack of selfconfidenceor simply not knowing what it means to be in control. Thesemanagers are in a tough position; they got the job all right, but they arein need of some direction. Having been there myself and then havingthe responsibility for leading other managers, I believe it doesn't hurt tohave some rules to follow as one develops management skills.
Although I have been a manager for many years, I never imaginedthat I would ever find myself in a position where I would be writingabout a management philosophy of my own. There are two reasons Ieven dare to share this philosophy:
1. My professor (Dr. Croy) for the final class of my graduateprogram at USC gave us the assignment to write our ownmanagement philosophy or expound on our thoughts aboutothers'. I chose to write my own. After I submitted the paper,entitled "Play by the Rules: A Management Philosophy," hereturned it to me with the question, "Would you considercoauthoring a book with me?" I never answered him becausewhen I graduated two weeks later, I received orders from theair force reassigning me to a base in Florida. I found myselfextremely busy at a new job and getting settled with my familyin a new home. Dr. Croy has since retired, and I have alwaysfelt guilty about not responding to his request; I guess this ismy way of trying to clear my conscience.
2. When our company began to show relative success, I was askedessentially the same question by three hospital administrators:"As a vendor, how are you able to successfully manage mymaterials manager without having any line or staff authority,and do so with such positive outcomes?"
Instead of giving them a detailed answer, I simply thanked themfor their comments. Unfortunately, the answer is not a simple one.Instead, it requires a rather detailed explanation. I apologize in advance,as many pages in this chapter will read like a textbook. Nevertheless,the philosophy is included for review. Many personal anecdotes of myown experiences as a manager are included throughout the text; thesewere events that had significant impact on my management beliefs andpractices that formed throughout the years.
A COMPLEX MANAGEMENT SCENARIO
At our company, we were doing more than just selling an expensivepiece of software; we were selling a solution to a problem impactingthe way materials managers ran their departments. It was an absoluterush to work with the majority of the managers—they recognizedthe need for change and were willing to do whatever it took to makethe transition to the new system a success. The majority of our clientsbecame showcase examples who took advantage of all of the features oursoftware had to offer, and eventually we were able to proudly use themas references for future potential clients. Through their own successeswith our system, our clients assured us that what we were doing wasworth all of our efforts.
Unfortunately, some managers treated their purchase (years later,up to $1 million for software and hardware) as a solution they believedwould require minimum effort on their part—as if it was a plug-and-playpiece of software. That type of motivation usually surfaced afterour system was installed and the new staff received training for thefile build. We could ill afford to have any of them unhappy, especiallyfrom the get-go. Consider the dynamics of the situation: on one side,these new clients just went through a rather involved process to acquirean expensive piece of software they believed would make their jobseasier and more efficient. The sales presentation was convincing enough,the references were glowing, the site visits were impressive, and theywere able to sell their bosses on the idea that they had made the rightchoice ... and then the reality set in that what they'd observed andadmired was going to take a great deal of work, work they either didnot want to do or were incapable of managing. For our part, we hadjust sold our system to someone showing signs of buyer's remorse, notbecause they believed they chose the wrong solution, but because theydidn't expect to be so overwhelmed.
As soon as it became apparent there was going to be a problem, ourentire staff at Health-Ware Management Company increased its effortsfor supporting those clients. Similar to the 80/20 rule, we had a 90/10phenomenon where 90 percent of our time was spent supporting 10percent of the clients. The clients' lack of management skills usuallybecame apparent during the first training session, with managersfinding reasons why the process would not work for their institution.The reaction was similar to that of a deer caught in the headlights. SinceI always conducted that initial day-and-a-half training class, I was theone who first observed negative behavior on the part of any members ofthe new staff. If it happened to be the manager who seemed troubled,I had to do my best to delicately manage the manager, a position I didnot relish.
I can now hear the comments: "How arrogant can you be?" Perhapsa lot, but people need to put themselves in my position. I had a clientwho, by making just a few choice phone calls, could put an unjustifiedblack mark on the reputation of our company. I knew I couldn't letus take the fall just because this individual was insecure or, worse,incompetent. We knew how to make the system work well and so didothers; given the opportunity, it could greatly improve the efficienciesof any operation. I had enough confidence in myself as a manager totake on the challenge of influencing the client to make the new projectat hand a positive experience for all. When I recognized the possibilityfor failure, I had no choice but to carefully interject my influence on thenew MM staff. Yes, it was self-serving, but the truth was I also wantedthis new client to be successful. Almost always, the manager was opento advice and would eagerly act upon it. Ultimately, we bonded witha working friendship to the point where we were able to discuss anyconcerns either of us encountered in the future. There were those fewexceptions where some managers were incapable of ever being able tosee the project to a successful completion; later on, you will meet someof them.
I have heard some say that all it takes to be a manager is good commonsense. I admit, that doesn't hurt, but it is not the only attribute necessary.I contend there are many more management concepts one must grasp tobe a successful boss. I managed many unenviable situations to positiveoutcomes because I strongly believed in a management philosophy Ideveloped and call "Play by the Rules." Two other philosophies must beunderstood before this concept can be applied: "Theory X" and "TheoryY" by Douglas McGregor, and Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs.An understanding of these philosophies is necessary before the featuresof "Play by the Rules" can be discussed.
KEY ELEMENTS OF THEORY X AND THEORY Y
According to Theory X, employees are inherently lazy and will avoidwork if possible.
1. Employees require close supervision with strict levels of controlin place, and for effective management, a narrow span of controlmust be adhered to at each level. Consequently, managementbelieves that employees will show little or no self-motivationunless they are compensated for doing so.
2. Managers influenced by Theory X believe in not takingresponsibility and in blaming someone else if a job is notproperly executed.
3. Managers also think most employees are only out for themselvesand their sole interest in the job is to earn money. Managerstend to blame employees in most situations when things gowrong, without questioning the systems, policies, or lack oftraining that might be the real cause of failure.
Managers subscribing to Theory X take a rather pessimistic viewof their employees and believe it is the manager's job to structure thework and energize the employee. As a result, managers tend to use anauthoritarian style that is based on the threat of punishment.
In Theory Y, management has a greater belief in employees'abilities.
1. Managers influenced by this theory assume employees areambitious, self-motivated, anxious to accept greater responsibility,and capable of exercising self-control, self-direction, autonomy,and empowerment.
2. Management believes that employees enjoy their work, andthat given a chance, they have the desire to be creative at theirworkplace and become forward-thinking. There is a chancefor greater productivity by giving employees the freedom toperform to the best of their abilities without being bogged downby rules.
Managers subscribing to Theory Y are accustomed to exerting littleor no control over their employees.
Theories X and Y have been around for about fifty years and areoften used when referring to an individual's management style. Fewclaim to be a pure X or Y manager because of the extremist views ofeither label. An individual labeled as a Theory X manager withoutany qualifiers would be thought of as an authoritarian who leads withstrong-arm tactics, while an individual labeled as a Theory Y managerwithout any qualifiers would be thought of as weak with little controlover his or her subordinates, providing an environment for anarchy.
THE MANAGEMENT SCALE
Rather than use the label Theory X or Y, I prefer to employ my ownscale when considering a designation for managers:
The explanation is simple and eliminates the ambiguity that comesfrom giving just X or Y as a label. A rating of 10.0 identifies a pureTheory X manager, and conversely a rating of 1.0 indicates a pure TheoryY manager. Few managers are found at either end of the spectrum,but moving on the scale in either direction clarifies one's managerialpractices and beliefs. In addition, you can add a dimension beyond thestrict definitions given to both theories by considering the rating of 10.0to mean very decisive and 1.0 to mean indecisive. Sizing up a managerthis way differs drastically from McGregor's theory because it actuallyputs a manager who might lean toward being an X type of manager in apositive light. The 10.0 area normally has a strong negative connotation;however, when moving the designation a bit to the right on the scale,the meaning changes the rating altogether. It can be quite helpful for asenior manager to know subordinate managers' ratings when assigningresponsibilities for certain tasks or projects.
To better understand the implications of the Management Scale,consider the following explanations of different ratings for a manager:
Rating Explanation
3.0 Is less likely to make major decisions or innovations
to the job environment. Believes in the capabilities of
employees, thus believes minimal managerial guidance
is necessary for the employees. This manager would
avoid conflict if at all possible.
5.0 Finds it very difficult to make a decision. Have you ever
met a manager who was well educated, had a pleasant
personality, and seemed ideal for his or her position—yet
when it came to making a decision, even with all
of the facts, and having considered all of the pros and
cons, it seemed to take forever? This type of manager is
consistently on the fence, not wanting to take chances
and not doing so until the very last minute. If conflict
was about to occur, deciding who to side with would be
an extremely difficult task for this type of manager.
7.0 Believes in the employees' abilities and can be relied
upon to make tough decisions when necessary, and
would be an innovative manager. This type of manager
would not intentionally cause conflict, but would not
walk away from one if it meant standing up for his or
her beliefs and/or employee.
BROADENING THE SCOPE OF MANAGEMENT INSIGHT
Unfortunately, there are managers who use the tools of Theory Xand Theory Y as the only basis for their management principles. This isa mistake; it is imperative for managers to understand their employeesif they want to be leaders others can proudly follow. The idea of ahierarchy of needs was introduced by Abraham Maslow (1908-1970)in 1943, and his motivational theory is a fundamental philosophy thatis taught in most business, management, and psychology curriculumsin colleges and universities throughout the nation. The theory suggeststhat people are motivated by satisfying specific needs as depicted in apyramid.
The theory suggests that all people start at the bottom of thepyramid and must satisfy a lower need before ascending to the nextlevel. I'll describe each level in more detail and provide some examplesof how managers can meet these needs—or not.
Basic
Basic needs are vital to survival, such as the need for water, air,food, and sleep. Maslow identified these needs as the prime and mostinstinctive needs in the hierarchy because all needs become secondaryuntil these physiological needs are met. Fortunately, the vast majority ofmanagers never need to worry about employees not having their basicneeds met, especially since they are already employed.
Safety
Safety needs are most often related to job security, which ensuresstability in an employee's life. A manager has a significant impact in thisarea, even in everyday life; making a simple comment like "I just don'tunderstand you" can shake an employee's foundation and inject a levelof insecurity. The employee needs to know that job security is good inorder to function efficiently.
I remember working at an air-force hospital in the late 1970swhen Pam Conklin, the best supervisor on my staff, came to me andannounced she was "in a family way." When I congratulated her, shethanked me but looked rather sad. When I asked why, she told me sheneeded to leave the air force because she could only take six weeks ofmaternity leave. She and Gary (her husband) both wanted her to haveas much possible time with their baby before she returned to work. Theyboth felt six weeks wasn't enough time. After we discussed the matterfurther, she told me she had three months of leave time accumulated,but would not be able to get the additional time off approved. I told herI would rather lose her for three months than have the air force lose herforever, so I saw to it that she was able to take the entire three monthsoff for maternity leave. By meeting this employee's safety needs, the airforce was able to keep two outstanding individuals. Twenty years later,she and Gary both retired from the air force as chief master sergeants,the highest attainable rank for enlisted personnel.
