Discussion: View Thread

I have followed the debate on successful managers with interest ... and of
course because of the diverse nature of the question then the answer is
multi-layered and it would be easy to say that you all have made relevant
points and it is hard to disagree.

However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does it
not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An MD
may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that makes
the company more competitive but would the employees see this as success ?
Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the customers,
would society?

I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that the
individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or service
and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult thing
to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be classed
by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical position
increases?

Any views?

Ron

Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK

----------
> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
>
> At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> [...]
> >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
> >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> >
> I can't imagine this.
> Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you mean
by
> "successful managers"
>
> Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
> Dance like nobody's watching.

Following Ron Smith's comments...


Academia tells us that management is the art of getting things through
others. Industrial experience may tell us that management is the art of
getting things done and getting the credit for it. Common-sense tells us
that management is the art of getting things done quickly and efficiently,
no matter what the resource.

The problem is that many present-day top-level managers (MDs/CEOs),
particularly in the UK SME (and US equivalent!) sector may not have had any
real "management training", preferring instead to boast attendance at their
alma mater, the University of Life and Hard Experience. This overbearing
attitude can then disseminate in mistrust and suspicion of graduates, many
of whom are just keen to get to grips with their new job. Instead, they
are often faced with silly initiation rituals..."Go to the Stores and find
me a left-handed screwdriver please", with little regard for original ideas.

I say all this not to contradict any previous messages but to add my
contention that the basal definition of management may vary not just from
one country to another but is also dependant on the manager's gestalt
perspective on the term (which, in turn, is dependant on his/her education
and "life experience").


Kind Regards.

Raj Bali
==============

Raj Bali
MIS
Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry. W-Mids CV1 5FP
Tel: +44(0)1203 838901
email: r.bali@cov.ac.uk


At 11:43 PM 3/16/99 -0000, you wrote:
>I have followed the debate on successful managers with interest ... and of
>course because of the diverse nature of the question then the answer is
>multi-layered and it would be easy to say that you all have made relevant
>points and it is hard to disagree.
>
>However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does it
>not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An MD
>may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that makes
>the company more competitive but would the employees see this as success ?
>Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the customers,
>would society?
>
>I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
>effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that the
>individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or service
>and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult thing
>to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be classed
>by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical position
>increases?
>
>Any views?
>
>Ron
>
>Ron Smith
>Royal Mail
>UK
>
>----------
>> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
>> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
>> Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
>>
>> At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
>> [...]
>> >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
>> >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
>> >
>> I can't imagine this.
>> Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you mean
>by
>> "successful managers"
>>
>> Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
>> 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
>> Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
>> Dance like nobody's watching.
>

snip....
> The problem is that many present-day top-level managers (MDs/CEOs),
> particularly in the UK SME (and US equivalent!) sector may not
> have had any
> real "management training", preferring instead to boast
> attendance at their
> alma mater, the University of Life and Hard Experience. ....snip.

There are undoubtedly many good and successful managers who haven't been to
University. But also, undoubtedly, there are many who haven't been to Uni.
and are less successful than they are prepared to admit.
I can't recall who said "the trouble with ignorance is that the ignorant
don't know they are".
We are all of us ignorant about something or other - the only sin is in
refusing to acknowledge our ignorance. I believe that this is as likely to
happen amongst graduates as non-graduates. Particularly amongst those who
practice academic snobbery - believing that their degree makes them
fireproof in the ignorance Olympics. The more enlightened hopefully see
their degree as the first step on a life-long journey.
Regards,
Kevin Fields
Lecturer: Tourism & Hospitality Management
Birmingham College of Food, Tourism
& Creative Studies

"Education is not filling a bucket but lighting a fire."
--- WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS

Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned. But in
most well run organizations, success is measured by:

1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with you at
the beginning of your tenure?

2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are performing
similar jobs?

In any organization managers may be considered successful by some and
nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.

Ron Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does it
> not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An MD
> may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that makes
> the company more competitive but would the employees see this as success ?
> Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the customers,
> would society?
>
> I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
> effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that the
> individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or service
> and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult thing
> to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be classed
> by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical position
> increases?
>
> Any views?
>
> Ron
>
> Ron Smith
> Royal Mail
> UK
>
> ----------
> > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> >
> > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > [...]
> > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
> > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > >
> > I can't imagine this.
> > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you mean
> by
> > "successful managers"
> >
> > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
> > Dance like nobody's watching.

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Below is a press release based on some of a co-author's and my research. This perspective may be of interest to you because it takes a different look at what it takes to be a successful manager.

Salisbury State University
Press Release - 2/8/99

Frank Shipper has a sure-fire way managers can tell if they have good management skills: If the office runs smoother or production increases when you're not there, then you probably don't.

"If you want to be an effective manager, then you need to forget the popular advice many managers receive and start working on mastering management behaviors," says Shipper, a professor of management at Salisbury State University in Salisbury, MD.

Shipper notes that popular advice often assumes that the greater the frequency of appropriate managerial-subordinate contacts, the greater the performance of the subordinates. This assumption, Shipper says, is implicit in advice given to managers such as having an "open-door policy," becoming a "one minute manager," and managing by "walking around."

"Frequency of behavior is not the same as mastery of behavior. Frequency measures may simply be measures of how often a manager engages in that behavior," says Shipper. "In other words, if you don*t know how to communicate well, then you're certainly not going to do an effective job communicating with your subordinates in one minute or less. If you try to manage your office by "'walking around* but lack the skills, then it's just wandering around. Having an open-door policy without management skills just makes it more apparent to your subordinates that you don't have the skill to be a manager."

Managers need to learn how to set goals, how to provide feedback, how to reinforce, and how to coach, says Shipper. He recently coauthored a study on the topic, "Mastery, Frequency, and Interaction of Managerial Behaviors Relative to Subunit Effectiveness," that appeared in the January 1999 issue of Human Relations, a professional journal. He coauthored the study with Charles White, UC Foundation Professor at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.

"We've all seen managers where the best thing they could do to improve productivity was stay at home. The results of our study show that increasing frequency of interaction without improving mastery can sometimes be detrimental," says Shipper.

Shipper notes that employees will sit politely through a meeting the first time to hear an ineffective manager outline the goals; the second time they'll fidget; and the third time they'll be hostile.

"Listening one more time to ineffective managers trying to clarify goals is painful. It's like going to piano recitals for children. People will tolerate children playing music badly because they are not expected to be good. They are intolerant of ineffective managers because they are supposed to be good."

Managers who don't develop management skills become "aversive stimuli," warns Shipper.

"That means that your employees learn to avoid you. They look forward to when you are out-of-town. They try to avoid meetings with you. One other true sign is that the office runs smoother when you aren't there," says Shipper.

In the study, 662 employees of two organizations responded to a structured questionnaire which was used to measure the mastery and frequency of managerial behaviors. The results of the study suggest that mastery of managerial behavior is independent of its frequency. The results contradict the often heard advice that to improve managers should increase the frequency of their contact with subordinates, and suggest that to improve, managers should concentrate on improving their mastery of managerial behaviors.

"The way for managers to improve subordinate success is to concentrate on improving mastery of managerial behaviors such as goal setting, planning, soliciting input, providing feedback, and reinforcing good performance while at the same time improving frequency. Mastery and practice seem to go hand in hand," says Shipper.

If you would like a copy of the article, please send me a personal e-mail with your postal address. At my home page listed below you will find exercises, cases and other research related to developing successful managers.




Frank Shipper, Ph.D.
Professor of Management
Perdue School of Business
Salisbury State University
Salisbury, MD 21801
Phone (410) 543-6333
FAX (410) 546-6208
E-mail: fmshipper@ssu.edu
Home Page: http://perdue.ssu.edu/~fmshippe/welcome.htm

Thank you Raj

It is interesting that even your statement on common sense recognises
success with efficiency and quickness, which is what we expect managers to
be tasked to do. But this does not mean that everyone will see success in
this.

For instance quickness may lead to lack of quality in the eyes of a
regulator, even though a customer may relish it. And efficiency may mean
less for a customer but a star rating with the Finance Director. I agree
that success is very much dependent on the environment to which the action
belongs ... and that makes it very grey indeed as environments are always
multi-multi-layered and contradictory.

Regards

Ron

----------
> From: R.Bali <csx206@COVENTRY.AC.UK>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> Date: 17 March 1999 08:20
>
> Following Ron Smith's comments...
>
>
> Academia tells us that management is the art of getting things through
> others. Industrial experience may tell us that management is the art of
> getting things done and getting the credit for it. Common-sense tells us
> that management is the art of getting things done quickly and
efficiently,
> no matter what the resource.
>
> The problem is that many present-day top-level managers (MDs/CEOs),
> particularly in the UK SME (and US equivalent!) sector may not have had
any
> real "management training", preferring instead to boast attendance at
their
> alma mater, the University of Life and Hard Experience. This overbearing
> attitude can then disseminate in mistrust and suspicion of graduates,
many
> of whom are just keen to get to grips with their new job. Instead, they
> are often faced with silly initiation rituals..."Go to the Stores and
find
> me a left-handed screwdriver please", with little regard for original
ideas.
>
> I say all this not to contradict any previous messages but to add my
> contention that the basal definition of management may vary not just from
> one country to another but is also dependant on the manager's gestalt
> perspective on the term (which, in turn, is dependant on his/her
education
> and "life experience").
>
>
> Kind Regards.
>
> Raj Bali
> ==============
>
> Raj Bali
> MIS
> Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry. W-Mids CV1 5FP
> Tel: +44(0)1203 838901
> email: r.bali@cov.ac.uk
>
>
> At 11:43 PM 3/16/99 -0000, you wrote:
> >I have followed the debate on successful managers with interest ... and
of
> >course because of the diverse nature of the question then the answer is
> >multi-layered and it would be easy to say that you all have made
relevant
> >points and it is hard to disagree.
> >
> >However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does
it
> >not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An
MD
> >may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that makes
> >the company more competitive but would the employees see this as success
?
> >Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the
customers,
> >would society?
> >
> >I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
> >effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that
the
> >individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or
service
> >and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult
thing
> >to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be
classed
> >by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical
position
> >increases?
> >
> >Any views?
> >
> >Ron
> >
> >Ron Smith
> >Royal Mail
> >UK
> >
> >----------
> >> From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> >> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> >> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> >> Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> >>
> >> At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
> >> >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> >> >
> >> I can't imagine this.
> >> Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you
mean
> >by
> >> "successful managers"
> >>
> >> Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> >> 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> >> Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt.
> >> Dance like nobody's watching.
> >

Thanks Richard

This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of the
business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just that
purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in whether the
view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective setting
process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.

Regards

Ron
----------
> From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
>
> Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned. But in
> most well run organizations, success is measured by:
>
> 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with you at
> the beginning of your tenure?
>
> 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are performing
> similar jobs?
>
> In any organization managers may be considered successful by some and
> nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
>
> Ron Smith wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does
it
> > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An
MD
> > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that
makes
> > the company more competitive but would the employees see this as
success ?
> > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the
customers,
> > would society?
> >
> > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
> > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that
the
> > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or
service
> > and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult
thing
> > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be
classed
> > by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical
position
> > increases?
> >
> > Any views?
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > Ron Smith
> > Royal Mail
> > UK
> >
> > ----------
> > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > >
> > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
> > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > >
> > > I can't imagine this.
> > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you
mean
> > by
> > > "successful managers"
> > >
> > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been
hurt.
> > > Dance like nobody's watching.
>
> --
> Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> 21st Century Co-operative
> Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> http://www.chemmgrs.com

Ron,
In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a nonthreatening,
one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good faith,
to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly judged.
Doing this before judging results has the advantage of

1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
judged by.

2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the supervisor's
manager all agree on these standards in advance.

In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking system
(Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3 and
30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a wide
range of activities.

Sorry to ramble on.

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard
>
> This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of the
> business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just that
> purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in whether the
> view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective setting
> process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
>
> Regards
>
> Ron
> ----------
> > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> >
> > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned. But in
> > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> >
> > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with you at
> > the beginning of your tenure?
> >
> > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are performing
> > similar jobs?
> >
> > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some and
> > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> >
> > Ron Smith wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager". Does
> it
> > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are? An
> MD
> > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that
> makes
> > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this as
> success ?
> > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the
> customers,
> > > would society?
> > >
> > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a great
> > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes that
> the
> > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or
> service
> > > and employee environment then success starts become a very difficult
> thing
> > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be
> classed
> > > by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical
> position
> > > increases?
> > >
> > > Any views?
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > Ron Smith
> > > Royal Mail
> > > UK
> > >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > >
> > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a HUGE
> > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > >
> > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what you
> mean
> > > by
> > > > "successful managers"
> > > >
> > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been
> hurt.
> > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> >
> > --
> > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > 21st Century Co-operative
> > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > http://www.chemmgrs.com

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Thanks Richard ... I didn't spot the rambling.

I work for Royal Mail, the secondest largest company in UK and all of our
managers are tied into management by objectives ... and of course you are
right. The question then though is whether a person is deemed to be
successful when the objectives are met. The answer in his line manager's
eyes I am sure will be yes.

But if we looked underneath this achievement will we find disappointed
employees, customers and suppliers because the individuals objectives
actually worked against somehting that they wanted? If this is the case
then there will be some people who will not see this as success. The link
can become even weaker when you start to examine the effect of this
person's objectives on the family, friends and society in general .... but
I think that its now me who is starting to ramble.

Regard

Ron

----------
> From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> Date: 20 March 1999 00:52
>
> Ron,
> In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a nonthreatening,
> one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good faith,
> to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly judged.
> Doing this before judging results has the advantage of
>
> 1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
> judged by.
>
> 2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the supervisor's
> manager all agree on these standards in advance.
>
> In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking system
> (Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3 and
> 30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
> coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
> incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a wide
> range of activities.
>
> Sorry to ramble on.
>
> Ron Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Richard
> >
> > This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of the
> > business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just
that
> > purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in whether
the
> > view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective setting
> > process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Ron
> > ----------
> > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> > >
> > > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned. But in
> > > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> > >
> > > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with you at
> > > the beginning of your tenure?
> > >
> > > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are performing
> > > similar jobs?
> > >
> > > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some and
> > > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> > >
> > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager".
Does
> > it
> > > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are?
An
> > MD
> > > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that
> > makes
> > > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this as
> > success ?
> > > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the
> > customers,
> > > > would society?
> > > >
> > > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a
great
> > > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes
that
> > the
> > > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or
> > service
> > > > and employee environment then success starts become a very
difficult
> > thing
> > > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be
> > classed
> > > > by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical
> > position
> > > > increases?
> > > >
> > > > Any views?
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > >
> > > > Ron Smith
> > > > Royal Mail
> > > > UK
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > > >
> > > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > > [...]
> > > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a
HUGE
> > > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what
you
> > mean
> > > > by
> > > > > "successful managers"
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been
> > hurt.
> > > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
>
> --
> Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> 21st Century Co-operative
> Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> http://www.chemmgrs.com

Ron,
Setting acceptable objectives can't be forced on either side.

This is why the one-on-one meeting are so important. Setting objectives
is two-way street. The supervisor and the incumbent must come ready to
negotiate their positions until both are satisfied with the stated
objectives. A method of resolving conflict through appeal to a higher
authority must be available. If conflict can't be resolved, then perhaps
the inumbent should transfer to a different position.

So often, the supervisor thinks he or she knows what motivates the
incumbent and vice-versa only to find out the motivations are different
than those anticipated.

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Thanks Richard ... I didn't spot the rambling.
>
> I work for Royal Mail, the secondest largest company in UK and all of our
> managers are tied into management by objectives ... and of course you are
> right. The question then though is whether a person is deemed to be
> successful when the objectives are met. The answer in his line manager's
> eyes I am sure will be yes.
>

> ----------
> > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > Date: 20 March 1999 00:52
> >
> > Ron,
> > In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a nonthreatening,
> > one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good faith,
> > to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly judged.
> > Doing this before judging results has the advantage of
> >
> > 1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
> > judged by.
> >
> > 2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the supervisor's
> > manager all agree on these standards in advance.
> >
> > In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking system
> > (Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3 and
> > 30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
> > coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
> > incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a wide
> > range of activities.
> >
> > Sorry to ramble on.
> >
> > Ron Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Richard
> > >
> > > This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of the
> > > business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just
> that
> > > purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in whether
> the
> > > view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective setting
> > > process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Ron
> > > ----------
> > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> > > >
> > > > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned. But in
> > > > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> > > >
> > > > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with you at
> > > > the beginning of your tenure?
> > > >
> > > > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are performing
> > > > similar jobs?
> > > >
> > > > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some and
> > > > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > > > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful manager".
> Does
> > > it
> > > > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria are?
> An
> > > MD
> > > > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results that
> > > makes
> > > > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this as
> > > success ?
> > > > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would the
> > > customers,
> > > > > would society?
> > > > >
> > > > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have a
> great
> > > > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar attitudes
> that
> > > the
> > > > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product or
> > > service
> > > > > and employee environment then success starts become a very
> difficult
> > > thing
> > > > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will be
> > > classed
> > > > > by everyone as a success as the status and management hierarchical
> > > position
> > > > > increases?
> > > > >
> > > > > Any views?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Smith
> > > > > Royal Mail
> > > > > UK
> > > > >
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and use a
> HUGE
> > > > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about what
> you
> > > mean
> > > > > by
> > > > > > "successful managers"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been
> > > hurt.
> > > > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> >
> > --
> > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > 21st Century Co-operative
> > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > http://www.chemmgrs.com

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Richard,

Can't argue with you say. But, and I am in danger of repeating myself here,
achievement of these objectives will only make the individual successful in
the line manager's eyes. If this is the only measure of success then OK ...
but there are other stakeholders who may not see it that way e.g the
individual's staff.

Ron

Ron Smith
Royal Mail
UK
smithro@royalmail.co.uk

----------
> From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> Date: 22 March 1999 12:50
>
> Ron,
> Setting acceptable objectives can't be forced on either side.
>
> This is why the one-on-one meeting are so important. Setting objectives
> is two-way street. The supervisor and the incumbent must come ready to
> negotiate their positions until both are satisfied with the stated
> objectives. A method of resolving conflict through appeal to a higher
> authority must be available. If conflict can't be resolved, then perhaps
> the inumbent should transfer to a different position.
>
> So often, the supervisor thinks he or she knows what motivates the
> incumbent and vice-versa only to find out the motivations are different
> than those anticipated.
>
> Ron Smith wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Richard ... I didn't spot the rambling.
> >
> > I work for Royal Mail, the secondest largest company in UK and all of
our
> > managers are tied into management by objectives ... and of course you
are
> > right. The question then though is whether a person is deemed to be
> > successful when the objectives are met. The answer in his line
manager's
> > eyes I am sure will be yes.
> >
>
> > ----------
> > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > Date: 20 March 1999 00:52
> > >
> > > Ron,
> > > In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a
nonthreatening,
> > > one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good
faith,
> > > to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly
judged.
> > > Doing this before judging results has the advantage of
> > >
> > > 1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
> > > judged by.
> > >
> > > 2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the
supervisor's
> > > manager all agree on these standards in advance.
> > >
> > > In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking
system
> > > (Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3
and
> > > 30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
> > > coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
> > > incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a
wide
> > > range of activities.
> > >
> > > Sorry to ramble on.
> > >
> > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Richard
> > > >
> > > > This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of
the
> > > > business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just
> > that
> > > > purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in
whether
> > the
> > > > view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective
setting
> > > > process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Ron
> > > > ----------
> > > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> > > > >
> > > > > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned.
But in
> > > > > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with
you at
> > > > > the beginning of your tenure?
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are
performing
> > > > > similar jobs?
> > > > >
> > > > > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some
and
> > > > > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > > > > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful
manager".
> > Does
> > > > it
> > > > > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria
are?
> > An
> > > > MD
> > > > > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results
that
> > > > makes
> > > > > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this
as
> > > > success ?
> > > > > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would
the
> > > > customers,
> > > > > > would society?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have
a
> > great
> > > > > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar
attitudes
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product
or
> > > > service
> > > > > > and employee environment then success starts become a very
> > difficult
> > > > thing
> > > > > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will
be
> > > > classed
> > > > > > by everyone as a success as the status and management
hierarchical
> > > > position
> > > > > > increases?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Any views?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Smith
> > > > > > Royal Mail
> > > > > > UK
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and
use a
> > HUGE
> > > > > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about
what
> > you
> > > > mean
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > "successful managers"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never
been
> > > > hurt.
> > > > > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> > >
> > > --
> > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
>
> --
> Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> 21st Century Co-operative
> Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> http://www.chemmgrs.com

Ah, but well run MOB plans include making certain that the system is
used throughout the corporation. The wise manager tells his staff: "Here
are the objectives which I have negotiated for the group, and now you
and I must decide what role you can play so that the group succeeds.

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Can't argue with you say. But, and I am in danger of repeating myself here,
> achievement of these objectives will only make the individual successful in
> the line manager's eyes. If this is the only measure of success then OK ...
> but there are other stakeholders who may not see it that way e.g the
> individual's staff.
>
> Ron
>
> Ron Smith
> Royal Mail
> UK
> smithro@royalmail.co.uk
>
> ----------
> > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > Date: 22 March 1999 12:50
> >
> > Ron,
> > Setting acceptable objectives can't be forced on either side.
> >
> > This is why the one-on-one meeting are so important. Setting objectives
> > is two-way street. The supervisor and the incumbent must come ready to
> > negotiate their positions until both are satisfied with the stated
> > objectives. A method of resolving conflict through appeal to a higher
> > authority must be available. If conflict can't be resolved, then perhaps
> > the inumbent should transfer to a different position.
> >
> > So often, the supervisor thinks he or she knows what motivates the
> > incumbent and vice-versa only to find out the motivations are different
> > than those anticipated.
> >
> > Ron Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Richard ... I didn't spot the rambling.
> > >
> > > I work for Royal Mail, the secondest largest company in UK and all of
> our
> > > managers are tied into management by objectives ... and of course you
> are
> > > right. The question then though is whether a person is deemed to be
> > > successful when the objectives are met. The answer in his line
> manager's
> > > eyes I am sure will be yes.
> > >
> >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > Date: 20 March 1999 00:52
> > > >
> > > > Ron,
> > > > In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a
> nonthreatening,
> > > > one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good
> faith,
> > > > to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly
> judged.
> > > > Doing this before judging results has the advantage of
> > > >
> > > > 1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
> > > > judged by.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the
> supervisor's
> > > > manager all agree on these standards in advance.
> > > >
> > > > In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking
> system
> > > > (Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3
> and
> > > > 30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
> > > > coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
> > > > incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a
> wide
> > > > range of activities.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to ramble on.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of
> the
> > > > > business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just
> > > that
> > > > > purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in
> whether
> > > the
> > > > > view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective
> setting
> > > > > process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned.
> But in
> > > > > > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with
> you at
> > > > > > the beginning of your tenure?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are
> performing
> > > > > > similar jobs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some
> and
> > > > > > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > > > > > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful
> manager".
> > > Does
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria
> are?
> > > An
> > > > > MD
> > > > > > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results
> that
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this
> as
> > > > > success ?
> > > > > > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would
> the
> > > > > customers,
> > > > > > > would society?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have
> a
> > > great
> > > > > > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar
> attitudes
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product
> or
> > > > > service
> > > > > > > and employee environment then success starts become a very
> > > difficult
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will
> be
> > > > > classed
> > > > > > > by everyone as a success as the status and management
> hierarchical
> > > > > position
> > > > > > > increases?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any views?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron Smith
> > > > > > > Royal Mail
> > > > > > > UK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and
> use a
> > > HUGE
> > > > > > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about
> what
> > > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > "successful managers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > > > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > > > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never
> been
> > > > > hurt.
> > > > > > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> >
> > --
> > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > 21st Century Co-operative
> > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > http://www.chemmgrs.com

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Ron Smith wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> Can't argue with you say. But, and I am in danger of repeating myself here,
> achievement of these objectives will only make the individual successful in
> the line manager's eyes. If this is the only measure of success then OK ...
> but there are other stakeholders who may not see it that way e.g the
> individual's staff.
>
> Ron
>
> Ron Smith
> Royal Mail
> UK
> smithro@royalmail.co.uk
>
> ----------
> > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > Date: 22 March 1999 12:50
> >
> > Ron,
> > Setting acceptable objectives can't be forced on either side.
> >
> > This is why the one-on-one meeting are so important. Setting objectives
> > is two-way street. The supervisor and the incumbent must come ready to
> > negotiate their positions until both are satisfied with the stated
> > objectives. A method of resolving conflict through appeal to a higher
> > authority must be available. If conflict can't be resolved, then perhaps
> > the inumbent should transfer to a different position.
> >
> > So often, the supervisor thinks he or she knows what motivates the
> > incumbent and vice-versa only to find out the motivations are different
> > than those anticipated.
> >
> > Ron Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks Richard ... I didn't spot the rambling.
> > >
> > > I work for Royal Mail, the secondest largest company in UK and all of
> our
> > > managers are tied into management by objectives ... and of course you
> are
> > > right. The question then though is whether a person is deemed to be
> > > successful when the objectives are met. The answer in his line
> manager's
> > > eyes I am sure will be yes.
> > >
> >
> > > ----------
> > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > Date: 20 March 1999 00:52
> > > >
> > > > Ron,
> > > > In my opinion, setting effective objectives has to be a
> nonthreatening,
> > > > one-on-one situation where supervisor andworker attempt, in good
> faith,
> > > > to determine how the worker's short-term efforts can be fairly
> judged.
> > > > Doing this before judging results has the advantage of
> > > >
> > > > 1. Making certain the worker understands what standards he/she will
> > > > judged by.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Making certain that the worker, the supervisor, and the
> supervisor's
> > > > manager all agree on these standards in advance.
> > > >
> > > > In a large company, MOB should be combined with a forced ranking
> system
> > > > (Where perhaps 10% are ranked 1, 20% are ranked 2, 40% are ranked 3
> and
> > > > 30% are ranked from 4 to 5) and tied to merit compensation. This,
> > > > coupled with salary point system tied to the job, rather than the
> > > > incumbent, allows the company to fairly compensate people across a
> wide
> > > > range of activities.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to ramble on.
> > > >
> > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks Richard
> > > > >
> > > > > This assumes that success is the prerogative of the management of
> the
> > > > > business a person works for ... and as they pay the salary for just
> > > that
> > > > > purpose then this is a good argument. But I was interested in
> whether
> > > the
> > > > > view should take on a wider perspective or maybe the objective
> setting
> > > > > process is the key by allowing in other stakeholders.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards
> > > > >
> > > > > Ron
> > > > > ----------
> > > > > > From: Richard Montgomery <rmonty@chemmgrs.com>
> > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > Date: 17 March 1999 15:17
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Certainly success is measured by all the things you mentioned.
> But in
> > > > > > most well run organizations, success is measured by:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. How well are you meeting the objectives which were set with
> you at
> > > > > > the beginning of your tenure?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. How do you rank among the others in your group who are
> performing
> > > > > > similar jobs?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In any organization managers may be considered successful by some
> and
> > > > > > nonsuccessful by others. This dichotomy is to be expected in a
> > > > > > competitive environment and is the very nature of the human race.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ron Smith wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However I would wish to ask what is meant by "successful
> manager".
> > > Does
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > not depend on who is asking and what their particular criteria
> are?
> > > An
> > > > > MD
> > > > > > > may indeed prove to meet a budget and improve quality results
> that
> > > > > makes
> > > > > > > the company more competitive but would the employees see this
> as
> > > > > success ?
> > > > > > > Would the suppliers recognise the person as a success, would
> the
> > > > > customers,
> > > > > > > would society?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I tend to think that the localised environment will always have
> a
> > > great
> > > > > > > effect upon a manager's behaviour along with perculiar
> attitudes
> > > that
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > individual has as natural baggage. Couple that with the product
> or
> > > > > service
> > > > > > > and employee environment then success starts become a very
> > > difficult
> > > > > thing
> > > > > > > to define. I am not even sure that we can assume a manager will
> be
> > > > > classed
> > > > > > > by everyone as a success as the status and management
> hierarchical
> > > > > position
> > > > > > > increases?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Any views?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Ron Smith
> > > > > > > Royal Mail
> > > > > > > UK
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----------
> > > > > > > > From: Jack Ring <jring@AMUG.ORG>
> > > > > > > > To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Successful Managers
> > > > > > > > Date: 11 March 1999 04:42
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > At 10:55 AM 3/10/99, Robert Bacal wrote:
> > > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > >..and the truth is that "successful managers" exhibit and
> use a
> > > HUGE
> > > > > > > > >range of behavior from the tyranical to the empowering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I can't imagine this.
> > > > > > > > Perhaps you could give some examples or tell us more about
> what
> > > you
> > > > > mean
> > > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > "successful managers"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jack Ring, 32712 N. 70th St., Snottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
> > > > > > > > 602-488-4615, Cell) 602.369.4615, Fax)602-488-4616
> > > > > > > > Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never
> been
> > > > > hurt.
> > > > > > > > Dance like nobody's watching.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > > > 21st Century Co-operative
> > > > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > > > http://www.chemmgrs.com
> >
> > --
> > Dick Montgomery, General Manager
> > 21st Century Co-operative
> > Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
> > http://www.chemmgrs.com

--
Dick Montgomery, General Manager
21st Century Co-operative
Our Mission - "Help You Increase Sales"
http://www.chemmgrs.com

Dear Mr. Shipper,

I like your points. It'd be very appreciative if you can send me a copy of
the article. Thanks a lot!!!

Anwar Hasim
Jl. Daan Mogot II No. 88
Golden Ville Complex, Block C-88C
Jakarta 11510, Indonesia

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Shipper <FMSHIPPER@SSU.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 10:52 PM
Subject: Successful Managers


> Below is a press release based on some of a co-author's and my research.
This
> perspective may be of interest to you because it takes a different look at
what
> it takes to be a successful manager.
>
> Salisbury State University
> Press Release - 2/8/99
>
> Frank Shipper has a sure-fire way managers can tell if they have
good
> management skills: If the office runs smoother or production increases
when
> you're not there, then you probably don't.
>
> "If you want to be an effective manager, then you need to forget
the
> popular advice many managers receive and start working on mastering
management
> behaviors," says Shipper, a professor of management at Salisbury State
> University in Salisbury, MD.
>
> Shipper notes that popular advice often assumes that the greater
the
> frequency of appropriate managerial-subordinate contacts, the greater the
> performance of the subordinates. This assumption, Shipper says, is
implicit in
> advice given to managers such as having an "open-door policy," becoming a
"one
> minute manager," and managing by "walking around."
>
> "Frequency of behavior is not the same as mastery of behavior.
Frequency
> measures may simply be measures of how often a manager engages in that
> behavior," says Shipper. "In other words, if you don*t know how to
communicate
> well, then you're certainly not going to do an effective job communicating
with
> your subordinates in one minute or less. If you try to manage your office
by
> "'walking around* but lack the skills, then it's just wandering around.
Having
> an open-door policy without management skills just makes it more apparent
to
> your subordinates that you don't have the skill to be a manager."
>
> Managers need to learn how to set goals, how to provide feedback,
how to
> reinforce, and how to coach, says Shipper. He recently coauthored a study
on
> the topic, "Mastery, Frequency, and Interaction of Managerial Behaviors
Relative
> to Subunit Effectiveness," that appeared in the January 1999 issue of
Human
> Relations, a professional journal. He coauthored the study with Charles
White,
> UC Foundation Professor at the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga.
>
> "We've all seen managers where the best thing they could do to
improve
> productivity was stay at home. The results of our study show that
increasing
> frequency of interaction without improving mastery can sometimes be
> detrimental," says Shipper.
>
> Shipper notes that employees will sit politely through a meeting
the
> first time to hear an ineffective manager outline the goals; the second
time
> they'll fidget; and the third time they'll be hostile.
>
> "Listening one more time to ineffective managers trying to
clarify
> goals is painful. It's like going to piano recitals for children. People
will
> tolerate children playing music badly because they are not expected to be
good.
> They are intolerant of ineffective managers because they are supposed to
be
> good."
>
> Managers who don't develop management skills become "aversive
stimuli,"
> warns Shipper.
>
> "That means that your employees learn to avoid you. They look
forward
> to when you are out-of-town. They try to avoid meetings with you. One
other
> true sign is that the office runs smoother when you aren't there," says
Shipper.
>
> In the study, 662 employees of two organizations responded to a
> structured questionnaire which was used to measure the mastery and
frequency of
> managerial behaviors. The results of the study suggest that mastery of
> managerial behavior is independent of its frequency. The results
contradict the
> often heard advice that to improve managers should increase the frequency
of
> their contact with subordinates, and suggest that to improve, managers
should
> concentrate on improving their mastery of managerial behaviors.
>
> "The way for managers to improve subordinate success is to
concentrate
> on improving mastery of managerial behaviors such as goal setting,
planning,
> soliciting input, providing feedback, and reinforcing good performance
while at
> the same time improving frequency. Mastery and practice seem to go hand
in
> hand," says Shipper.
>
> If you would like a copy of the article, please send me a personal e-mail
with
> your postal address. At my home page listed below you will find exercises,
cases
> and other research related to developing successful managers.
>
>
>
>
> Frank Shipper, Ph.D.
> Professor of Management
> Perdue School of Business
> Salisbury State University
> Salisbury, MD 21801
> Phone (410) 543-6333
> FAX (410) 546-6208
> E-mail: fmshipper@ssu.edu
> Home Page: http://perdue.ssu.edu/~fmshippe/welcome.htm

Maybe this is a good time to give the web address of the HRNET survey
we did a year or so ago entitled: "What makes for a good manager?"

http://go.ourworld.nu/gately/hrexh_0_.htm

Fifty (50) HRNETters answered our 28 question Job Description Survey Form
about
the position of manager and the results might be of interest here.

Bob

Re. Frank Shipper's comments about measuring success in terms of the
productivity impact one's presence has on the other people in the
organization.

It makes sense to me -- then I'm reminded that some of the most telling
moments in my Entrepreneurship courses come when we discuss Michael
Gerber's contrary thesis.

Gerber, in his book The E-Myth, argues that many owner-managers are trapped
in their jobs because what they have created is a business model in which
they are essential. Their liberation as entrepreneurs arrives when they
create a business model that works well, at least on a day-to-day basis,
without them. If the business will function without the owner doing one of
the essential jobs, then the owner is freed to do those jobs which add the
long-term strategic value to the firm.

When my students look into their own experiences, and especially into the
owner-manager experiences in the lives of their family members, Gerber's
framework is transformative. Almost every term, I have students confiding
to me that they can't get their Gerber books back from their parents,
brother, aunt, etc., so powerful is his diagnosis of the failed dreams of
many entrepreneurs.

Since we tend to think of the entrepreneur as the quintessential manager in
the entrepreneurial firm, there appears to be a conflict between the
Shipper and Gerber models of successful management.

Tom Bryant.

+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/+/
Prof. Thomas A. Bryant, Ph.D., Visiting professor and
State of New Jersey Chair in Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Faculty of Management, MEC 326
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Tel: (973) 353-1062; e-mail: tabryant@andromeda.rutgers.edu