Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Being Effective When Management Isn't?
(OP)
I recently came across a fairly astute observation about this paradigm where management is offered as a "reward" to engineers who have longevity and have performed well. The observation being that management is a skill set in and of itself and meerly being a good engineer - or even a great engineer - does not make you a good manager. This observation is extremely apropos to where I am currently working. Additionally, outside of flash animation on company policies, they don't train here...period. If you want to learn anything, you have to scrounge for it. So, by extension, I doubt managment receives any real training either.
Don't get me wrong, I think pulling managers from the engineering staff is a good idea - provided you pick people based upon managerial aptitude and are willing to really train them. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happeing here.
So, I have two questions:
How can you effectively get things done in an ineffective managerial environment?
How can I learn the skill sets required to be a good manager?
Don't get me wrong, I think pulling managers from the engineering staff is a good idea - provided you pick people based upon managerial aptitude and are willing to really train them. Unfortunately, that does not appear to be happeing here.
So, I have two questions:
How can you effectively get things done in an ineffective managerial environment?
How can I learn the skill sets required to be a good manager?
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein





RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Become an effective manager yourself. Start acting like one, if you don't know how, then move on to the next question. The change will begin with you.
How can I learn the skill sets required to be a good manager?
Go to school. When I tired of the poor management at my company, I started acting like a manager. I enrolled in business school and ended up with an MBA and became the Director of Engineering. You can bet things changed.
You can't change Them but you can change yourself; and you can make a difference.
--
Charlie
www.facsco.com
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Maybe what is missing at joekm's company are good project engineers. A good project engineer is someone who hammers out the nitty gritty details of the scope, lays out the project, envisions the final product and methods of solution, shares that vision with the project team, keeps the team on track and does what it takes to get the job done.
So joekm, in answer to your first question, strive to be a good project engineer whether your task is very small or very large.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Best of luck!
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
But it's more motivating when the company exerts effort to support its constituent to provide managemant training for free, isnt' it nice?
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Might I answer your question with a couple of questions, and the first one is rhetorical: are you the new guy, or are you the new sheriff in town? As a follow-up, how much of your time are you willing to sacrifice to stay where you are with patience, persevere through the challenges and then "effectively get things done"? You can start immediately to effectively get things done by having patience, but keeping still for your real opportunity to be effective is the challenge.
To be effective in your office or within your team, whichever is applicable, I would suggest taking every opportunity to understand your office's culture, what it values. Does it really value ineffective management? Probably not. Find out what its goals are supposed to be and who is supposed to be achieving them. Who accounts for the success of the office? Pick the brain of your boss and your boss's boss. Get involved with committees. Attend company functions. Partner with your co-worker. What really is driving the company, is it quality or the bottom-line? Maybe its as simple as forgetting the socializing and just making money.
After you learn the goals, determine if they are aligned with yours. If they are, then persevere. This may require many trials and errors, but at the same time you read through books and study through courses to put up with the hard knocks, all in order to become the change you want to see happen at your office and in your community. Since the desired results of the company are not to your standard, keep pushing, without committing any taboos, of course--and you recognize taboos after studying the office's culture. Since you know your standard will take your company to the next level it is striving to reach, you need to be an agent for the existing culture in order to help it evolve and progress.
---
"Happiness can only be achieved when your beliefs, your thoughts, and your actions are one and the same." Gandhi
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Regards,
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
I'd be the "new guy", although I'm coming on a year at this point. I have made progress, partly by doing some of the things you've suggested. Although, some of the people here who seem most effective are also the most reviled by their co-workers. The turnover rate here is pretty high as well.
A lot of people suggest that I should "be a good leader myself", and "learn how to manage up". Good suggestions, to be sure. However, in an environment where documentation is horribly disorganized, if not non-existant, and employees tend to play their cards "close to their chest", it's very tough to make inroads.
I have hit on a couple of strategies that have worked, however. First, I started keeping a journal of observations and events here. This has enabled me to connect observations and spot patterns that I may not have been able to see otherwise. Second, I now use my PDA to track verbal follow-up items (people here don't read e-mails because everybody gets so many of them, thus rendering a powerful communication tool nearly useless). I annotate the follow up item to the PDA and set an audible alarm, usually 24 hours or at the end of the next meeting I'm scheduled to be in with them. The thing is, people here tend to prefer verbal commitments as opposed to written. However, you can always claim that you don't recall the conversation. Having the PDA alarm go off, especially in front of others, seems to add credibility to my claim that, yes we did have this conversation and you owe me data.
I've since taken to wearing that PDA on my belt and people have taken to getting back to me before it goes off.
So, I'm making progress. In the meantime, I've been contacted by two other companies who are fairly aggressively recruiting me. I'm at least going to hear them out.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Maybe what you see as "ineffective management" is just managers requiring knowledge workers to think for themselves? Bad management is a failure to react appropriately to changing conditions. I've worked for some people that I would have loved to strangle, people that I simply bypassed, people that I felt were micro-managing me, people that acted like they didn't have a clue what my group did, etc. The end result in every case was that the organization continued to be profitable so I guess what they were doing was effective.
On this scale, the worst managers I ever saw were the ones that developed their people (e.g., send them to 20 days training a year without any business case for that individual getting that training), that cared about family problems (e.g., can't find a sitter, work at home on your group project), that were more interested in the "career development" of their staff than being profitable. These toads are a menace.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
I would concur with your definition of effective management. However, it appears you may be making some inappropriate assumptions about me.
Let's say, for example that a project manager has been required by his manager to provide a listing of critical task with deadlines that includes which resource is assigned to which task. Our project engineer does just that and in a reasonable amount of time. So far so good, right?
Now, let's say that said project engineer goes back and verbally reassigns all of those task without updating the documented listing. So, for example, I find myself with a weeks worth of engineering time invested in a project that, not only had it's due date changed, but it was assigned to someone else and this was never communicated to me. I've just wasted a week's worth of time that I could have spent on a more critical task. I'm intellegent, I'm capable of "figuring out things for myself", but I'm not psychic. If you change my assigned tasks and don't notify me, how am I supposed to know? Should I find you every morning and make sure there are no changes I should know about? That seems a little in-efficient to me.
As far as training is concerned. This has the effect of standardizing on the use of available tools. Assuming these tools are "mission critical", then I would say that a business case can be made for training.
I'm not whining here, I consider this place part of my education. It's been a good 15 years since I've seen and environment this bad, and I want to know how to make forward progress anyway.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
A former co-worker of mine, and possibly one of the best modelers/draftsmen I know, recently had his employer switch from their current modeling software to Catia V5. While he has over 20 years experience, he's never used Catia. Problem is, the only training he's been provided with so far is the basic "getting started" documentation. He's related to me that tasks that used to take 3 hours now take more like 3 days.
Let's take that at face value and further assume that a senior experienced designer's time is worth, say, $95.00/hr.
($95.00/hr)*[(3 days)(8 hr/day) - 3 hr)] = $1995.00
So, everytime something like this happens, you lose about $2,000.00 worth of productivity from this one designer. How many of these would you say makes an adequate business case to train him on the new software?
I'm not trying to bust on you...frivolous training is a waste of time, money, and productivity. However, if said training will improve productivity long term, then it's not a waste, it's a necessary expense.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Look for another firm which you feel has a better management style. Key is how do you know that? Well, you have do your own research by talking to people who know other firms.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Micromanagement is not always just a local issue. It can also be an interoffice problem. For a huge corporation, sometimes ineffective management in a branch office can reasonably be blamed on ineffective management of that branch from the higher up's worknig out of a regional office. Have you ever heard talk of your office being considered for closing? See how your co-workers in different other branch offices are encouraged to effectively get things done. For example--and perhaps this is trivial, I know co-workers at our local branch became dismayed and unmotivated to be asked to produce from half-size cubicles, when they saw that their co-workers in other nearby branches were enjoying personal offices.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
I don't have a clue how effective you, your co-workers, or managers are, I was just asking you to define "good" and "bad" management to yourself. When you step back from "the jerk didn't do his job, how can I do mine" and ask "in spite of some serious busts in communication, are we making money?" things tend to shade in one direction or another. I think that these are style and personality issues, not management issues.
As to training, I spend a lot of time doing it and I'd be cutting my own throat to say that you should never train, and it would be stupid thing to say. My problem is a training quota that must be met. Like sending an AutoCad Tech to ArcView school because he needs 20 days training, even if you don't have any intention of his ever turning ArcView on in the office. I see that all the time.
I teach a class on compression and about half the people attending at most companies couldn't care less, but are there for the free lunch and to satisfy their training requiremnts before they go back to their rod-pump optimization job (or whatever). That is bad management.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
The worst company I worked for employed QC techs (non-degree) in the engineering mgt role. The plant mgr was a QC type, and he employed like individuals in the mgt role. What a disaster in the making, and the company imploded after I left. They were testing for cyclic durability using ultimate failure tests!
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
cousinK, I don't know if micro-management is the problem here...more the opposite, I can't get anybody to consistently communicate what they need, when they need it, or what internal standards/proceedures they need me to follow. Further research into the latter revealed that there are no published standard practices here. In fact, I've been asked to help establish them.
To that end, I've started a "think tank" of the existing analyst so we could determine what our current "best practices" are with the ultimate idea of evolving them into a set of mutually agreeable standard practices.
Like I said, I'm starting to make a little progress, but I'm accostomed to being much busier.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
it sounds like you finally expressed the problem - "I can't get anybody to consistently communicate..."
In my experience working up the ranks to project manager for a civil consulting firm, consistent communication with all members of the team about all facets of the project (client is also part of the team) seems to be the number one issue that determines the failure or success of the project.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Frank "Grimey" Grimes
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
"in spite of some serious busts in communication, are we making money?"
Is that really the basis you have for judging effective management? I can think of several cases (many of which are where I currently work)in which, the company is making money despite the management practices rather than because of them. When you have good people working for you, you can be a complete and utter screw up and still have your bottom line look good.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
But at the end of the day, we're still making money so why bother?
Oh wait, that's another example where communication would improve things!
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
It really doesn't matter if a particular manager doesn't run their operation in a way that their employees prefer. It doesn't even matter if they run it in a way that causes good people to be dissatisfied and leave. I've seen hundreds of people leave big companies, but I've rarely seen one leave that would be missed for more than a few months.
I did a business-school case study on Wal-Mart when I was an undergraduate in the '70's. I found it very interesting that their target GPA was 2.0, turnover for the new professionals in the first year (through "bad" management, meaning "non-nurturing" management) was approaching 60%. Everyone complained about crappy management. Whatever they were doing it seemed to be effective in total.
So, to recap, (1) management is a collection of skills that vary from person to person; (2) employee happiness is not a valid criteria for evaluating management; and (3) a management style that causes "good" people to go elsewhere is only a problem if it has a significant impact on the bottom line (and that is rarely the case).
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
I've had more than a few managers who had no idea what I did or what the appropriate priorities on my projects were. I always felt these were the best of all worlds--they assumed that the authority that they had delegated to me was being appropriately applied toward the appropriate goals.
I had a boss once that everyone (myself included) thought was the best manager ever. She cared about her folks, made sure that skills and capabilities were developed to the maximum extent possible. She took us to lunch on birthday's and anniversaries. She never interfered with delegated authority. She never gave poor direction. She made certain that each of us understood the company's goals and our role in them. We loved her (hell, she even reinstituted team building). Every one of us would have killed to make her look good. After a year, the profitability of the group was in the toilet and she got "promoted" to on-campus recruiting, where she did fabulously.
Management is not coaching, mentoring, or being a friend. It is making a group of people make progress toward the company's goals.
David
David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering
www.muleshoe-eng.com
Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.
The harder I work, the luckier I seem
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
zdas04 appears to be making the statements that effectiveness as a manager can only be measured by whether or not his group turned a profit and that "coaching" is irrelevant. To that, I suggest the words of Sun-Tzu:
"The Way means inducing the people to have the same aim as the leadership, so they will share death and share life, without fear of danger"
Master Sun's advisors would comment on that as follows:
"This means guiding them by instruction and direction. Danger means distrust"
"If the people are treated with benevolence, faithfulness, and justice, then they will be of one mind, and will be glad to serve..."
"The Way, means humaneness and justice...When the government is carried out properly, people feel close to the leadership and think little of dying for it."
"If the leaders can be humane and just, sharing both the gains and the troubles of the people, then the troops will be loyal and naturally identify with the interest of the leadership."
How you treat people, the respect you show people, how well you communicate, and yes, even you're willingness to "coach", all effect your bottom line. An employee who shares your goals is more productive then a "headcount" that sits in a cubie and spits out data.
...but what does a Shogun who lived 2000 years ago know.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
When I was a manager my folks understood that if they felt they had to ask permission to do something within their delegation of authority (which was clearly deliniated) I was going to question their usefullness. 19 out of 20 of them thought that was pretty cool and did a great job--mostly without my knowing specifically what they were working on. The 20th hated it, hated me, hated my "style". I spent 70% of my time dealing with that one person's problems with delegated responsibilities. She thought I was a disaster as a manager, the rest of the group thought I was ok. The group had a list of goals and we exceeded all of them, so my boss thought I was pretty good too. After a couple of years we had effectively solved the "problem" that the group was created to solve and I was so fed up with dealing with the one person who wanted coaching that when we disbanded the group I went back to engineering (and all 19 of the people who liked my style quit the company within 2 years when they realized that they liked having a good balance of responsibility and authority).
cvg,
To say that a Wal-Mart would be more effective if they adopted the management style that Apple uses is just silly. They have a corporate style, management philosophy, pricing strategy, etc. that has been amazingly effective in the only terms that stockholders care about. You may call them exploitive, but I call them effective. I know a lot of folks who work for them that think the world of the company.
Joekm,
Read Sun-Tsu's statement carefully. He is saying exactly what I'm saying--good management is getting people to have the same goal as the organization. The advisor quotes are just style. Some managers are very effective managers while coaching and mentoring, more are very ineffective at managing while coaching and mentoring. There are a lot of ways to skin this chicken.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
These days, ineffective management needs to be defined not just in terms of profit but also with the finer term of turnover, because it bears on profit. That is not just management style, that is management smarts. Some companies pride themselves with a low turnover ratio, and their impressive growth is driven by profit produced by a seasoned staff. They know projects lose money during transitions with the loss of staff, the hiring of replacements or the transfer of responsibility, however well documented the progress, and regardless of the level of the engineer lost. Effective managers are going to keep their support staff happy, while exceeding the expectations of their bosses.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Sun Tzu was not a Shogun, he was Chinese and lived around 2500 years ago.
Shogun were the provincial lords of ancient Japan.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Ciao.
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
You are correct...my mistake, he was a general, but Shogun, of course, is Japanese.
--
Great Spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds
-- Albert Einstein
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
The manager is a catalyst, a facilitator, but it is ultimately the work done by those managed that determines the profitability of a company.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
The first guy may be a perfect manager for his group. I've had bosses who were ghosts and I loved it (just like Congress, if they aren't in session the harm they can do is limited). The second guy should do a house cleaning if all his good work is wasted on slugs. What better measure is there than contribution to the company's goals (people seem to think that "profitibility" is to commercial)? You can't measure "management style" and efforts to quantify "personality" are fun, but pointless.
A jerk that accomplishes his goals through intimidation, brow beating, and fear may be hell to work for, but he may be exactly the right person in the right place for the specific goals he's been assigned.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
Before someone says "why don't you just fire the first guy" think of the old John Wayne move "Hell Fighter's" where if there isn't a fire the workers play pool, but when there is a fire you really want them available.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
I agree, "...the group may still not be contributing all it can to the company's goals." I would not consider that person a good manager if they cannot take the company's goals into account in their planning. That being said, a group with good "leaders" and employees in it could just as easily take it upon themselves to see to it that the company's goals are met while the manager does nothing constructive to help. The company does well, everything looks good on paper but you have a complete slug of a manager that contributes nothing and you have employees that are wasting valuable time, which could be spent increasing the bottom line even more, doing his job.
David
RE: Being Effective When Management Isn't?
There is a class of worker that fits this category. They're go by the job designation "CEO".